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

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Eric S



One of the problems I have with Erick's approach is that the dimensions of the Lash p/c have not been stated, which would provide a frame of reference.

It appears to me to be the size of a 3" x 5" card, but I'm not sure of this.

Another problem is that the various layouts in the diagrams presented are of an arbitrary nature. It's just guesswork as to how many of these Lash p/c's
overlayed the hypothetical T206 scrap sheet.




TED Z
.

Totally agree. The overlay is arbitrary if the Lash p/c dimensions are not known and even if they are it doesn't solve the problem on it's own. The p/c may not hold any value to sheet size at the end of the day but it does give some reference. It's truly an irrelevant concern in life but more exciting to read about than hair follicles in the printing process. T206 is the most over analyzed set in existence right? Premiums given to printing flaws in a 105 year old process is kind of funny.

[Jantz]

Thank you Ted.

It was good talking to you at the National too.

Its always one of my highlights of the National talking T206s with you.


Jantz

[tedzan]

I may have asked you this before......
Do you have (or have seen) any of the T206 cards in the 350/460 series with two different names (top & bottom) on them ?

Also, I've asked Doug Bacon this same question, and he does not have any of these from the 350/460 series in his collection.


TED Z
.

[Jantz]

Hi Ted

By my records, there hasn't been any two different name T206s with a 350/460 back found yet.



Jantz