T206 sheets: Huge factory numbers at back bottom
 

We've talked about sheet layout based on 'double name' cards. More on possible sheet lay-out definition, based on those partial huge factory numbers we find on the bottoms of some card backs. I read Tim's article today, and based the following on the sheet layout he shows at the bottom of this page: http://www.t206resource.com/Article-...stique-34.html

Assuming that the partial numbers at the bottom of some cards is the factory number, and given that we're finding multiple examples of the players that it shows up for, but relatively few cards show it, a few things to think about:

If we assume these examples were from cards that appear in the exact center of the sheet (with 8 players to either side), which to me makes sense, since all examples appear to be printed directly in the middle of the card,
and we assume that the player card always appeared in that position (as opposed to a different column on the sheet), also realizing that layouts will be different for different print groups (but we can tell this by the ad back),
and that there were always 4 rows per player, then...

You wouldn't expect to see any examples of such players with overly-tall fronts (fronts that don't show part of the name of the card above), since the partial '30' at the back bottom of some examples indicates that these players wouldn't appear in the top four rows. This would only be true within print groups;e.g-I have two SC 350/460 fact 30 Johnson portraits and wouldn't expect to see 'tall boys' for any SC 350/460 cards or any other ad backs printed at the same time.

The odds would be against all examples of a particular card showing partial factory at the bottom, being from the same ad back/factory combination. For instance, using the example above, I would expect to also find Piedmont 350/460 Johnson Portraits with the top of a 25 (or less likely, a 42).

If all of the above is true, then we should be able to get a good idea of how many different sheets were printed, just based on which cards have a partial factory on the bottom of their ad back, using the ad back 'print group' information we already have to determine the number of sheets per print group.

Just brainstorming here, so please add your thoughts.

sheet numbers....
 

funny thing i can't figure out with them, why are they just on sweet cap fact 30 and 25's??? why not on any other backs??? has anyone seen one from lets say piedmont?? fact 42 or at very least 25 ect???:confused::confused:

i know sweet caps had alot of factory desigs but :confused:

American Litho. printers identified the difference between the two SWEET CAP Factory's on their sheets by printing a large 25 or 30
in order to facilitate the jobber's task (who cut the cards and prepared them for shipping to their respective Factory's).

The T206 press runs of 1909 and 1910 for the AMERICAN BEAUTY, BROAD LEAF, CAROLINA BRIGHTS, CYCLE, DRUM, OLD MILL, PIED-
MONT, and SOVEREIGN did not require such a sheet ID #, since all of these cards were shipped to Factory #25.

Similarly for LENOX and TOLSTOI, as they were only being shipped to Factory #30.

TED Z

If Tim's numbers are right, I would expect what you say is correct, the cards that can be found with sheet numbers were likely the ninth card is from each side(the middle).

Scott, are you keeping a list of cards with sheet numbers?

I think there is a way to figure out a sheet layout, you just need everyone in on it. Using the checklist, you can figure out what cards are possible. Then by using miscuts with two names/different names, you can figure out a sheet placement.

You also have the cards with crop marks as your corner cards and then you work your way in.

I also thought the Pied150 with scratch marks was a good way to help figure it out, put that thread didn't pick up any steam and I'll admit giving up about 1/4 way through the other day, while checking my cards

The other good starting point for a sheet is the piedmont 4 backs that are printed upside-down. As far as I know, there are seven of them, seven different players, all P150's. Chances are they were all on the same sheet, I highly doubt that same exact mistake, with same percentages of each back, was made more than once

Makes sense Ted, ill need to look into that more but could be exactly why we see these only on SC. You are thinking the sheets were printed with f & bs and then sorted by the big red sheet # to get cut and sent to the appropriate factory. Cool.

I've seen a Gilbert with a 30 and we know he is part of the 649 OP backs Tim describes and could be the centre bottom card for those sheets. As well, on the article sheet example the Sheckard & Goode are side by side because of this sweet card that Brian posted.

http://i.imgur.com/8vEvq.jpg

I really need to start a side by side grouping based on miscuts and front ghosts...

Keep it up guys, this discussion is great and its possible we could get a good start on a few sheet layouts.

Chris

As, I'm sure you know, I have posted a thread on my theory that the T206 (and T205) sheets were formatted with 12 cards across a row. Check-out this thread
posted in 2007......
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=T206+sheets

My research into the type of printing press that American Lithographic employed to print these cards had a 19-inch track width. T206's are approx. 1 1/2 inches wide;
therefore, you can print 12 such cards across a 19-inch wide cardboard sheet. Thereby sheets of 36, 48, 60, 72 & 96 cards were printed.

