 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
02-16-2013, 08:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
Quote:
Realize that the 12 cards I have posted in that 108-card simulated sheet are 150-only subjects. As best we know, this series of T206's were the first printed T206's in the set. And, were not intermixed with 150/350 series, or 350 series, or 460 series cards. Therefore, if my 108-card simulated sheet is valid, if any of these 12 - 150-only cards are found with 2 names....I expect that they will be the "same-name" version. I have never seen any of these cards with 2 different names. I will be very surprised if any of them show up with 2 different names. Check out Jantz's excellent thread....I welcome you to prove me wrong. Quote:
1....The colors on the various cards are incomplete, although the Wagner looks like its colors are all there. Furthermore, the captions are in BLACK ink, rather than the normal BROWN ink. 2....Wagner is a 150-only subject....the other cards on this strip (M.Brown, Bowerman, CYoung, and Kling) are 150/350 subjects. TED Z 
|
|
#2
02-16-2013, 08:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You guys are hardcore....
Ill probably never get into t206s but its great to see all this knowledge and constructive debate.
|
|
#3
02-16-2013, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ted- is the above layout pictured correctly? seems like i very long & narrow sheet...if so, it creates an awkward proportion for a sheet. i also think the cards would be oriented in the other direction, not vertically with the length of the sheet.
Last edited by MVSNYC; 02-16-2013 at 08:48 AM.
|
|
#4
02-16-2013, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Mike Given......The typical width of a T206 is 1 7/16 inches I contend that American Lithographic (ALC) printed T206's (and T205's) formatted in rows of 12 cards each. Therefore, 12 x 1 7/16 inches = 17 1/4 inches. Now, it has come to our attention (from Steve B) that the standard size sheet (or cardboard) during the T206 printing era) is 19" x 24". Recently, a nearby neighbor of mine, who was in the printing business for 45 years (and is also an artist), told me that a standard size sheet is 18" x 24". In any event, my 12-card per row theory (17 1/4 inches wide) fits very neatly with either of these size sheets. Also, my research indicates that ALC operated 19" track (width) printing presses to produce these types of lithographic jobs (advertising posters, cigar- ette premiums, etc.). Furthermore, the big picture regarding the T206 structure makes a compelling argument in favor of my 12-card per row theory......check out this math. Subjects........Series ..12..............150-only (12 x 1 row) 144..............150/350 (12 x 12) 204..............350-only (12 x 17) ..60..............350/460 (12 x 5) ..46..............460-only (+ 2 double-prints) (12 x 4) ..48..............Southern Leaguers (12 x 4) ...6...............Super-Prints ...2...............Demmitt and O'Hara St Louis variations ____ 522 = total subjects Best regards, TED Z
|
|
#5
02-11-2014, 09:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Congrats on the prediction! Credit given where credit is due. Now, my questions go back to the size of the presses used by the ALC. The 19" track width. I am wondering where the proof of this is at, because I have spent a ton of time trying to confirm this, and I can't. Not saying it's not true, just that I haven't been able to find concrete proof of this. Do you have any information that I can use in my research about this, like who manufactured the presses, etc.? A very nice lady at the Library of Congress sent me some information, and the information regarding the size of some of the larger prints in their collection (from the ALC) are 22x28. She also believed that they probably used a variety of different sized presses. Any information would be appreciated. Another thing that has me wondering-and I know these cards are completely different and there is no relation to T206- is this image of a Goodwin sheet. As you can see in this scan, there is a huge amount of space around the whole outer border of the cards. Just wondering if the T206's could have also been printed to have room like this on the sheets, around the outer borders. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.19675/ Anyhow, I'm just trying to confirm information- thanks in advance for any help. Sincerely, Clayton
|
|
#6
02-11-2014, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Clayton
1st....my research that American Litho (ALC) employed printing presses (circa 1909) whose width = 19 inches for printing their 6-color lithographic smaller projects
