Sheet size is probably going to be one of the most difficult things to figure put, and one of the most rewarding once it is.
There are basically sort of two camps, one that believes solidly in sheets being multiples of 12 subjects. * The other basing things on 17/34 subjects.
When you look at the set as a single unit, there are solid arguments for both.
The traditional 150 only cards are pretty much a group of 12.
48 southern leaguers for OM and Piedmont.
AH! BUT
Hindu Southern league...34
And many other groups that are 17 or 34 cards.
Then there are the heretics like me that say it's nowhere near that simple...
Depending on how you interpret a particular gap, some of what Pat has found with the plate scratches leads me to consider a sheet 34 or more cards wide, by some unknown number tall. (we know almost certainly that each column was the same player. Some sheets had a change to a different player at some point on the sheet)
Figuring printing time based on number of colors and the sheets/minute of most old presses would seem to indicate not only multiple different sheets simultaneously, but larger sheets as well.
I think that the same stack of fronts getting different backs is almost if not already proven.
But it's entirely possible that some of the less common brands had their own sheets with fewer subjects.
The Pop report breakdown of the chart Chris did lined up very well, maybe 4 cards seemed potentially out of place. (across almost all groups HOF and high demand cards seem to be graded about 2x as often as commons. The exceptions being the rare backs where there just aren't enough cards to tell. )
|