Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[steve B]

The big sheet number could be anywhere on the lower margin. That they put it centered under a card is interesting, but makes sense if as I think the plates were laid out with transfers. They'd have simply used the guidelines already there to line up the transfer. (Or, they might not have used a transfer for the factory number since there would only be one. )

I've seen some possible evidence that ALC did actually run very tight margins along at least one side of the sheet. A T201 showing the white sheet margin at the left with some indication that what was visible is all there was. (Angled cut leading into straight edges at the left, angled cut the full length on the right. )
Very tight sheet margins are usually bad practice, and it's possible they trimmed off most of the margin before folding/cutting.

I find the 17/34 idea to be workable for some series or parts of series.

But there are interesting exceptions.

There are only around 12-13 150 only cards depending on which versions you count, and whether you discount a handful of outliers like the recently discovered Schulte 350.

the 460 only group is currently at 46 cards, fitting neither scheme.

The southern leaguers have 34 Hindus and 48 with other backs. Fitting both schemes.

The 649 Ops do have 34 subjects, but one of them - Powers - is the only one that does not also come with a 350 back.

Six superprints.



Making it more complicated, looking at the 150 only group graded populations that group breaks down into two fairly well defined subgroups of 6-7 cards. (Brown, Cubs. has about twice as many Graded, which I've found to be in line with the T206 population overall, Hofers and known difficult cards are roughly twice as likely to be graded. )


So I think it's more complex than simply a sheet layout of X by Y.
Each series and back I believe needs to be taken as it's own set. And then it begins to make more sense.

The content of a set could have varied according to the distribution area of the brand. And we've seen this with OM and Hindu as well as the fragment of packing log that stated "other then Philadelphia area"

And we know for sure that at least some subjects were reworked between the 150 and 350 series. (Conroys hat stripes)

Plus, brands like Piedmont would have required far more cards than smaller brands. So a larger sheet- 48 subjects? More? for Piedmont/SC, and a smaller sheet - 17 or 34 subjects for Hindu or BL.


Now add some other stuff.
Like some evidence that both the 150's and 350's were reworked multiple times, and were printed from at least 3 different sets of plates. Maybe some of the 460's as well.

Some faint evidence that the piedmont back plates were reworked or resurfaced at some point. Magies show flaws that I haven't seen on other Piedmont 150's. I may have missed them, but if they're out there they're also very uncommon.
And some faint traces which might be the P150 scratches showing on a P350 reverse. Not unexpected- the resurfacing for reuse didn't remove much, so a bad scratch might not get removed entirely.

Other stuff that's farther afield from what we have evidence for.

The backs, at least Piedmont, were probably printed from stones rather than plates. It's possible the fronts and maybe some of the backs were done from plates, meaning probably different sizes.

The possibility of some being produced on a two color press. Some shifts seem to come in pairs, indicating maybe a 2 color press being used at times.

For Piedmont/SC --- Perhaps a web press, one that prints to a roll of stock rather than sheets. Higher production, and again, probably different size "sheets" potentially without top and bottom margins.

The Hoe company made both multi color and web fed presses at the time, and were close to ALC. So it's likely the equipment was there.


Steve B

[Runscott]

Thanks Steve - always good to see the expert get involved in these discussions.

[t206hound]

Thanks Steve. I absolutely appreciate your input... you gave me great responses to sheet size questions a few months ago and your knowledge on the subject is extremely helpful to me and everyone else on the board.

A few things... and let me further say that I am absolutely guessing on this stuff.

Originally Posted by steve B

There are only around 12-13 150 only cards depending on which versions you count, and whether you discount a handful of outliers like the recently discovered Schulte 350.

I've always been confused how the dozenish 150-only cards had any impact on sheet/row size. To me, these cards just didn't make the cut to the 350 series printings (for various reasons). I would not think that the fact that they didn't make the cut implies that they were all printed together for the 150 series.

Originally Posted by steve B

the 460 only group is currently at 46 cards, fitting neither scheme.

The southern leaguers have 34 Hindus and 48 with other backs. Fitting both schemes.