dates back to the 1980's. It was from a library book, which I don't recall anymore. But, my memory for numbers is very keen. Furthermore, Steve B. (our printing expert) has informed us that the standard size of printing paper (cardboard) available circa 1909-1912) was 18" (or 19") x 24". These dimensions are consistent with my contention of how ALC printing these cards. For example on an 18" x 24" sheet of cardboard, I depict a theoretical sheet of the "Exclusive 12" subjects formatted as a multiple printed 108-card sheet (12 across by 8 rows). If you haven't seen it, Clayton, check-it-out............ http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=163949&page=4......Post #38 2nd....your GOODWIN example of 6 cards across this sheet essentially supports my theory. I have also considered that ALC printed the T206's formatted 6 cards across the sheet (instead of 12). The factor 6 is the fundamental denominator in the entire series structure of the T206 set......as, is evident in the following structural numbers. Subjects.........Series ..12..............150-only 144..............150/350 204..............350-only ..66..............350/460......includes the 6 Super-Prints ..48..............460-only ..48..............Southern Leaguers ____ 522 = total subjects Furthermore, your GOODWIN sheet was most likely printed by the George Harris & Sons Lithographers (the American Lithographic Co. did not exist in the 1880's). TED Z __________________________________________________ _________________________________ LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects) SHECKARD (glove) . Last edited by tedzan; 02-11-2014 at 01:24 PM. Reason: Added Series structural numbers
|
|
#7
02-11-2014, 06:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I posted the link to the LOC's Goodwin sheet just as an example of how much excess border space these printers would leave available. Earlier in this thread, using your 19" track theory, you had said (according to your sheet configuration and theory) that there would be a remaining 7/8" border space-which seems a bit tight to me. Not saying you are wrong- we are all speculating- but that just seems like too little room for error. Someone recently posted a Cy Young portrait miscut top to bottom, and it had a huge border space at the top. It made me wonder about how much border space was actually above that, before the card was cut to size. The Goodwin sheet, with all of it's open border space made me wonder once again about the 19" track width, and if this is correct. On top of that, we do know the ALC was printing larger advertising lithographs that could not be printed with a 19" track. I understand your sheet theory is partially based on this track width, but I really (after reading back through this thread) don't see any definitive proof that this is fact. I have to reiterate that I am not saying you are wrong or right. Imagine I am a student-these are questions I would pose to the teacher  .Sincerely, Clayton
|
|
#8
02-12-2014, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clayton
I'm reprising these two statements of mine from my prior post......because you apparently overlooked them, or they did not register with you. Quote:
Note, that I qualified that the T206 project was considered by ALC as a...." 6-color lithographic smaller project ". Therefore, a 19" (track width) press was employed to print these cards (1 7/16" x 2 5/8") in a format of up to 108 (my guess) cards on a sheet. Of course, ALC had larger track width presses for their larger projects (art works, advertisements, posters, etc.). But, anyone who is familiar with lithographic printing of that era will tell you that the quality and the yield of the printed product is inversely proportional its size. Thus, ALC chose to use their smaller track width press to improve the yield. This is important when you are cranking-out 10 MILLION cards. That's my guesstimate as to how many T206 cards were produced from 1909-1911. I will reiterate the information that Steve B. provide us regarding the standard size sheets for this type of printing having been either 18" x 24" (or 19" x 24"). The 18", or 19" sheet width is consistent with the 19'" track width of the press. Sorry, but your concern about wide borders on a sheet is laughable. Assuming my number of 10 Million printed cards is true, then any good printer would efficiently fill out a sheet of cardboard with just a little border area sufficient enough to clip onto to for hanging the sheets so that the ink can dry. TED Z
|
|
#9
02-16-2013, 09:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
-Plank is not a 150 Only subject. -Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not. -Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different. -If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs. The common thread is when these subjects were discontinued. Prior to that, every indication is they were printed on sheets like any other subject from group 1. It's certainly possible when a double name of a 150 only subject is found that the second subject may also be a 150 only. However, I also find it highly likey that it could also be any other subject from print group 1. Lastly, I don't believe Wagner and Plank were included with the first cards printed in the set. There were three intital printings: Piedmont 150 Sweet Caporal 150 Sovereign 150 First being Piedmont which included Magie that was corrected. After Piedmont but in this early distribution Sovereign 150 were printed. It included exactly 150 subjects, as advertised, but not Plank and Wagner. I believe they were added after and included in later Piedmont and Sweet Caporal printings. Just my two cents. All the best. Last edited by Abravefan11; 02-16-2013 at 10:00 AM.
