Simulated T206 sheets....check them out....plus, new find of 350/460 series DRUM card

Brian Weisner · #1 02-16-2013, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan

Plank for all practical purposes is a "150-only" subject (just like Wagner). They both didn't want to be associated with cigarette cards. Wagner went "public", while Plank
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.

We have factual evidence that Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The "Gretzky Wagner" and Charlie Conlon's Plank were cut from same PIEDMONT sheet.
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

Hi Ted,
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

tedzan · #2 02-17-2013, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Weisner

Hi Ted,
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

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

Brian Weisner · #3 02-17-2013, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan

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.

Take care,

TED Z

Hey Ted,
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

tedzan · #4 02-17-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Weisner

Hey Ted,
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��.

Be well Brian

Brian

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

wolf441 · #5 02-17-2013, 01:25 PM

This may be a dumb question (sorry if it is

), but has there ever been a confirmed report (or even a second hand story originally told by someone who was purchasing cigarette packs in 1909) of a Plank or a Wagner actually being pulled from a period cigarette pack? My point being, is it possible that NO Wagners and Planks ever made it into packs and that workers at the distribution site (sorry, not sure who actually did the cutting of the sheets - ALC or the actual factories) were told to destroy all of these cards (perhaps due to threatened litigation), but instead decided to take some home, being that these guys were two of the biggest stars of the day?

Abravefan11 · #6 02-17-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf441

This may be a dumb question (sorry if it is

), but has there ever been a confirmed report (or even a second hand story originally told by someone who was purchasing cigarette packs in 1909) of a Plank or a Wagner actually being pulled from a period cigarette pack?

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

teetwoohsix · #7 02-17-2013, 02:39 PM

OK, I'll try it a different way.

Let's take Rossman. In this sheet layout, how would there ever be a Rossman card with the name Rossman also at the top of the card (miscut)? I'm just using this card as an example of what I was getting at with my question.

Sincerely, Clayton

wolf441 · #8 02-17-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

Thanks Tim!!

It's odd that they would mention Cobb as being a rare example in early packs along with Wagner, and also that "multiple" Wagners were found when the new shipment arrived. Great source material. The expertise and time spent in researching shown by you and the other veterans on this board is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

Steve

Runscott · #9 02-17-2013, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

From an August 1909 newspaper articele:

It's curious that the author of the above refers to 'photographs'. I wonder if he didn't confuse some other facts as well? (like player names). If he knew that a 'recent' shipment contained Cobb and Wagner, it's doubtful he found that out by digging through packs himself - probably quizzed the kids and couldn't they have been talking about cards other than T206's and the author got confused?

Also, August is late in the year. If they began printing in May, does that mean that they waited until months later to begin printing Wagners?

Abravefan11 · #10 02-17-2013, 01:48 PM

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

steve B · #11 02-17-2013, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

Once you go beyond 34 a lot of variables can change the total number of cards produced with a given back. Multiple sheet configurations, multiple printings of the same back at different times with the same subjects, and on and on.

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

The part I changed to red above cannot be true.

14 Souther leaguers not printed with Hindu.
13 Printed with ONLY 150 backs and not with SC150/649.
1 printed with Only 150 Backs AND SC150/649

Is there some explanation for how these would have been printed on the same sheet as cards that recieved a different selection of backs? (I've proposed a few before, all of which I consider unlikely and for which there is no existing proof.)

The print groups do make sense, and are excellent for explaining thedistribution of the set.
But those groups are only a start towards understanding the production of the set.

I have a few other objections to 34 being the key. But none of them are something concrete.
For instance, it's not a number that most people would be comfortable with. People tend to select numbers that are either multiples of 10 or are readily divisible. 100, 150, 50, 25,75 All common choices. Ask yourself how many cards you'd put in a set? Hardly anyone would choose 34. How many of something would you put on a sheet? again, 34 isn't a number most people would choose. And none of the bigger numbers 150,350,460 can be made from 34. To be entirely fair, only 150 can be made from 6, so it's only marginally better.

And yes, I know the counter argument is pretty much any Topps set. Odd numbers made from sheets of 100, entire sets based on being multiples of 11...Quite a mess.

Steve B

Abravefan11 · #12 02-17-2013, 03:14 PM

Steve - With all do respect you misunderstand me.

Every one of the three groups you referenced I was referring to with this in my post: "There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards."

Yes, 14 southern league cards were not printed with Hindu, but when they were printed with Old Mill, the actual number printed is 48. Same with Piedmont 350. The fact that 14 were not printed with Hindu is not evidence that less than 34 were printed later.

You can classify the 150 only cards as you like, but none were printed with a back subset less than 34.

Excluding Wagner and Magie let's look at the regular 150 Only subjects.

All were printed with the following backs:

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150 No.25
Sweet Caporal 150 No.30
Sovereign 150
Hindu

All were no-prints with:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 (Powers is the lone exception*)

Up until the point they were discontinued, 67 subjects in the set followed that exact pattern of distribution. Nothing about them was unique except for when they were discontinued. Again this isn't evidence of any special treatment during production.

I hope this clears up the point I was trying to make but please ask me any followups.

Edit* Of the 150 only group Powers was printed with SC150/649, but like the others this does not make how he was printed unique. Until being discontinued his card followed the same distribution as 33 other group 1 subjects.

tedzan · #13 02-18-2013, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Concerning the consistency of sheet sizes throughout the T206 set and different series I'll offer up the following for thought.