I also tend to believe that there was not a defacto standard sheet size used for each brand/series. I was just postulating that the number 17 seems to fit nicely into the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Cap 150 issues, along with those other issues that are multiples of 17.

Originally Posted by steve B

The 649 Ops do have 34 subjects, but one of them - Powers - is the only one that does not also come with a 350 back.

Again, he didn't make the cut, but the other 33 did. Not enough of a reason for me to think the cards per row was not 17 for SC150-649.

Originally Posted by steve B

Six superprints.

They made the cut every time! I presume that the sheet layouts were potentially different for each issue. I wouldn't think that simply because these six cards appear in all series that it absolutely indicates that they were on the same sheet in each issue.

Originally Posted by steve B

Making it more complicated, looking at the 150 only group graded populations that group breaks down into two fairly well defined subgroups of 6-7 cards. (Brown, Cubs. has about twice as many Graded, which I've found to be in line with the T206 population overall, Hofers and known difficult cards are roughly twice as likely to be graded. )

The number of cards printed would be more attributed to the number of sheets printed in each setup, than the setup of cards on each sheet. For example, it doesn't matter if there were 12 or 17 per row if I chose to print 500 sheets of setup "A" and 400 sheets of setup "B".

All this stuff REALLY interests me. We may never know... but I have fun hypothesizing and getting feedback. All discussion on this topic is good discussion to me!

[steve B]

Those are all excellent points.

If T206 is taken as one set, one press run, then the 150 onlys matter more. If it's looked at as a group of related sets with multiple press runs then they probably matter less. I'm leaning that way, except........

Of the 13 only two didn't make the cut in any way - Pattee and Wagner.
One continued almost unchanged - Magie became Magee.
Three continued the same pose - Brown(e) Brown, and Evers. Brown(e) only got a team change, the other two were entirely recolored.
All the rest continued with pose changes. but with different patterns in 350 and beyond. Schulte didn't get back until the 460's

So in a way nearly all of them made the cut.
I have to wonder why they didn't simply continue with the same art?

One of the few ideas that makes sense is that the transfers were done in blocks or strips. From original art done in strips. Strips of 6 would make some sense. So maybe early layout with 6, later with some other plan. Perhaps 6/6/5 with Wagner removed? That doesn't quite cover the imbalance in population figures, but an unbalanced arrangement would.


Powers making the cut for 649op but not for 350 makes sense considering his death and unbalanced distribution. They may have sent more to Philly than other places . More indication that there was a fairly large break between 150 and 350. And another puzzle. If the 649 op sheet was 34 subjects, and was made especially for that group (I think it was, especially if it related to regional distribution) Why an overprint and not a 649 back?


The sheet setup could have varied with the size of the order for cards. Between Piedmont and SC, yes it would have been a matter of 500 sheets of one 400 of the other. (Using your small comfortable numbers ) And small orders like BL, Drum, Uzit, etc they probably did only use what was on hand, so only one sheet. Those brands I simply haven't found enough images to draw any conclusions about whether they came from one set of plates or two.

But for the middle size brands It would have been a matter of balancing the setup time vs the running time. So If I have an order for lets say 100,000 Piedmonts, 1000 BL, and 50,000 Sovereign I might free up a larger press by running the sovereigns on a smaller one So I'd do the Piedmonts as (Obviously not real numbers) 1000 sheets of 100. Then swap back plates and run 10 sheets of BL. Which would take a ton of labor compared to the run time. Then I might do the Sovs as 1000 sheets of 50. That spreads the setup time across more sheets reducing the labor cost/sheet.

I'm sure there's a formula for press size/quantity/labor cost But that was one of the few areas of printing they didn't involve me in. I do know that we had a small press that ran stuff in the 8 1/2x11 range a medium size one that did roughly 24" wide sheets and two 35 inch presses. And eventually a 35 inch two color press. The big ones were used for larger orders. Like a million or so bank deposit slips. The tiny one did stuff like a couple thousand business cards and a few hundred ads for a cheese business. The business cards were only 4 to a sheet.

Steve B