Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankWakefield
Is there a word for when someone sees a pattern or connection that others don't, while seeing randomness and perceiving others suffer from apophenia?
|
Frank I'm no alone in the belief that the number 34 is significant in the printing process. My use of apophenia was not meant to be condescending to Ted but rather illustrate how patterns can be seen but have no meaning. John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) is a great example of the best and worst of seeing patterns.
Remember we are looking for patterns in the printing process to gain insight into how a T206 sheet would have been laid out.
Using the number of examples in each given series and relating it to the printing process doesn't work. For example the 150 Only group of 12 that Ted cited above. Their only relationship is that they were not continued into the 350 series. There are no indicators that they were related in the printing process but actually the contrary as some can be found with backs others can not. The completed number of printed examples over a period of time does not give us proof of the number printed at a specific time.
Yes there were a total of 48 Southern Leaguers and 48 is a multiple of 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 but that is not how the cards were printed so it gives us no insight into how a sheet would have been set up.
The Southern League group that I have researched and studied at great length does give us insight into the printing process at a specific time. As my research has shown all 48 of the SL players were decided upon early in 1909. However when the first run of SL players were printed in the brown Hindu offering the number was reduced to 34. Most importantly all brown Old Mill cards are from this group of 34 which indicates they were all on one sheet. No major league player has ever been found with a brown Old Mill back indicating no other players were on the sheet but these 34.
So why would ATC or ALC reduce the intended number of Southern League players to be included in the set from 48 to 34 if not because 34 was the number of available images that could be printed on each sheet? A number not divisible by 6 or 12.
Is it a coincidence that a pre printed sheet of Sweet Caporal 150's were over printed with Factory 649 and the number of cards in that set is 34?