Furthermore, this theory is reinforced by the fact that the make up of the various series of T206's, 1910 COUPON & RED CROSS subjects are for the most part divisible
by the factor 12. And, where they are not, Double-Prints were added. Such as the HINDU sheets of 34 subjects that were printed on 36-card sheets. Or, the 460-only
series of 46 subjects that were printed on 48-card sheets (in which DUFFY and FORD were Double-Printed).

Look, I don't care to get into another confrontation with others on this forum, who differ with this. My theory is based on valid research. I have additional examples of
American Lithographic printed sheets that support this.

TED Z

I love the discussion and hope that as a collective we are able to reconstruct at least one plausible single sheet. I think that's a tall order and anything beyond that will be a bonus.

One word of caution regarding common backs such as Piedmont and Sweet Caporal. Cards with these back brands would have been printed on more than one occasion during the production of a particular print group. For example, several sheets of Piedmont 350 backs may have been printed early in the print group 2 production. Additional P350 sheets were printed in the middle or toward the end of that groups production. The sheet configurations of subjects could, and most likely, did change each time. This makes these backs ever tougher to figure out. Subsets like SC649 and Hindu where the sheet configurations didn't change may be the best bet.

I think the best possible scenario would be to find a printing anomaly that all subjects on one sheet shared. That's not asking for much is it?

Every little bit helps and I look forward to seeing where we are with this information in the years to come.

I just can't buy the 34 theory. I know it fits, but there are groups of cards that don't fit that number and those all revolve around 6 or 12 card layouts.

17 wide also equals 24.43 inches wide, and standard paper runs toward sizes that aren't a good fit for that size printed area. Most sizes end up with either a very wide margin- like 3 inches or a very narrow ones like 1/4 inch. Neither being good practice.

I think the actual layouts included more copies of fewer cards, and were also likely more complex than the one shown.

layouts with certain cards appearing on two sheets would work, as would groups that included the superprints in additional rows.

There are even far more radical sheet layouts possible, but there's very little that would lead toward considering them.

Steve B

[QUOTE=Abravefan11;1063276]
I think the best possible scenario would be to find a printing anomaly that all subjects on one sheet shared. That's not asking for much is it?

QUOTE]

Not at all. The Piedmont 150 plate was heavily damaged in use and I believe much of that plate will be possible to reconstruct eventually.

The red Hindu backs show some similar marks, but they're uncommon enough that finding a second example to be sure it isn't just smeared ink or something transient like that is much harder. Finding the same marks on brown hindu backs would also work since that would show the plate being used for both colors.

I think other backs will show some consistent marks as well, but nothing really obvious like the scratches on P150.

Steve B

Steve - My point is that the flagship brands like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal (with the exception of SC649) were printed multiple times during a print groups production.

If every back had a one time printing with a set number of sheets, all of the numbers would work out. But that's not what happened and why the numbers and anomalies won't be consistent. The subject configuration on a Piedmont 350 sheet early in print group 2's production could, and most likely was, different from the subject configuration later in print group 2's production when Piedmont 350 sheets were again printed.

Backs like the brown Hindu's, Sweet Caporal 649 and others appear to have been printed for a short period of time, with a set number of sheets. These sheet configurations would be consistent because a later printing of the cards didn't occur.

Yes, you may find a print defect that is indicative of one sheet for even the most common back. But it's going to be difficult to find one that effected at least one image of each subject on the entire sheet.

Im also curious about these RH markings, could be a scratch or something on the plate. Anyone have other examples?

http://i.imgur.com/qUNwv.jpg 2nd card in is McGraw, 5th is Pfeffer and 8th is Crandall..Pfeffer has red ink on front as well.

http://i.imgur.com/Y7lrT.jpg same McGraw

Chris - I think this group is where you start looking for other red Hindu's with similar back issues.

Crandall (Portrait - w/ Cap)
Devore
Duffy
Ford
Gandil
Geyer
Hummel
Sheckard (Glove)
Tannehill (Chicago)
Wheat

Thanks Tim, more pieces to the puzzle.

Three in one lot, maybe it's just pen, what are the chances a smoker would get multiple packs at once from the same box with cards from the same bad sheet and they stay together for 100 years. I guess it could happen, I'd love to see a new example.

Well....

http://i.imgur.com/prwes.jpg

Well that certainly mucks things up. Keep looking!

For anyone who is keeping track of T206s with sheet numbers.

