Why I think Cobb wasn't printed with a Brown Hindu back

[Pat R]

I think I might have found an answer why Cobb and some of the other subject weren't printed with a Hindu back and some other mysteries in the set.

The answer might have been right in front of us, many of us have posted and started threads about most if not all the evidence but I never put all of the pieces together until now. It came to me when Greg and I were having a lengthy discussion on his thread about the T220 panels he purchased that make up close to a full sheet.

So to start off we know from ads that ran in sporting life starting on July 3 that in the initial printing of the t206's were the Piedmont, Sovereigns and Sweet Caporal.

[IMG][/IMG]


There were several Hindu ads in newspapers starting on August 2nd the initial ads pictured only the major league players
[IMG][/IMG]

in later ads they added the SL subjects
[IMG][/IMG]


So now lets discuss the printing and I'll use the print group 1 (150/350) subjects as an example because that's when the brown Hindu's were printed.

There's sufficient evidence that each series was printed in stages and the sheet layouts and subjects changed within that series. One example is a two name card I have of Manning with Flick on the top. Manning was printed with a Sweet Caporal 150 factory 649 back but Flick wasn't so we know they weren't on the same sheet for the duration of the print group 1 printing.

I think the Piedmonts were first to be printed at the start of each series 150/350, 350 only 350-460 ect... but I don't think they were always the first back printed in a stage I think that may have been determined by what the presses were set up for at the time.

Here's an example of how the stages might have went in no particular order except the initial printing
Initial printing of the T206's Piedmont - Sweet Caporal - Sovereign
stage 2 Piedmont - Hindu major league subjects - Sweet Caporal 150/649
stage 3 Piedmont - Hindu SL's - Sovereign
I think there were probably several stages as backs were added

Now to why Cobb and some of the others weren't printed with Hindu backs and the answer lies in the Neal Ball letter
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

In the letter Bulger it states the new law where they need the players permission to use their picture.

The date the letter was mailed to Ball was February 19 1909 along with Cobb Ball is among the no prints with a Hindu back and I think it's because they didn't have his permission along with the other Hindu no prints at the time that the Hindu's were being printed.

If you look at the Hindu's there are several subjects with two poses
Ames
Mordecai Brown
Fred Clarke
Evers
Fielder Jones
Lajoie
Mathewson
Tinker

there are three subjects with 2 poses that are no prints
Chase
Cobb
Keeler

There are also 3 players with two poses that have a Hindu back pose and a no print pose
McGraw
Waddell
Young

now the explanation for these three could be A they already had a number that filled out the sheets for the size they were printing or B the permission for these three players came in late but in time for the Hindu printing or a combination of both in all three cases they used the portrait pose over the action pose.

I've posted proof before that Cobb wasn't in the initial printing of the set
[IMG][/IMG]
more info on it can be found in this thread https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=264260

Greg found a similar letter to the Ball letter for boxer Dick Hyland that he posted in his thread
[IMG][/IMG]

Now to Wagner, Plank and others

In Greg's panels one of them has where someone at Brett Lithograph signed that they received it
[IMG][/IMG]

I think this is where some of the changes like Wagner, Plank, Magie and Doyle's could have been caught. These "proof sheets" ? were probably given to several people and
the errors were probable caught early in one of the stages of the printings but not before some of them were already packed or sent out.

I think other changes through out the whole set were probably made when they finally got permission from certain subjects Crawford and Jennings both from Detroit were added late to the group 1 subjects. All of this initially took place in the off season and maybe they were able to get permission from players like Crawford and Jennings when the season started in time for some stages of the printing but not the initial printing.

[Pat R]

Here are a few examples of the point I'm trying to make about the stages using print flaws as an example.

Here's an Owen print flaws with the number of examples I found when I did the research on it.

EPDG-3.jpg
Owen.jpg

The Piedmonts were probably printed in most if not all stages that's why the % of Piedmonts with the flaw is so much lower than the EPDG's. There were a number of vertical rows (around 10-12) of the same subject on each sheet but only 1 Owen in that row would have had this flaw and it was probably only there in the one stage where the EPDG"s and Piedmont's were printed together.





Here are a pair of flaws that share similar numbers and were probably on the cards for two different stages.
SC150-649-1.jpg
Pastorius.jpg

PD150-1.jpg
Davis.jpg





Here's a thread I posted on the print flaws several years ago
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=215451

[sreader3]

Hi Pat,
I agree player authorizations can help explain T206 “no prints” (most obviously in the case of Honus) but since Hindu printing started *after* Pied and SC 150 printing one has to ask why, if lack of permission was the issue, all Hindu “no prints” were printed with Pied and SC 150. Is your contention that Hindu “no prints” were only printed with Pied and SC 150 in post-Hindu stages of the 150 series print run?
Scot

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Hi Pat,
I agree player authorizations can help explain T206 “no prints” (most obviously in the case of Honus) but since Hindu printing started *after* Pied and SC 150 printing one has to ask why, if lack of permission was the issue, all Hindu “no prints” were printed with Pied and SC 150. Is your contention that Hindu “no prints” were only printed with Pied and SC 150 in post-Hindu stages of the 150 series print run?
Scot

Hi Scot,

Yes that's exactly my thinking that they were first printed with those backs in stage 2 or 3 for example.

[FrankWakefield]

First, interesting stuff... thank you for posting.

As to Piedmont's and Sweet Caporal's but no brown Hindu's, consider that the printers just started putting cards out there, P's and SC's, and as a few players and others complained, that's when they started sending what we'd think of as 'Ball letters.' I concede a problem with that is the postmark of when the Ball letter went out...

Pat, as I read along with what you'd posted, it occurred to me that we've always assumed that cards on a sheet would always have identical backs... It makes sense to me that they'd be that way, but it's an uncertain variable that I don't recall anyone considering. Surely all backs on a given sheet would be the same.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

First, interesting stuff... thank you for posting.

As to Piedmont's and Sweet Caporal's but no brown Hindu's, consider that the printers just started putting cards out there, P's and SC's, and as a few players and others complained, that's when they started sending what we'd think of as 'Ball letters.' I concede a problem with that is the postmark of when the Ball letter went out...

Pat, as I read along with what you'd posted, it occurred to me that we've always assumed that cards on a sheet would always have identical backs... It makes sense to me that they'd be that way, but it's an uncertain variable that I don't recall anyone considering. Surely all backs on a given sheet would be the same.

Both surviving letters indicate permission was requested and given before cards went into production. ATC's position in the Porter lawsuit indicates such as well. I don't think they completely ignored the New York law until someone complained; there's no evidence for this.


ATC miscuts strongly indicate all cards on a sheet, of all the ATC sets, had the same back brand.

[Pat R]

Here's a good example of a PD150 that would have been printed very late in the print group 1 150/350 printing.

It's a PD150 that a member posted in the two name thread a Konetchy with Jennings portrait on the top.

Konetchy Jennings.jpg

Konetchy was printed with a Hindu but Jennings was the last addition to the print group 1 subjects and the only 150 back he was printed with in the 150 series was Piedmont. So the Piedmont sheet this card came from would have been from close to or in the last stage printing of print group 1.

[sreader3]

Interesting theory and consistent with the fact that all of the 150-only subjects (save for Honus) were printed with Hindu.

On the other hand, it seems possible that ATC obtained *all* necessary authorizations (including Cobb’s) by mid-summer 1909 and sequenced the printing of subjects based on other reasons, i.e. availability of artwork.