The number 34 wasn't a random number that we found in a couple places within the set and have since tried to configure every other subset to fit it. It stands on its own as the smallest number of any group printed at a given time within the set. This is of the utmost importance. It doesn't require double prints, subsets, or any other adjustments to arrive at the total. It is 34 confirmed subjects that we know were printed at a very specific time in the set. Here are some examples:

Sweet Caporal 150 No.649 = 34
Hindu Southern League = 34
Print Group 3 (350/460) Drum 350 = 34
Broad Leaf 460 = 34

I used these four to show that small runs are consistent throughout the entire set, and all equal 34. While I can't prove that during other larger runs that a sheet size couldn't have been different, it's my current belief that they stayed consistent.

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed on same
pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 have yet to be confirmed with DRUM backs. Eventually, these 3
subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

Scratch your DRUM number of 34....the number is actually 37.

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number of the
BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

That narrows it down to just 2 examples (HINDU and SC 150/649) from which you have based your "magic 34" sheet hypothesis. Tim, you are stuck in your "magic 34" rut.
And therefore, you are unwilling to consider any other hypothesis that Steve, or I, or others have presented on this forum.

Fine, that's your take. But, with all due respect to you.....your speculation is flawed.

The press track width required to print your 17 cards across a row must be = or > than 24 1/4 inches. Lithographic printing press track widths of 25 (or 26) inches were
not used by ALC to print these cards. Furthermore, we have two independent sources that have stated that the standard paper or cardboard sheet size for such jobs is
19" x 24". This information is consistent with research that indicates that 19" wide presses were used (circa 1909-1919) to print the tobacco cards, advertising posters,
medium size lithographic art, etc.

Finally, the prevailing math regarding the various T206 series structures is invariably a factor of 12......not of "17". It is quite puzzling that you do not comprehend this
obvious fact ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

There are subsets that number less than 34 that we as collectors have created to categorize certain cards. This is how we categorize them and not evidence of how they were printed. When it comes to the actual production of the cards, you can not reduce a group printed at a specific time to a number smaller than 34.

Absolutely wrong !

A series of 12 subjects were initially printed. This has been established even prior to Bill Heitman's 1980 book, "The Monster". These 12 subjects were most likely Triple-
Printed on a 36-card sheet (in ALC's start-up of the T206 set in the Spring/Summer of 1909). Or perhaps, Ninefold-Printed on a standard 19" x 24" sheet comprising of
108 cards.

Tim.....I suggest that you go back to your drawing board and come up with a more realistic sheet arrangement to include in your website. Prior to doing this, I suggest
that you brush up on some early 20th Century standard printing practices and the machinery employed in the production process. These are important elements of this
scenario that you appear to have ignored.

TED Z

Abravefan11 · #14 02-18-2013, 06:35 PM

Ted-

It is my belief that the print group 3 Drum subset is complete at 34. I do not believe at this time that the three cards you mentioned will be confirmed. If one is, I will gladly change my opinion and expect the other two to be confirmed as well. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

The Broad Leaf 460 group currently has 27 confirmed of what I believe is a group of 34. I do not believe any cards outside of this group of 34 will be confirmed with this back. This isn't based solely on the number 34, but rather trends in the production of the 460 series. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

I will try to write this as politely as possible, nothing you have presented about press sizes, track widths, or paper sizes do I feel is solid evidence to draw any conclusions from. To me it is all very speculative and unsupported by actual evidence that can be linked directly to the T206 cards. I would love to see something verifiable presented that can be tied directly to the cards rather than information about other products printed by such a large firm. Until then I would not take such leaps of faith. Others are free to speculate this way, it's just not in my nature or how I work.

I have not ignored the theories presented that sheets were groups of 12 or any other ideas. I give them all consideration and state specifically the areas where I find them flawed or implausible. You can find post from years ago on this board were I thought the 12 subject sheet may have some validity. Eventually though I came to different conclusion and at this time all of the evidence I've seen supports it. This does not stop me from considering opposing theories. I not only give them their due, I constantly check and recheck my own ideas.

This is the crux of the matter. You can not reduce a point in the T206 production to a number smaller than 34. To make this number anything else requires adjusting the number with no supporting evidence to do so.

tedzan · #15 02-10-2014, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan

1st..your "350/460 Drum 350 = 34" is not accurate. The 350/460 series DRUM cards and the 350/460 AMERICAN BEAUTY 350 (no frame) cards were both printed
on same pre-printed sheets of 37 - T206 subjects. Three of these subjects (Conroy....Mullin....Stahl) of these 37 subjects have yet to be confirmed with DRUM
backs.

Eventually, these 3 subjects will be discovered with the DRUM backs.

TED Z

Well guys, as I had predicted a year ago regarding "Conroy....Mullin....Stahl" in this post, a DRUM Conroy (batting) was discovered recently in a 500+ card find.

This T206 find raises my expectations that of the other two 350/460 subjects mentioned above, either Mullin or Stahl (or both) will eventually be discovered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tedzan

2nd..Regarding your "Broad Leaf 460 = 34"....this is wishful thinking on your part. There are too many unconfirmed guys. We don't know for certain the real number
of the BROAD LEAF 460 cards.

TED Z

Furthermore, regarding the BROAD LEAF 460 cards....I also have expectations that either Conroy (batting) or Mullin (bat) [or both] will eventually be discovered
with the BROAD LEAF 460 back.

TED Z

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