Beaumont
Cobb (bat on)
Durham
Gilbert
Johnson (port)
Killian (pitching)
Mathewson (port)
Merkle (port)
Overall (port)
Spade
Steinfeldt (port)
Tannehill ("L" on front-Chi.)

These all have Sweet Caporal 350 f#30 backs

Chris has sent me a cropped scan of the T206 with the "25" sheet number on the bottom, but I don't know the player or series number of the card.

As far as Rhoades (right arm extend), I guess I'm still on the fence about this card since the mark may be a sheet aligment mark instead of a sheet number since it appears on the side of the card instead of the bottom.

Tim - Interesting list of names in your post (#12). Add McGraw & Pfeffer to your list from Chris' post (#11) and you have the same list of players I theorized about being on a sheet together in the Sweet Caporal 460 f#42 series.

With so many of us working different angles to reassembling a sheet, I think its only a matter of time before it happens. Hopefully everyone can work together and keep sharing their information and discoveries.



Jantz

jantz...
 

you can add tannehill and killian:)

Noted and added to previous post

Thanks Johnny!


Jantz

Jantz, given Ted's reasoning for the large '30' being on the sheet bottoms, it makes just as much sense (to me, anyway) that it would sometimes be stamped on the side.

What doesn't make sense is not seeing it stamped on Piedmonts as well.

Scott - Sweet Caporal No.25 and No.30 were the only backs that looked exactly the same, with the exception of the factory number, printed at the same time.

So Piedmont's were always printed with a factory 25 until they made the change in the 460 series and printed them with factory 42. They were never printed with both factory designations at the same time.

So the thinking goes that the large numbers made it easier for the printers to distinguish these nearly identical backs that were being printed at the same time. Ever other back could be easily identified and a large factory number wouldn't be necessary.

Yes, except the back plate would have been used to print the backs for more than one different sheet.

Figuring out the sheet size more certainly from the P150 scratches and other minor differences is probably possible.

Once a likely sheet size has been more nearly proven then a comparison of backs to fronts can eliminate certain fronts from being on the same sheet as certain others.
I've already found one pair of fronts that share a peculiar mark on the back.

Combining that information with the list of two name cards and other miscuts will get us even closer.


Yes, there's the likely complexity of multiple plates having the same players. But other than differences across print groups such as a minor difference between the 150 and 350 versions of the same card that's unlikely. The plates we're talking about were probably stones about 2-3 inches thick and the process of preparing them was a bit involved. They would have been set aside if the printer had any belief that they'd be reused. After that of course they were resurfaced and reused to print something else.

Steve B

Doh!!!!

Got it - thanks for bearing with me :p

Tim...
 

Thanks, makes perfect sense;)

Hey guys

Above, I'm reprising what I said earlier in this thread (Post 3) for those who didn't read it; and, adding to it the following......

In the early months of 1911, American Lithographic printed and shipped to Durham, North Carolina (Factory #42) the last T206 runs of the AMERICAN BEAUTY,
PIEDMONT, and SWEET CAPORAL cards. Evidently, they printed more of these SWEET CAPORAL 460 cards than the AMERICAN BEAUTY 460 or PIEDMONT 460
cards.....because these SWEET CAPORAL 460 cards are not as rare as the other two brands.

Furthermore, the final run of the LENOX T206's and the UZIT cards were printed and shipped to Factory #30 (NY). By Spring of 1911, T206 production ended.

Then, American Lithographic started printing their new Gold-bordered cards (T42's, T80's and T205's).


TED Z

Ted, BTW - I'm not ignoring your sheet-size theory (12 card rows);rather, trying to see what others can glean from recent discoveries, if they were to apply it to Tim's sheet-size theory. I think it's worth exploring both.

As far as sheet size or composition, I haven't reached a conclusion and can only speculate for now. Hopefully new evidence or examples will be discovered and shed more light on the subject.

There are a few T206s that have me stumped and are leaving me with more questions than answers.

Spade is one of those T206s. His cards have been seen with a sheet number, but Spade is also a card that has been found to have a different player's name on the top of his card.

So lets try this. Tim's theory is that there are 17 player's cards across a bottom of a sheet. Given what we know about these sheet numbers, if we were to speculate that the sheet number appears on the middle or ninth card across, then the player in the column directly above Spade would be Cicotte.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Cicotte's name also appears on an Abbaticchio (brown) card. The same can be said for Rossman & Lundgren (Chi.) since we have seen Rossman & Lundgren cards with different player's names on the top of their cards.