|
|
#10
02-16-2013, 11:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sincerely, Clayton
|
|
#11
02-16-2013, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
was silent and most likely issued a cease & desist order to ATC. However, ALC did not desist; but, continued printing Plank in their early 350 series press runs of SWEET CAP cards. And, isn't it interesting that they avoided Factory #25. Plank's 350 card was shipped only to Factory #30. In my opinion, this was deliberately done to avoid the Philadelphia market....which was served by Factory #25 tobacco products. Factory #30 cigarettes were distributed in the New York and New England regions. Quote:
This I recall from my experience when Mastro was first shopping around the Wagner at the Willow Grove Show in the mid-1980's. This is an undeniable fact. And, since we know that the fronts were pre-printed....followed by the printing of the advertising backs, it does not make any difference whether we are referring to PIEDMONT cards or SWEET CAP cards. We will never know how many Wagner and Plank cards were originally printed. Then discarded, after ALC was informed to desist. Meanwhile, the printing & shipping of the other 10 subjects on my simulated sheet of 150-only series cards continued. The discarding of the Wagner and Plank in no way affects the numbers of the other 10 subjects. With all due respect, I don't get what you are saying here. TED Z
|
|
#12
02-16-2013, 04:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Is this accurate? Edit to add: I am aware that Plank and Wagner were on the same Piedmont 150 sheets. Do you believe the same to be true with Sweet Caporal 150? I think the pithier the discussion, the more likely we are to understand each other and maybe make some progress. Last edited by Abravefan11; 02-16-2013 at 04:40 PM.
|
|
#13
02-16-2013, 07:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks for the reply Steve, I appreciate it.
I'm mucking things up in this discussion by bringing up the strip. I guess it's best to stay more on topic. Now, I don't know how to quote a certain section of a post, so I copied and pasted this  :"Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350." This is something I've been wondering about. I notice on a lot of the 150 series cards, the brown writing (player name & team designation) will be a thicker, bolder brown. And, on a good majority of the 350 series, the brown writing will be thinner and lighter. I wonder if that has to do with the volume they were printing? I know that in the end we can only come up with theories about who was on a sheet, how many subjects per sheet, how many in a row, whether they ran the sheet horizontal or vertical, etc.~ unless a sheet pops up or someone who has seen one comes forward- but, I think Tim and Jim's website provides a deeper understanding of the set and presents a more probable scenario with the print groups and also Tim's article about the #34,,,,,Ted, you should check that article out if you haven't. Thanks for the great discussion and information, my brain gets a great work out from these type of threads   Sincerely, Clayton
|
|
#14
02-16-2013, 07:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't understand how Plank is a "150 only" card.... We have have twice as many known SwCap 350 Planks as we do Plank SwCap 150's.... That leads me to agree with Tim, that Plank was added late in the first print group and continued over into the 350's... I also believe that Wagner and Plank were most likely on the same Piedmont sheet, but not on the Sweet Caps.... Hope you are well Brian
|
|
#15
02-17-2013, 10:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Brian At least you agree with me that Wagner and Plank were printed on the same sheet. We all appear to agree on....that the fronts were pre-printed....and, the backs were printed subsequently on these pre-printed (fronts) sheets as the orders for the various T-brands came into American Litho (ALC). Therefore, there appears to be a contradiction here, in that you guys are saying Plank was printed on another sheet ? ? This does not jive with what we know. OK, this may appeal to the conspiracy buffs....given that the majority of SWEET CAP 150 cards of Plank are Factory #30; and, the SWEET CAP 350 cards of Plank are ONLY Factory #30....my theory is that ALC continued to print Plank (although he had informed ATC that he did not want his image associated with tobacco) and shipped the cards to Factory #30 (NY). This was a deliberate move to continue issuing Plank's card, since Factory 30 distributed SWEET CAP cigarettes to the New York and the New England markets. Factory #25 distributed to the Southern States and as North as the Philadelphia area. This is not as far-fetched as it might sound....recall that we have an ALC ledger notation informing the jobber...... "not to ship certain SWEET CAP cards to the Philadelphia region" (paraphrased) Take care, TED Z
|
|
#16
02-17-2013, 12:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The only thing I agree with in the above post is that Plank and Wagner were “most likely” printed on the same “Piedmont” sheet given the existing examples, as well as the story behind “The Card”…. Otherwise, as Tim as shown in multiple posts like the one below… “What we know” suggest otherwise…. Originally Posted by Abravefan11 A few points to consider regarding the above quote. -Plank is not a 150 Only subject. -Some of these cards were printed with Sovereign 150 and some were not. -Almost all Plank 150 Sweet Cap are Fac. 30, and almost all Wagner Sweet Cap 150 are Fac. 25. If they were Sweet Cap sheet mates the numbers wouldn't be so drastically different. -If all of the cards pictured above were sheet mates, printed for the same amount of time, all be as relatively scarce as Wagner and Plank with Sweet Caporal 150 backs. Be well Brian
