Hey folks....reprising my case for the "12 factor" in the T206 structure

[tedzan]

It's not only the T206 issue, but also the "12 Factor" is evident in the T205 printing format. There are twelve Minor League subjects in the T205 issue. These 12 guys where printed at the tail-end
of the T205 press runs (circa late 1911). How do we know this......because the bio info on the backs of 8 of these cards reveal this timeline.







Furthermore, some of our resident Net54 T205 experts have told me that the T205 structure lends itself to formatted sheets printed in columns of 12.



TED Z
.

[tedzan]

Further proof of the "12 Factor" in the printing of these T206 cards is evident in these 12 subjects in the 460-only series, which I refer to as the "Exclusive 12".
Only these 12 guys in this series of 48 subjects were printed with the rare red HINDU back. For more detailed information regarding these T206 cards, check out
this link......EXCLUSIVE 12











TED Z
.

[t206hound]

Please refer to Post #5 as to why a list of 12 cards (in fact, the same list) is not "proof" that there were twelve card rows. Could there have been? Certainly. Is this proof? Nope.

[Howe’s Hunter]

– common thought believed to be true in 1492.

And then something new came along and changed all those old thoughts....

[tedzan]

Double post

[tedzan]

Your "broken record" replies are becoming boring (if not tedious). These comments of yours indicate that you do not understand the significance of
the Exclusive 12 series of either the T206 issue or the T205 issue.

Furthermore, it appears that you don't understand the significance of the 12 subjects in the 150-only series, or Elite 12 group of rare PIEDMONT 350
cards, or other T206 sub-sets.
.

But, then I may be misjudging you ......for perhaps you do understand these factors. However, your mindset is so stuck in this "17 or 34 myth" that
you are incapable of accepting facts regarding the T206 set's structures which have been established for years. You're bent on trying to "re-invent"
the T206 structure.

Look, I didn't "invent" this 12 Factor. It was inherent in the T206's structure. The numbers are there; and, they do not lie. Any logically thinking mind
realizes the mathematics of the various series in the T206 structure....and, that translates to printing formats which strongly suggest columns of 12
cards on a sheet.


Your latest thread.."Proof? T206 were printed in rows of more than twelve"..is so misleading that it is laughable. You have PROVED nothing with your
"SMOKE and MIRRORS" diagrams.

Much less claiming you have proof that the printed sheets were not formatted in rows of 12 cards.


Please do us both a favor.....do not respond anymore to my threads on the subject of printed sheet sizes and configurations....and, I'll refrain from
responding to your's.


T-Rex TED

[abothebear]

Hey Ted,

I enjoy your posts. And I know almost nothing about T206s, especially compared to you. But I don't understand your tone in your replies. You keep using "proof" for your 12 theory, and if you merely mean that there is proof that the subjects are in multiples of 12, then there is no problem... and no drama, because no one would deny that. But several of your claims sound like you should be using "evidence" instead of "proof." As in - evidence that seems to support your theory.

I think that other guy (sorry other guy for forgetting your name while typing this) is merely pointing out that your claims using "proof" (if I am reading your claim correctly) are bigger than the logic supports. I don't see what the big deal is. Following different lines of speculation can only help the quest to find out something more definitive in the long run.

(In my best Rodney King voice) "Can't we all just get along?"

George

[Brian Weisner]

Hey Ted,
Your lack of respect for other posters is ridiculous....As well as your insistence that everyone that post in your threads must agree or not post.
I guess you just want to continue to post your absolutes as fact, and bump them to the top everyday.... No one knows for sure how the T206's were printed, but it's a lot of fun for most of us to research and speculate ..

Be well Brian

[tedzan]

Brian W

You want to know what is "RIDICULOUS" ?

The following wise-ass comments by Erick........


On Thur 8/14....I reply to Erick's question........

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

Thur 8/14....Erick replies to my above response to him

Originally Posted by t206hound

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?

Friday AM.....My wife and go on vacation to Cape May, NJ for 3 days


Meanwhile, Erick posts the following snide remarks to my non-response while I'm on vacation.

Fri 8/15..... still curious

Originally Posted by t206hound

Curious as to the answer to my questions...

Sat 8/16..... even more curious

Originally Posted by t206hound

Still waiting...

Sun 8/17..... well

Originally Posted by t206hound

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

Furthermore, upon my return I try to answer his question(s) and try to have a reasonable discussion with him regarding T206's.

But, all he keeps repeating is...."he's confused".



So, pardon me if I am quite ticked-off with his attitude.

Look, I don't expect that people agree with my theories. I present my ideas in order to stimulate some meaningful thoughts and discussion.

And, you damn well know this from our interactions in past years....when I considered you a great friend and had a lot of respect for you.



TED Z
..

[Runscott]

Ted, you know I've almost always got your back on this stuff, but...

I'm not seeing anything other than a difference of opinion. You seem really offended that others won't simply accept your theory as fact. Your theory does seem as good as any, and Erick is admitting that you could be right. But he's also showing how you could be wrong. I see no problem with that.

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by tedzan

So, pardon me if I am quite ticked-off with his attitude.

Hey Ted, I thought I had apologized for those posts, but looking back at the thread it appears I did not. So I'll do it now...

I apologize, Ted, for those snarky comments while you were on vacation. They were uncalled for; I was being impatient. With all sincerity, I'm sorry.

Note, that I thought that we did have a nice conversation at the end of that thread.

Anyway, since you don't want me to post any more in your threads, I'll respect your wishes, and this will be the last. Feel free to comment in any of mine, however.