Scot - Analyzing the backs that each subject was printed with and grouping them accordingly is how we arrived at these print groups.

Brown (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn) and Elberfeld (Washington) are good examples of why this is important. These three can only be found with 350 Series backs. But looking at the backs that they were printed with shows that they are continuations after a team change of their print group 1 counterpart. They were printed with the other group 1 subjects and discontinued before group 2.

Does this make sense?

Tim,

We have two areas of dispute that I don't think we should conflate.

The first is whether, in the abstract, subjects that ATC intended to print in both Series A and Series B with essentially the same back profile but in fact did not print AT ALL in one of Series A or B are part of the same print group. I am conflicted but I think probably not. You seem to disagree.

The second is whether, on the specific question of SLers, ATC intended to print all 48 with BH, P350 and OMS with essentially the same back distribution but for some reason lost to history failed. This would seem to be a viable theory based on the Hindu ad mentioning Texas leaguers but I don't think the theory holds when one considers that the 34 that were printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 150/350 major league subjects whereas the other 14 that were not printed with Hindu were printed with the P350 back in quantities similar to the 350-only major (and minor) league subjects.

Scot

Scot - So let's focus then on just the quantity printed with Piedmont 350. I don't think this is a viable reason to categorize the cards into two groups.

The 14 subjects not printed with brown Hindu can be found about or slightly less than 2:1 to those that were.

In the Sovereign 460 subset at least 8 of the 46 group 4 (460 Only) subjects can be found in greater than 2:1 ratios to the others.

I don't think you would disagree that the Sovereign 460 subjects all belong in the same print group. So if the logic wouldn't apply to the Sovereign 460's, I don't believe it applies to the Piedmont southern league subjects.

We actually have seen these types of population variations in other back subsets. I can only speculate as to what in the printing process caused them.

Let's try and look at it this way. ATC had a group of cards that were printed from June of 1909 to February 1910*. At the conclusion of printing that group they discontinued them. Then they began printing the next group in March 1910.

We agree that the first group was printed with 150 Series backs and then with 350 Series backs. Some cards from this group were discontinued early. This resulted in these subjects only being printed with 150 Series backs. Others had their team designation changed after the 350 Series backs were being printed. Therefore these updated cards can only be found with 350 Series backs. The important thing is that based on the backs they were printed with, all of these cards were printed from June 1909 to February 1910.

*These dates are used to help illustrate a point and not meant to be exact.

Tim,

if print timing is your polestar I don't see how it supports your print group breakdown. Yes you can say that the 150-onlys and 150/350s were both printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so what difference does it make but my response would be that the 150-onlys were printed from July 1909 to November 1909 whereas the 150/350s were printed between July 1909 and February 1910 so it makes all the difference in the world. (Dates are approximate). The same logic applies for the SLers--while there is overlap in print timing there is not identity. Thanks for the discussion. Need to sign off.

Scot

Scot - The time frame of each print group is what shows us the cards were a group. This is fundamental in understanding how the set was produced.

These time frames prevent us from mistakenly classifying cards from print group 1 that were printed with only 350 series backs, with cards from group 2 that were printed with only 350 series backs.

We can identify many different subsets within the major print groups like the 150 only. We can do this by different parameters such as when they were discontinued, or what backs they were or were not printed with during a groups production. However the series subjects were all part of one of the four major print groups.

It's been my experience with longtime knowledgeable collector's that it takes some time, effort and openness for the print groups to make sense. Once it clicks though it really simplifies how the set was put together in my opinion and based on the feedback I've received from others.

Tim

To me it does not make sense.

The change required at the very least a new master for one color and a new plate for that color. Possibly more than one.

I'd place them with the 350 only subjects.

I'd place the 14 Sl cards without Hindu with 350 only as well.

I'd also do this with the other reworked cards that were a more direct carryover from the 150-350 series. I have it on the list to look into how many were reworked. If the number of reworked subjects is fairly small that would be some help towards a sheet size.


Steve B

DITTO....to what you just said Steve.

The Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) are indeed 350-only distinct subjects.


George Browne waivered over to Washington May 21, 1909.

Bill Dahlen is signed as a Free Agent with the Brooklyn (becomes their MGR. for the 1910 season).

Kid Elberfeld was purchased by Washington December 14, 1909, which would place his T206 card into the 350-only timeframe press run.


This "print group" numbering is unnecessary. Traditional T206 thinking has established the various Series (150, 350, 350/460, 460....and,
the 150 series SL press run, followed by the 350 series SL press run.

Why is it necessary to "re-invent the wheel" ?


TED Z

Studying this set has always been difficult and mainly because we have put cards like Browne (Washington), Dahlen (Brooklyn), and Elberfeld (Washington) in the wrong category. Putting these cards in print group 1 makes the numbers in the 150 and 350 accurate.

The set originally had 150 subjects issued. During the printing of this group their were 5 additions, 3 team changes and 1 error corrected but the initial 150 subjects are there. Then 200 subjects were added and you have your 350 subjects. Demmitt and O'hara had team changes but when you count them each as a subject you have an even 200 instead of 202. Putting the set into these print groups makes it much easier to understand.


It took me some time to change the way I looked at the set. I had to go over the print groups several times before I got it. Its hard to change the way you look at the set for more than 15 years but the more I read over these groups the the easier it was the understand and the 150 and 200 subjects finally made sense.

What if we could re-invent the wheel? Shouldn't we be so bold as to try, rather than blindly accept that things are as good as they could be.

These print groups are not meant to be a slight to anyone or anything previous. It's the information that I believe to be correct. It has been vetted by some of the best T206 guys in the hobby and so I put it forward for the consideration of others. At the end of the day no one is trying to force anyone to believe something they don't.

Edit.

Hopefully this chart will help better illustrate the three print group 1 team changes.

Print Group 1 subjects could have been printed with up to 12 different backs.

-Brown (Chicago) was the first team change. It was changed to the Brown (Washington) variation after the PG1 cards concluded the 150 Series printing and began being printed with 350 Series backs.

-Dahlen (Boston) was the second team change. It was changed to the Dahlen (Brooklyn) variation after the first two backs of the 350 Series were printed. These two backs were Piedmont 350 and EPDG.

-Elberfeld (New York) was the last team change of the three. It was changed to Elberfeld (Washington) in the later stages of the PG1 subjects being printed with 350 Series backs.

-I added Bresnahan (Portrait) on the bottom to show a comparison of the three team changes to a regular PG1 subject.

-It's important to point out that in some cases both variations are possible with Piedmont 350 and Sweet Caporal 350 backs. As stated earlier in this thread these backs were printed multiple times during a print groups production.

If you look at the two team variations for each of these cards as one subject, I believe it shows they were printed like the other print group 1 subjects. They just had a team change along the way.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1...s/s1180/TC.jpg

Re: T206 Print Groups - A Quick Overview
 

Tim, Thanks for posting this thread on the T206 print groups. As always these T206 threads attract very passionate responses.
When I was first introduced to Tim's print groups I was very confused. The concept is difficult for me to grasp, but if you really look at the information it makes sense.
Many other T206 lovers have done great work on this set as well (Ted Z. and Scott Reader come to mind) and everyone has their beliefs.
This set is truly a monster.
Art M.

Bumping this older thread on the print groups and how they break down the set beyond the different series for the newer members/T206 collectors.

Thanks Pat, i forgot about this thread. Could you summarize where this is controversial or in conflict with scott Readers or ted z's work?

As a bit of a heretic when it comes to the current print group thinking, I'll take a try at that.

The first and most important point is that for the most part, we all respect each others work and ideas. None of the current or future things we believe or know about the cards production would be possible without all those people laying the groundwork, and or adding information. That's not to say we don't occasionally have some serious disagreements, but that's the nature of things.

To me, the current print groups are sort of like a good intro to the complexity of the set. It's complex enough to be a bit of a challenge, but not so complex that most people can't grasp it.
One of my favorite catalogues in a different hobby is set up where for complex sets they show the basic set with the truly major varieties. Then there's a listing that lists different papers, gums etc along with a usually extensive listing of plate flaws that are collectible. And on occasion, they follow that up with a note that's polite but should read "if you're truly insane and have to know literally every small detail of this set you should buy this book by someone crazier"
That gives the collector a framework of how far to specialize.

In that way, the print groups are a solid foundation for further investigation. As well as a good framework for a collector to decide when to stop.

Where it breaks down is perhaps well into crazy land.
Within the current framework-
I would call the dozen or so 150 only cards print group 1.
And the rest of the 150s as either print group 2 or maybe 1A

Within the 150 group, there were at least three individual printings. As maybe the most obvious example, the Tinker hands on knees comes at least three different ways, each would have required a change to the original art, and new masters/transfers/etc.
Chicago partly visible behind Cubs
Chicago semi removed
Chicago not there at all

So that makes it at a minimum
Group 1 - 150 only, and potential sheetmates which may or may not be identifiable or have even existed at all.
Group 2- 150 but from the sheet that produced the Tinker with clear Chicago
Group 2A - 150 from sheets that produced tinker with partly removed Chicago
group 2B- 150 from sheets that produced correct cards with fewer design flaws.

And here's where there's a major branching
I consider 350s to be an entirely new set.
There are a few cards that show design changes between 150 and 350. Most are very minor. But also would have required new masters etc.

And within the 350's?
At least three more divisions.
If you want a "missing red" card, just find a Dygert without lipstick. They're common enough that I don't believe they're errors. They're readily available both with and without. And have a few cards with the same stuff going on but less obvious.

Hopefully the 350-460s and 460 only groups have fewer divisions, but I'm expecting them to be at least two each.


The other big branching spot is
were the same sheets used for all backs? Or did individual brands use their own sheet layouts and player selection?

UGH...... Since there's a couple team variations in the 350's that are only on PB, it can be pretty much assumed that at least partly brands may have had different sheet layouts and even different sheet sizes. That's both good and bad. On the bad side, it makes things 15x as complicated.
On the good side, it explains reasonably well why groups of 12 or groups of 17/34 both exist.

Confused yet? :D:D

Yes, for the vast majority of collectors, print groups as we currently explain them are just about right. And we have a few people who did some great work with access to lots of cards over several years to thank for that semi comfortable station we can stop or rest at before transferring to the crazy train lines. :D

Thanks Steve! I am always fascinated by this, so call me crazy, but I also think the healthy dialogue that occurs really helps to move our total understanding forward.

I think I am interpreting your response to mean that you believe that print groups help to explain things superficially, but when digging deeper it presents a too simplistic theory to account for all the actual evidence.

Edited to add: I don't yet understand the supposition that to replace a player/pose/team/artwork, they would have had to create an entire new sheet. I guess i envision a press made up a set of individual stones that get inked and pressed against the paper. so an array of 12x12, or 17x4, or whatever....but each of those individual "cells" in the array could be reomved and replaced indpendently.

so, magie is found...his stone removed, and replaced with magee stone, and resume cranking the presses.

There are good points made in this thread but some people are confusing the print groups with print runs of that group. As Tim pointed out there were multiple printings of some backs within a print group. With some subjects you can get an idea of when they were printed by the backs they are found on.




Lundgren Chicago and Jennings portrait were printed in Group 1.

Lundgren Chicago was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350

Jennings portrait was printed with

Piedmont 150
EPDG
Piedmont 350
Old Mill
Sweet Caporal 350/25 & 30
Sovereign 350

using Tim's chart you can get a general Idea when the printing started and stopped for those two subjects in the print group 1 printing.

Attachment 502186

As Tim pointed out the 150 only subjects were printed with other print group 1 subjects they were just discontinued early for reasons we don't know.
We also now know from the plate scratch sheets that all twelve of them weren't on the same sheet and they were also on sheets with other subjects from print group 1.

You can get an idea of the different print runs within the print groups by the print defects found on some of the subjects in the same print group.

Here are the stats on a few print group 1 subjects that have front print defects that are found with 350 backs. None of these defects are found with a 150 series back.

I put the EPDG's in to show that they were printed with the 150 backs and not the 350 backs you can also get an idea of what backs were probably printed together in a print run.

Attachment 503685

Attachment 503679

Attachment 503680

Attachment 503681

Attachment 503682

Attachment 503683

Attachment 503684

I would guess that there were 2 or 3 print runs of the PD350's and 1 or 2 print runs for the rest of the 350 print group 1 backs. The stats show that the Old Mills and SC350/25's were most likely printed together but not with the Sov 350's.

Pat - what are the print errors in the above groupings of cards?

thx

They're not really errors Tony, they all have recurring print defects.

The Fred Clarke that I posted has a Red spot under the G on his uniform that is found on three different backs, here is an example of each back that it is found on.

Attachment 503776

Attachment 503777

Attachment 503778

I wonder there's any explanation/theory of Ted's Lungren missing colors error that has the P150 back. That's quite cool looking.

Hi Chris

In the 6-color process that American Litho used to print the fronts of these cards, Red was usually the last ink pass. However, in the printing of this Lundgren (Cubs),
Blue must have been the last ink pass (which was omitted).

I was pleasantly surprised when I acquired a 255-card T206 collection 12 years ago to find this Lundgren (missing blue ink) in it.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Scrap Piedmont 150 sheet. These have been called Yellow/Brown but they also have one of the Red passes on them. The Bradley has a Yellow shift that's similar to Ted's Lundgren.

Attachment 503781

Attachment 503782

I'm not sure what the order of all the color passes were but there were more than six and one of the Red passes was before the end.

Attachment 503784

It could be just me.... I can't see/load any pics Pat R. posts on his messages. :confused:

PM sent Chris. Does this image show up for you?

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...rge/Downey.jpg[/IMG]

My belief is that there will be differences between the non 150 only subjects on those sheets and the same subject from different 150 sheets.

I've done some work on stuff like that, but a lack of quality scans makes it difficult. At least there's a couple sources for excellent scans, LOC and the MET. Although the met won't give access to good scans for HOFers.

On most subjects it's 8 colors. Blue and light blue were usually paired, as were pink and red.

Here's a corner of Batch showing the blue and light blue. Also not how the light blue has a vertical spike on the corner on one but not the other. A small difference that most likely indicates two different positions on the same sheet but may indicate a very minor change to the master. Both are the same common back.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...pictureid=5834

Hi Pat,

yes! this one shows up ok!

Steve, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying there are differences in the non 150 only subjects but there are no differences in the 150 only subjects? If so can you post examples of the differences that you're talking about.

That's pretty close.
It's one thing to feel sure something exists, and another entirely to prove it exists.
A lack of excellent scans hinders the search, as I believe most differences will be very minor.

I know for sure that at least Tinker fielding had three different identifiable printings within the 150 series.
The couple with Chicago visible on the uniform
The ones with Chicago mostly removed
And ones where it's not there at all.

Conroy has differences that are divided by 150/350, And also comes at least 3 different ways. Putting three good scans near each other makes it like one of those "spot the differences " puzzles.
https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=32804

The upper one has partial stripes and no gray shading at the back of the cap
The middle one has strong stripes and gray shading
The last has no stripes and does have gray shading.

There are plenty of other differences

The lack of stripes is usually a 350 thing, but the middle one has both stripes and the shading of the no stripes.
Except for that shading I'd think the middle one was earliest, as the proof has solid lines between the head/back and the background.

I did a couple experiments at organizing the visuals for a couple things and for T206 I'm going to have to learn database stuff.
Even finding good scans is slow going, since the places like LOC don't organize their cards the way any of us would, making a search a bit painful.

I think it's possible the 150 only subjects were only printed once, maybe twice.
If they were only printed once, they shouldn't have differences. If twice they may have differences.

Is it just me? I don't see any pics.... :(

yeah, i see pics

If you're talking about small differences like the ones on Conroy's hat there are similar differences on these Ames each pair also have a distinctly different blue background.

This is four different Ames cards I have, both Ames on the left are from a plate scratch sheet and the two on the right are caption flaws.

Attachment 504387

Attachment 504388

Attachment 504389


There is also a difference in some Schulte cards that is similar to the Tinker hands on knees.

I don't know if it's letters but you can see it clearly on the Schulte on the left but it's barely visible on the one on the rignt.

Attachment 504390

Exactly the sort of thing I'd be looking for.

The process wasn't precise, and both Ames have a similar enough dot pattern on black that they probably came from the same master.

But the blue is slightly different, and less or more noticable, the plate scratch ones have a gray layer in the hat, while on the caption varieties it's closer to peach.
To me that along with the Schulte differences (as well as the right side of the bat having an extra line if it's not a different color shifted) would confirm two different press runs.

The next steps would be comparing different brands, and comparing ones that we know are sheetmates from the plate scratch sheets that did carry over into the 350 series to see if there are differences there.

It's entirely possible there are transitional ones too, where front sheets for Piedmont and SC 150 were used to print Piedmont and SC 350.

Really interesting information Steve. I scanned ten of my Conroy's with different backs at 1200 dpi's (boy does that eat up your computer memory).
You can clearly see the difference in the 350 backs and 460 backs.

The 350 backs have a lot of peach color around the Washington logo while the 460 backs has very little. You can see other differences in the two series with the large scans but the heavy peach on the 350's is what stands out the most.

What's nice is you can tell which series the assorted backs were printed with for instance the EPDG was printed with the 350 backs and the Polar Bear and Tolstoi were printed with the 460 backs.
I didn't scan the Old Mill but that was also printed with the 460 backs so the EPDG was the only assorted back that was printed in one of the 350 print runs.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20-%20Copy.jpg[/IMG]

Plus the 350's seem to have the peach at the front of the hat in a blotchy pattern while the 460's have a gray halftone there. Except... the AB 350 has 460 shading at the front of the hat.

That could be an example of a transitional type between the 350s and 460's, as it has traits of both.
Both gray and peach should have been fairly early colors.
I'm thinking the transitions between series were somewhat chaotic.
Like for this one, they still needed to produce some AB350's but had the gray plate for the 460 series finished and just switched to it early.

If those transitional types ever get properly identified and cataloged I believe there will be some real rarities.

I'm very glad there's someone like you with a big enough collection to make those comparisons and the interest to do the scans.

The spreadsheet I did showing the different groups of 49 Leaf took months of saving photos from various sources - mostly ebay. And that's a pretty small set with far fewer complications.

Pat,
Thx for sharing your Conroy pics. I could see those images this time! It is amazing to see those Conroy images side by side, their background colors do look very diff.

Steve, I thought this would be a good pair to compare.
Two different Randall's that were printed in the same position but most likely in different print runs.

Attachment 504812
Attachment 504813

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20-%20Copy.jpg[/IMG]

Is the heavier Red/Peach stippling on the caption flaw version evidence of a change or is it just due to different ink levels?

I also checked all the other examples of each version and with the ones that the scans were big enough to tell the alignment mark near the top inside the border is on all the caption flaw examples but not the no flaw examples.

I always thought my Randall looked funny because of the heavy blue, it's really interesting to see these others up close

I think the red may be just a difference in inking. Heavier or lighter, and the exact colors were mixed by hand, to a formula that isn't always precise.

One thing I look at is if the color is in one place on one card, but not there on another example.
Or, if the halftone dot pattern is very different.

On these, I'm seeing a couple areas where the black could be different, but it's also a difference that could be from normal plate wear. Or it could be a more heavily printed transfer from the same master.

One thing that's done in stamps is to require a confirming copy of a variety.* With the Conroys that's there for sure. With these Randalls, finding multiples of the very small differences in black would go a long way towards confirming if it's a different transfer from the same master.



The stuff below is off topic, but explains in part why seeing clear scans of differences is so much fun and excitement for me.


* which is at times so very frustating! In the series I specialize in there are a few listed varieties that are currently not known to exist, and were only mentioned in an era when printing pictures of stamps was mostly illegal (and the writers were often more interested in revealing new varieties based on hearing about them than actually owning or seeing them)
I have three "maybe" stamps for listed but not seen since the 30's if ever varieties that may have happened very late in production. Going on about 10 years looking for a second copy of any of them. :(

Attachment 509750


I think we can move print group 1 back a month or two if the information in this newspaper clip I found about the court proceedings is accurate.

Attachment 509751

The Harry McIntyre BKN/CHI card in Group 2 could not have been printed until at least April 1910 since his trade to the Cubs occurred on April 13.

Of course knowing N54 collectors, I suspect one of you will flash me a BKN-only version to prove me wrong.

Jason, Harry McIntyre (BKN/CHI) is print group 3.

Indeed! Brain fart on my part. [emoji100]


Jason
Twitter: @heavyj28