Yet Another T206 Sheet Size Discussion

[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?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

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:


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).

Fine, I will start with the fact that most of us T206 "dudes" appear to agree on......that whatever the size sheet, ALC printed the fronts first. Then, these pre-printed (blank-backed)
sheets were hung up to dry....then stacked awaiting for orders from the various T-brand Factory's requesting T206 cards.

In the 150 Series press runs, and the 350 Series press runs, the PIEDMONT brand cards were printed 1st. PIEDMONT cards represent approx. 50 % of the total population of T206's. SWEET CAPORAL cards represent approx. 30 % of the total population of T206's.

So, I present the 48 - Major League subjects from the 1910 COUPON set as an example, as it suggests to us the structure of a very plausible sheet configuration. Note, that I said
48 SUBJECTS....which means ALC may have (and most likely) Double-Printed them producing a 96-card sheet.


Furthermore, the 12 - 150-only subjects....the 48 Southern Leaguers....and, my "Exclusive 12" configuration, also suggest to us of how these cards were configured.
Short of these 4 examples, it is difficult to figure out how all the other T206's were configured (or arranged) on printed sheets.

Originally Posted by t206hound

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

Now, regarding Claude Rossman. His Major Lge. career ended in early September 1909. Therefore, he was printed only on 5 backs. So, it's somewhat puzzling to me that Rossman
is adjacent with subjects other than the ones on my 48-subject arrangement.

Originally Posted by t206hound

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?

However, we do know that ALC moved images around different printing plate configurations. And, this should explain the Jackson/Rossman and Stephens/Rossman adjacency.

I would like to know what T-brand backs are on these two adjacent situations ?



TED Z
.

[steve B]

All plausible except the hanging them up to dry. I've never seen a picture of that being done even then. Maybe in an art printer, but not in a high production environment. It takes way too much time and isn't really necessary.

This next bit is where I differ from pretty much everyone else.

Because of time constraints I don't see any brand being produced first. Certainly portions of a series for some brands were done before others, but Getting it done would probably have required almost constant output for the bigger brands. And most likely running various portions on different presses at the same time.
For example
Monday- Print yellow
Tuesday -Print yellow on press 1 and possibly brown or light blue on press 2 using the yellow produced day 1(Doing brown after yellow would be odd. The yellow /browns say it may have been done, but it's not typical)

I've seen a few cards that seem to have been done on a multi color press, and a very small group with a flaw that I haven't figured out. I've been researching press patents today and I'm very close to tossing nearly every assumption I've made so far. I'm thinking I really need to get up to the local printing museum to see if they have anything related to ALC or perhaps a Hoe company catalog.

Steve B

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

This next bit is where I differ from pretty much everyone else.

Because of time constraints I don't see any brand being produced first.

Steve B

Well, on this account, I differ from you.

The MAGIE error card and the JOE DOYLE (Nat'l error) card absolutely tell us that PIEDMONT backs were FIRST printed on the sheets of pre-printed fronts.

There is no other logical explanation for the PIEDMONT-only backs on these cards and the scarcity of them.


TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Now, regarding Claude Rossman. His Major Lge. career ended in early September 1909. Therefore, he was printed only on 5 backs. So, it's somewhat puzzling to me that Rossman
is adjacent with subjects other than the ones on my 48-subject arrangement.

I would like to know what T-brand backs are on these two adjacent situations ?

The Jackson-Hoffman reported in the One T206, Two Names thread was a Piedmont 350 back.

I don't know the back of the Stephens-Rossman, but as you state, it can only be one of four (five with Coupon). I thought I was told that it was Piedmont 350, but cannot find any documentation on that. The image below is from the T206 Neighbors thread. EDITED: I have confirmed that this card has a Piedmont 350 back.

Originally Posted by tedzan

However, we do know that ALC moved images around different printing plate configurations. And, this should explain the Jackson/Rossman and Stephens/Rossman adjacency.

Which is my point... if they switched around configurations, there's no way to know which cards comprised an entire sheet.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by t206hound

Which is my point... if they switched around configurations, there's no way to know which cards comprised an entire sheet.

This point of your's is well taken.


And, at the risk of being repetitive, the the two 48 subject examples I have presented here are windows in a specific timeline.

The 1910 COUPON issue was how that arrangement was in the Spring/Summer of 1910.

The 48 Southern Leaguer's arrangement was most likely very late 1909 (or early 1910) press runs since they are either OLD MILL's or PIEDMONT 350's.


TED Z
.