Rossman-McBride
Rossman-Thomas
Lundgren-Ball
Lundgren-Doolin

So lets say in the future we find an Abbaticchio, Lundgren or a Rossman card with a sheet number on the back. How can we explain the multiple different names at the tops of their cards?

So is there a pattern or no pattern at all?

I apologize Scott if I'm taking your thread in a different direction, I just wanted to add some other factors that tie in with sheet numbers.

Jantz

I don't understand how that would be a problem. If what I was hypothesizing is correct, then it just means that in some cases Spade's the center card on the bottom half of the sheet. The 2-name card is the top Spade on such a sheet.

I'll leave your other example alone, as I think it's basically the same situation. Remember, (if I read his post correctly) Tim also stated in this thread that player arrangement on sheets could vary. We know this anyway, because of examples where a card image has been found with more than one different name at the top.

Factory markings
 

My Sweet Cap factory mark card...note that it is L. Tannehill like mrvstr showed, which of course helps boost the idea that perhaps only certain cards will have the factory designation.

Brian

Brian...
 

now thats a huge fact 30!!!

my merkle....
 

must have been stamped with the same stamper;)

Hi Scott

No problem with Spade. I should have said that the Spade card is possibly a key card to the equation.

Tim and others have done some great work on this subject and I agree with some of their research and theories.

So lets put Spade on the back burner for awhile

Maybe Bender (port.) is a better example. We have seen a Bender (port.) with a Delehanty (Wash.) name on the top. So going by the sheet shown on T206Resource, Bender would be the subject on the bottom of a column and Delehanty would be above. No problem there until you account for a Bradley (port.) being found with a Bender (port.) name on top of the card. Keep in mind both cards have the exact same back which is Piedmont 150 f#25.

Some of the questions I have and I'm not directing them at any one particular board member, just in general.

If we go with the column theory, then that would make Bradley (port.) the bottom card with Bender (port.) above him and Delehanty (Wash.) on top of the column. Three players to a column.(?)

Or did one of these three cards change position on a sheet during production?

Going out on a limb for a minute. Is it possible that T206 sheets were configured similar to the uncut Obak sheet?

When I first saw the uncut Obak sheet I thought it contained no pattern, but the more I looked at it, I noticed how this sheet contained similarities to miscut T206s.

Some Obak subjects are directly above themselves in some columns while other columns contain the same players, but their sequence is a skip position pattern.

If this pattern was used on a T206 sheet it could explain why some miscut T206s have two same name cards and two different name cards.

Take for instance Buck Weaver on the Obak sheet. If that sheet was miscut then Weaver's name could appear on two other player's card, while the players on the left side of the sheet could have their own name appear twice on a card.

Could it be that Bradley (port.), Bender (port.) and Delehanty (Wash.) were in a skip position column?

This could also explain why Cicotte's name appears above both Spade's and Abbaticchio's card. The sheet number on Spade and other examples could just give us a starting point since they could be the middle sheet subject.

Any of your thoughts are welcome. :)


Jantz

Dang you Scott and your Bender/Delehanty combo..when that card showed up it made an already complicated puzzle that much more challenging :D

3 cards per column is a possibility, all we needed was a top and bottom example like Bender. I'm wondering about why so many more double names are found then two names still, the ratio is definitely not 1/3 or 1/4.

What if some players have these long 8-12 stacked columns and some columns had two or three players stacked four high.

There are two Powell/O'Leary examples which is reassuring :D

Jantz - I think it's as simple as the sheets were configured differently at different times during production. The Piedmont 150 sheets that were printed in June 1909 weren't the same configuration as Piedmont 150 sheets printed in August of 1909. So with backs like Piedmont and Sweet Caporal it's not surprising to me that we have found the same subject with a different second name.

Jantz
 

This is interesting stuff that you are doing and a good start.

If I may offer, two comments......

1st.....Very important to establishing the sheet arrangement of the T206 cards is their horizontal format (6, 12, 15, 17, etc. cards across a row).

Unfortunately, we have very few examples of horizontal adjacency, such as the Sheckard/Goode card that Chris depicted in Post #5 here.

I know of only one other horizontally adjacent card....a red Cobb with a sliver of Chance (yellow portrait) adjacent to it. And this is logical, since
these two subjects are part of the group that comprises the 6 super-prints.
I believe Art Martineau has this card.

2nd.....I don't think we can be confident with any certainty, exactly where these Factory ID numbers were situated on SWEET CAP sheets in our
efforts to figure out T206 printed sheet arrangements.

