Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[t206hound]

Assuming that sheet layouts did not change during the piedmont 350 run (which may be totally invalid statement), you could have had this (number of rows is insignificant... alignment is what's being demonstrated):

[tedzan]

I arranged this 48 subject sheet some years ago before any top/bottom data was reported. And as I stated......

Note **
These 48 - Major League subjects are a known quantity from the 1910 COUPON issue. Their arrangement is arbitrary, but I firmly
believe these 48 were printed together on the same sheet. I show them Double-Printed in order to completely fill-out the sheet.

If these 96 cards do not display on your screen as a 12 x 9 arrangement, diminish the display to obtain the desired configuration.



So, I don't understand your comments......as, the following 9 subjects are on this sheet......

Thomas and Rossman

McBride and Rossman

Matty McIntyre and Danny Hoffman

Hartsel and Wilson

AND, I'll will add the red Cobb adjacent to Chance (yellow portrait)....as I have personally seen this combo.


These subjects were printed on a different sheet (we are aware that ALC would switch around various subjects during press runs).

McElveen and Dygert
Stephens and Rossman
Stephens and Hoblitzell
Jackson and Danny Hoffman



TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Note **
These 48 - Major League subjects are a known quantity from the 1910 COUPON issue. Their arrangement is arbitrary, but I firmly
believe these 48 were printed together on the same sheet. I show them Double-Printed in order to completely fill-out the sheet.

So, I don't understand your comments.....
TED Z
.

my comment was not on arrangement, it was on the "I firmly believe these 48 were printed together on the same sheet."

If these 48 were printed together on the same sheet, then how could the Jackson, Stephens and Dygert cards also be on the same sheet (since they are known to be adjacent to cards in your list of 48)?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

These subjects were printed on a different sheet (we are aware that ALC would switch around various subjects during press runs).

McElveen and Dygert
Stephens and Rossman
Stephens and Hoblitzell
Jackson and Danny Hoffman

TED Z
.

As I noted above, Erick.

This is not new news, it has been previously discussed. The arrangement of the 48 subjects that I have displayed here is by no means a singular grouping of these subjects.

The 6 super-prints certainly exemplify this fact. They are repeated on subsequent series sheets (e.g. they are included again in the 66-subject Sovereign apple green sheet,
also, T213, T214, T215 issues).



TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

As I noted above, Erick.

This is not new news, it has been previously discussed. The arrangement of the 48 subjects that I have displayed here is by no means a singular grouping of these subjects.

The 6 super-prints certainly exemplify this fact. They are repeated on subsequent series sheets (e.g. they are included again in the 66-subject Sovereign apple green sheet,
also, T213, T214, T215 issues).



TED Z
.

I'm really confused... how can you assert that the 48 absolutely appeared together on a Piedmont 350 sheet when you also acknowledge that there were instances when they didn't appear together on a Piedmont 350 sheet? That's like saying I have a lot of money in my wallet, except when I don't.

[Edited] Just so that I make sure that we are discussing the same thing... I fully understand that between different series P350 vs S460 (superprints for example) that the layouts were different. Are you are saying that within a series (Piedmont 350 in this instance) that the layouts did or did not change?

[t206hound]

Curious as to the answer to my questions...

[t206hound]

Still waiting...

Are you are saying that within a series (Piedmont 350 in this instance) that the layouts did or did not change?

If you believe they did not change, then it's been demonstrated that there are other cards adjacent to those that you say appeared together and therefore your assertion is incorrect.
If you believe that they did change, then how can you assert beyond a reasonable doubt that they ever appeared together on a single sheet?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Curious as to the answer to my questions...

Originally Posted by t206hound

Still waiting...

Are you are saying that within a series (Piedmont 350 in this instance) that the layouts did or did not change?

If you believe they did not change, then it's been demonstrated that there are other cards adjacent to those that you say appeared together and therefore your assertion is incorrect.
If you believe that they did change, then how can you assert beyond a reasonable doubt that they ever appeared together on a single sheet?

Originally Posted by t206hound

Well, my beer is gone. I waited all weekend and no discussion.

Man, you are one hyper dude !


FYI....we were away in Cape May since Friday for some Sun, Surf & Fun.

Anyhow, there is really nothing more that I can add that will convince you that your "17" (or 34) myth is not the way ALC printed these cards.

I have tried to explain the basis for the 48-subject arrangement that I posted.....but, it's either not registering, or you just do not understand
where I'm coming from.


TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Anyhow, there is really nothing more that I can add that will convince you that your "17" (or 34) myth is not the way ALC printed these cards.

I have tried to explain the basis for the 48-subject arrangement that I posted.....but, it's either not registering, or you just do not understand
where I'm coming from.

TED Z
.

In my questions I didn't reference 17 or 34. In fact, for the moment, let's just say that I agree with you that the sheets were 12x8 (for a total of 96 cards).

My question still stands as it relates to this post:

Originally Posted by tedzan

Their arrangement is arbitrary, but I firmly believe these 48 were printed together on the same sheet. I show them Double-Printed in order to completely fill-out the sheet.
TED Z

We know that a Rossman/McBride two namer exists, along with Rossman/Rossman double namer, so that means that Rossman had to appear at least twice on a sheet. We also have a Matty McIntyre and Danny Hoffman two namer. These are all on Piedmont 350.

So far, your theory holds with your 48 "Coupon" players appearing together twice on one sheet (Rossman, McBride, McIntyre and Hoffman).

But then we have other Piedmont 350 miscuts where we see Rossman adjacent to Stephens and Jimmy Jackson under Hoffman.

So now the question:
How can those 48 players (from your image) be together when we know that Stephens and Jackson were on a sheet with four of them?