|
|
#17
02-17-2013, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that Plank was originally intended to be a 150-only subject. My premise here is based on these two supporting facts.... ......PIEDMONT backs were printed FIRST onto the T206 fronts ......The Gretzky Wagner and Charlie Conlon's Plank were on the same PIEDMONT sheet What transpired subsequent to the initial PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank regarding the SWEET CAPORAL cards is anyone's guess. None of us have concrete evidence of what actually transpired. I have offered a theory or two....and, you guys have speculated as to what followed the PIEDMONT printing of Wagner and Plank. But, as of today, we have no proof to back up our contentions regarding the SWEET CAP press runs. Perhaps, some one smarter than us, or lucky to discover positive proof will arrive at the scene in the future. TED Z
|
|
#18
02-16-2013, 10:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I see. So you're saying there's no double (two different names) cards of THESE cards you've posted as a simulated sheet above. Here's Jantz's thread I believe you are referencing (awesome thread BTW Jantz): http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...6%2C+two+names But, here's where I'm confused: Confirmed cards with two different names~ all of these are Piedmont 150: Bradley-Bender Killian (pitching)-Chance Lindaman-Bresnahan Spade-Cicotte Lundgren(Cubs)-Doolin Bender(port)-Delahanty(Wash) M.Brown(port)-Magee All of the above cards are from Print Group 1: http://t206resource.com/Print%20Grou...Checklist.html I know you are going to say these are not ONLY 150 subjects~ but they are 150 subjects. So, I'm not following still..... As far as the Wagner strip,,,,so you don't think they printed a sheet out and cut the strip from that? I'm not saying it was a regular production sheet, but just figuring it would be printed on a sheet "the size" of a regular production sheet. I'm trying to follow the 19 inch wide track thing, and understand how if they didn't use the regular presses to do this strip, what did they use? Sincerely, Clayton Last edited by teetwoohsix; 02-16-2013 at 11:20 AM. Reason: add link
|
|
#19
02-16-2013, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Schulte front view should be included. There is a P350 that just turned up but I believe it's not a normal production card, most likely a wrongback(150 series sheet given a 350 back, either using up leftovers or as a makeready sheet that got cut and distributed.) Magie should also be included. (Since at least one master and plate would have had to be reworked to fix Magie I consider Magie and Magee to be different cards Magie 150 only Magee 150/350) Leaving out Plank and including Schulte, Wagner and Magie This group breaks into two groups, one slightly tougher than the other. With three exception Brown Cubs which isn't all that tough, and Wagner and Magie which are. My theory had been that 5 of them had been on a sheet with Wagner, the other 5 on a sheet with Magie, and that both sheets had been withdrawn and the plates redone either partly or completely with Brown replacing both Wagner and Magie. The other outlier card is Powers. No 350 backs, but he is found with factory 649. That one is interesting. Either they handled the sheets oddly to print the 649 overprints or Powers was on more than one sheet. Figuring that out would require looking at the tiny front differences to see if some are only found with 649 and some only with 150 backs. That's a whole project on its own. Keep in mind that the sheet layout/size could have easily been different for 150 and 350 The 150s were a somewhat more limited release, 4-5 brands. While 350 had all 16. Printing larger sheets or sheets with more subjects to a sheet would have made more sense for 350. For that reason I think it makes sense to look at sheet layouts by series or if you must, by print group. Some of the cards on Teds sheet show the P150 plate scratches, so they must have been printed well into the later part of 150 printings. One attraction of Teds layout is that it would explain a number of things. In production, extracting the Wagners, Planks and Magies would have been simply a matter of cutting off the edge if it was on the edge and discarding it, or cutting into strips and discarding the appropriate strip. Cutting into strips isn't good practice, because handling the long strips in the cutter makes diamond cuts much more likely. Another issue is the scrap of the log from the packing plant clearly stating "other than philadelphia area" Which probably means that there was a different sheet to produce the mix of cards intended for at the very least the Philadelphia area. Sorting stuff by player and where each was intended to go just doesn't work for packing/distribution there's just way too much manual labor and thought invloved unless there's a major difference in the cards themselves (Like the red bordered paralells sold in Topps product exclusively in Target. Simple to add in while packaging their order since the look is very different.) All in all a highly complex problem. Steve B
|
|
#20
02-17-2013, 10:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
Here's an example of a possible Double-Printed 48-subject arrangement printed on a 19' X 24" sheet. Leaving a 1 1/2 inch border (top & bottom) if the printed cards were centered
on the sheet.     TED Z
|
|
#21
02-17-2013, 10:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
Another example of a possible 108-card sheet printed during the 150 Series press runs. These 34 subjects and two Double-Prints ** were printed with PIEDMONT 150....