Keep up the good work here, my friend,

TED Z

Ted - There are images used with the article Scott linked in the OP of cards that were adjacent on a sheet. Three groups of 2, two groups of 4, and this group of 8.

http://www.t206resource.com/images/A...Sheet/CS1s.jpg

I remember seeing other horizontal miscuts but can't remember who the subjects were. I'll see if I can find them.

I agree with your thoughts about the factory number locations.

Beyond miscuts, you can also look at ghosts for horizontal adjacency. I know of the following:
Fletcher -> Charles
http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...7&postcount=46

Schirm -> Mullen (x2)
http://www.t206museum.com/page/ra_ghost_mullen.html
http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...8&postcount=10

Willett -> La Porte
http://www.t206museum.com/page/ra_ghost_laporte.html

Jantz - I've run out of analytical brain-space for a while :), and you guys are all over this!

Nice work, everyone. I'm going to read a good book today.

Just got my 2nd Johnson portrait with partial '30' at bottom. The '30' remnants are in the exact same spot in relation to the rest of the Sweet Caporal ad. Nothing else in the SC ad looks different either.

Also, the registration on the FRONT of the card is slightly different.

Great post Jantz !!

I wondered the same thing when I first saw the Obak sheet. It's really a very interesting observation that you've presented. I don't have the answers, but enjoyed your post.

Great thread guys, nice brainstorming !!! :D

Sincerely, Clayton

While the Obak complete sheet is fascinating, it was produced by a different printer than the T206 sheets. I agree it should make us take pause and consider the possibilities, but nothing so far has shown us that the T206 sheets were printed like the Obaks.

The T206 cards....as well as the T3, T201, T202, T205, T209, T210, T211, T213, T214 and T215 cards were all printed by the
American Lithographic Co. in New York City. This 13-story building stands at the corner of 19th Street & Park Avenue South.

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/d...raphicbldg.jpg


The OBAK (T212) cards were printed by the Schmidt Lithographic Co. in San Francisco. The building stands at 2nd & Bryant Steets.
When you are visiting in San Fran, be sure to check-out the Schmidt Litho. museum.

Tis a real shame that American Litho. never archived their beautiful stuff in the form of a museum.


TED Z

Ted, Tim & Clayton,

Thank you for your comments. Its just a theory of mine, but it sure makes for great discussion. :)

Scott,

Congrats on getting both of the Johnsons!


Jantz

I only really want one, but this second was too much of an upgrade to pass up.

It's certainly available for trade, as I'm no hoarder :)

I have a Matty Portrait with almost a full 30 on the bottom, Jim R has seen it.

So what are the rest of us - sliced liver?

Full 30....
 

Show THE SHEET # DAN!!!! I think I saw an image, or i might be dreaming;)...btw, id love to have 1/16 of the errors/freak t206 you have, sick, sick, sickness and i haven't even seen the surface.......

Jantz,Tim, Ted, Clayton, Scott, and all the rest....:)

great input.....i knew these sheet numbers would start to get the attention they deserve!!

Scott- u started me out on them w/ killian about 10 or twelve years ago....i picked it up from you for 50 bucks.....i thought you were insane to sell it....i remember my $50 check got lost in the mail and i was freaking out!! finally, u got the check and i got killian:D.....still with me, my first sheet #30....since then i have approx 5 or 6 including the rhodes side sheet....wow.....i am still having bad dreams about not buying all your scraps.....i had the great misfortune of passing on downey overprint....and downer double struck sweet cap back, and all the rest....i did get another double stamped sweet cap back, but took me almost ten years;)........................................... ....


i dont want to throw salt in the wound or hijack the thread, but if we could have the cards we almost had....youd have those scrap freaks back im sure , plus your bl 460s......makes me sick for you.....


i would have my wagner from the time i was a kid, or the triple stamped grem brown om, uppy 4 back willets scrap(at least chris got it;)) or so many others, makes me sick to stomach.....

but then i say, i am blessed to have the cards i was able to hunt down over the many years and am extremely happy!!!THANK GOD!!


nice score on the other johnson sheet number....this time, hold onto at least one;)....im the opposite of you, i'm a hoarder:D


thanks for listening to my rage...

btw..HAS SOMEONE ACTUALLY HELD A SHEET # FACT 25???????

i have seen a scan on the museum, but thats it..........


wheres my white whale of a fact 25:confused:

Just got this today. Gilbert

gilbert!!!sweet card johnny!
 

nice pick up johnny!:)

I always like seeing this picture, thanks for showing that.

I was wondering if it was possible that, even though these lithographic companies were on the opposite sides of the country from each other, could their presses have been manufactured by the same company?

I'm not saying they were, just wondering about it. Does anyone know? Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton