T206 sheets: Huge factory numbers at back bottom

[atx840]

Updated the image Pat, Johnny V also had a Rhoades with a similar marking.

[Pat R]

I'm happy to add this Tannehill with a partial sheet number on the bottom
to my collection.

Interesting that all three tannehills in this thread Johnny's, Brians and
mine all have the same print flaw on the top border and Brians and mine
( I think Johnny's also but hard to tell for sure) have the same light grey
spot behind his cap.

[sreader3]

How about 17 X 24 = 408 card sheets? That makes for:

A. A total of 34 Brown Hindu southern leaguer subjects split among two different sheets (17 different subjects running horizontally with 24 copies of each subject running vertically per sheet).

B. A total of 34 Sweet Cap 150/649 subjects split among two different sheets (17 different subjects running horizontally with 24 copies of each subject running vertically per sheet).

C. A total of 48 Old Mill southern leaguers split among two different sheets (a hodgepodge of 24 different subjects running horizontally/vertically on each sheet such that each sheet includes 17 copies of each subject).

Just spitballin'.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by sreader3

How about 17 X 24 = 408 card sheets? That makes for:

A. A total of 34 Brown Hindu southern leaguer subjects split among two different sheets (17 different subjects running horizontally with 24 copies of each subject running vertically per sheet).

B. A total of 34 Sweet Cap 150/649 subjects split among two different sheets (17 different subjects running horizontally with 24 copies of each subject running vertically per sheet).

C. A total of 48 Old Mill southern leaguers split among two different sheets (a hodgepodge of 24 different subjects running horizontally/vertically on each sheet such that each sheet includes 17 copies of each subject).

Just spitballin'.

Has anyone come across a Southern Leaguer double name with different names on the top and bottom?

[mrvster]

Scot,
great hypothesis as always.....did you see the tolstoi/ cotez scrap I picked up? check out the double strike project thread......love your input..

Pat,

GREAT CARD.....tannehill bros

Steve,

I haven't seen a different name sl yet

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by mrvster

Scot,
great hypothesis as always.....did you see the tolstoi/ cotez scrap I picked up? check out the double strike project thread......love your input..

Pat,

GREAT CARD.....tannehill bros

Steve,

I haven't seen a different name sl yet

Johnny,

Have not see the scrap yet. Link?

FWIW, another possibility is 17 X 12 = 204 cards per sheet.

A. 34 Brown Hindu southern leaguer subjects split in two sheets each having 17 different subjects running horizontally and 12 copies of each running vertically.

B. 34 Sweet Cap 150/649 subjects split into two sheets each having 17 different subjects running horizontally and 12 copies of each running vertically.

C. 48 Old Mill southern league subjects split into four "hodgepodge" 17 X 12 sheets (or, if you prefer, four 17 X 12 sheets each having 17 copies of 12 different subjects running HORIZONTALLY across the sheet).

[mrvster]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=181497

[steve B]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Johnny,

Have not see the scrap yet. Link?

FWIW, another possibility is 17 X 12 = 204 cards per sheet.

A. 34 Brown Hindu southern leaguer subjects split in two sheets each having 17 different subjects running horizontally and 12 copies of each running vertically.

B. 34 Sweet Cap 150/649 subjects split into two sheets each having 17 different subjects running horizontally and 12 copies of each running vertically.

C. 48 Old Mill southern league subjects split into four "hodgepodge" 17 X 12 sheets (or, if you prefer, four 17 X 12 sheets each having 17 copies of 12 different subjects running HORIZONTALLY across the sheet).

17x 12 might work. It would make sense, since multiples of 6 or 12 also are recurring throughout the set.

I'm also becoming convinced that the sheets were more complex, and may have also been specific to the brand and factory they were intended to be issued from. Chris has done some great work on the 460 series, and attempting to use pop report numbers (which are flawed but generally useful) to disprove it didn't work. But there were some interesting things, groups within groups and a few outliers.

17/34 has never really made sense to me. It isn't a good fit on a lot of paper sizes, either being too large, or leaving margins that are either tiny or huge on one or all sides.
17x 12 = 24.4375 x 31.5 for example. Too big for 24x 36 and on 25x 38 leaves an odd setup with tight margins on the sides, but wasteful margins top and bottom, enough for another entire row.

I have however seen some evidence that ALC may have printed with very tight margins on at least one side.

The 150 only cards fit better as a group of 11 with four outliers for 15. Magie with P150 only, Wagner and Plank with no Sovereign or 649, (the 350 Planks are all scraps) And Powers with a 649, which none of the other 11 have. And all that complicated by F649 probably packing differently for different sales areas.
Other outliers are the Schulte p350 which I believe is a wrong back error. And I think Crawford who doesn't come with Sovereign 150.


All that leads me to think that the layouts were not simple, not consistent between different backs, and possibly sized differently for different brands (More Sovereigns than Hindus but not the same mix of players so perhaps differently sized sheets- larger press runs work better with larger sheets. )
The current confirmed lists also have differences that don't match either group of numbers well.
Sovereign 150 - 150
Hindu - 136 or 102 discounting the SL players

Difference 14 or 48

14 fits neither the 17/34 idea or the one based on 12. But 48 fits the 12

Overall a very complicated puzzle.

Steve B