SOVEREIGN 150....SWEET CAPORAL 150 [Factory's #25, #30 & #649 (overprint)]....and, Brown HINDU backs. Johnson .................................................. ......Possible DOUBLE-PRINTS................................................. Davis    DOUBLE-PRINTS.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...... Powers .................. Matty (Possible DOUBLE-PRINT) ** Double-Prints (D-P) My selection of Powers, and the 2nd D-P (either Davis, Matty, or Johnson) is based NOT on POP reports....but, two T206 surveys totalling 16,000 cards, which I have. TED Z
|
|
#22
02-17-2013, 10:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
when the SC 649 set and the southern brown Hindu sets subjects were chosen, there were plenty other subjects available if 36 were needed. No reason to double print 2 subjects.
As for a survey of 16,000 t206s, that is a drop in a 55 gallon bucket of what is out there . In 1998 there were a half million t206s surveyed by AM and we have done at least that many more since. Sweet Cap 649 subjects and southern brown Hindu subjects were printed in equal numbers.
__________________
T206Resource.com Last edited by cfc1909; 02-17-2013 at 10:36 AM.
|
|
#23
02-17-2013, 10:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Great cards Ted !!
Here's what I don't get about these two simulated sheets you just posted. The only chance for a possible "double name card" (same name top and bottom) is the Powers and Matty cards. The double name/same name shows up enough to see that they must have (like in Chris Browne's simulated sheet) been in columns of likely 3 of the same player down (in order to find these double name/same name). Then, you have the double name/different name top, which also makes sense if you look at Chris's simulated sheet. The sheets you posted could give you a ton of double name/different name at top (which are way less common to find) and basically 2 possibilities for a double name/ same name (which are way more common). How does this make sense, when factoring in these double named cards (which I think are a key factor in figuring out a sheet layout)? Thanks- Sincerely, Clayton
|
|
#24
02-17-2013, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simulated T206 sheets....check them out
Clayton
The simulated sheet I posted (post #41) consists of 12 subjects in the 150-ONLY Series. The simulated sheet I posted (post #60) consists of 34 subjects in the 150/350 Series. The simulated sheet I posted (post #59) consists of 48 subjects in the 350 Series. This is your 2nd post on this thread in which your comments indicate that you have the T206 series confused. The traditional classification (by Bill Heitman, Scot Reader, and long-time T206 collectors) is as follows...... 150-only series 150/350 series 350-only series 350/460 series 460-only series Southern Leaguer series Demmitt and O'Hara (St. Louis variations) Joe Doyle N.Y. Nat'l and Sherry Magie (error) Any other manner of classifying these series is subject to confusion. TED Z
|
|
#25
02-17-2013, 12:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thanks- Sincerely, Clayton
|
|
#26
02-16-2013, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The transfers that would be used to lay out the plates and probably any proofs would have been printed on small manually operated proofing presses. Those can be very small, tabletop size. And are designed to produce one print at a time. The proofs are examined for both design, and to see if all the color elements are in the right place. An example of something that should have been caught in proofing is Magie, and Doyle. There are others that simply weren't fixed until much later. Ganzel has part of the background extending into his hat. That was fixed, but isn't at all rare. But it should have been caught in proofing. If the Wagner strip was specially printed to try to convince him, it could have been laid out and one copy made. Or they could have used an existing set of proofs. The registration is very precise, better than some other proofs. In looking at the scans I have yesterday it also occured to me that it has a background color making the borders tan rather than white. Steve B
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| W565 Black Sheet w/ Harry Heilman, nrmt Al Simmons plus partial red sheet -$110 DLVD | kylebicking | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 1 | 01-14-2013 10:13 PM |
| FS: Large Uncut Sheet lot (w/ 1984 Fleer Update sheet) - $800/OBO | jimivintage | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 04-21-2011 10:58 PM |
| F/S T206's....Baker P460/42 (SOLD)....check-out 8 add. T206's | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 5 | 03-30-2009 02:46 PM |
| Check-out this T206 lot ? ? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 06-23-2007 10:56 AM |
| 24 Player Old Judge Sheet on ebay - check this out!!! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 06-26-2003 11:18 AM |
Hybrid Mode
