T220 Silver - Uncut Edition

[G1911]

This leaves us 3 cards to place and 2 that do not exist (McAuliffe and Ryan).

1) Choyinski clearly is below Coburn, and below and to the left of Lavigne. That rip running from the bottom left panel (non-existent now) ran up through Choyinski, through Coburn's corner, and into Lavigne's panel. Choyinski has the white border at left, telling us some of the far left column's cards had the white trimmed off and some did not.

2) The bottom left panel has to be heavily damaged, as the Choyinski makes clear. It clearly is not Randall or Jas. J. Corbett in this slot.

3) Nothing proves conclusively Randall or Corbett cannot be the bottom right corner card. There cuts do not seem to quite match the Carney, using the Carney in hand and the highest resolution photos I have of Randall and J Corbett.

4) However, the right of Randall's panel (the top of the image) seems to fit into the rather poor cut on the left edge of Peter Jackson. Out of the 3 options, I think this one clearly fits the best here.

5) Same with Corbett, it ain't solid when I'm comparing a scan of a fairly clean sheet with an edge I have in hand. He seems to fit well with the dimensions of the Randall being below him, and against the less than perfect cut of Frayne. He doesn't seem to fit quite right with Jackson, or Randall above him, or with Carney to his left.

So I'm not 100% on Corbett and Randall, but I'm pretty sure. I hope the owners do not cut them up and destroy any chance we will one day be certain.

That leaves us the two bottom corners as Ryan and McAuliffe, but of course there is no way to deduce which was which. Unless we get a miscut showing a card from print rows 8 or 9 of Choyinski/Dempsey/Ryan/McAuliffe angled the right way, we will presumably never know.

I do have a single 'proof' card of McAuliffe, heavily worn. It is the only single proof card known to the hobby. Whether it came from this proof sheet or a partially completed sheet during production is a mystery.

I have added Choyinski and Randall visually with cards, Corbett with my iPad (I don't have 8 Jas. J. Corbett's to array ), and Ryan/McAuliffe adjacent in their mystery spots.

[Marslife]

wow :-)

SALIVATING....

[G1911]

I finally found something else on Fullgraff and tobacco. Frank G. Fullgraff, as it turns out, has a patent to his name, for an illuminated advertising display sign that folds ("Cigars" in the image example). Filed in 1923, granted in 1927. His attorney was an 'Arthur L. Kent', I believe it says, who does not appear to be his counsel in his lawsuit a decade before.

The first image is from it's section in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office 356, page 476, and the second the actual patent. Apparently he had some competency with electronics as well as his many other interests.

And, just linking the side research from last month into the ledger and Turkey Red that stemmed from this so everything can be traced from one place: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=309711

[D. Bergin]

Not sure I saw this thread before with them all laid out like that in sheet form. Still blows my mind these ever came up for sale.

Congrats again.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Not sure I saw this thread before with them all laid out like that in sheet form. Still blows my mind these ever came up for sale.

Congrats again.

It amazes me how much stuff just disappears for a century or more. All our cards had no real value for most of their life, but just sitting there and never getting cleaned out seems a miracle. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t cleaned out their attic in the last hundred years. The Donovan at all was only a hypothetical card until 2006, 96 years after production. Now we have at least 12 known from just the last 16 years. Surely there is plenty more still out there to find. I’m glad it works this way, never know when we’ll next find something awesome and new that helps fill in the mysteries. The hobby would not be so fun if there wasn’t that element of the unknown out there. One of the big joys of vintage collecting as opposed to modern, in my book, is this element.

[Exhibitman]

with a 5 x 5 layout I wonder why Donovan and Corbett are so hard to find? I know with the 1948 Leaf set, the sheets are 7 x 7, so something replaced the Graziano as the 49th subject. Since there are no replacements for those two cards (it is a straight 25 card set), I wonder if there are any DPs?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

with a 5 x 5 layout I wonder why Donovan and Corbett are so hard to find? I know with the 1948 Leaf set, the sheets are 7 x 7, so something replaced the Graziano as the 49th subject. Since there are no replacements for those two cards (it is a straight 25 card set), I wonder if there are any DPs?

I strongly suspect the answer is: no DP's. Using my own collection (I have too many of these), POP reports, and unique raw examples I have tracked by the image, I don't think there are any DP's. Everything comes out within the regular range of norms for sets with equal production. I had assumed that DP'ing was likely originally because it would be the easiest way to deal with having to remove 2 subjects from this sheet while being resource efficient, but it seems this didn't happen. I was fairly surprised.

Its possible these 16 slots were replaced in a more complicated way. Instead of, say, taking Jack Burke's panel and DP'ing it in Donovan's place as well as it's own original slot, they might have copied 2 copies of 4 different cards, or 1 copy of 8 different, creating a population disparity but not one big enough to really track or demonstrate or veer outside of the norms we see for known 1:1 printed sets.

It might be that they just printed these slots and cut them out before packing. Or the slots were simply left blank. It also may be part of why there are silver and white borders. Wave printing of 25 appears to have been a norm; series not all done and distributed at once. It may be that the silver series was not intended to only get the first wave (the lack of factory 30 is odd and also demonstrates an incomplete run), but with the complications with these two cards (whatever those were; earlier we found op-eds by Donovan harshly denouncing smoking, but he was also personally known by Fullgraff) and the added expense, they hit pause, ditched the border, fixed the Donovan and Coburn cards and did whatever was going on with Corbett, and started printing wave 1 again (with, I think the evidence suggests, a batch of 649 backs first [Donovan yellow sky, Coburn blue man, etc.], then 649's and 30's at about the same time in multiple runs), and then wave 2 featuring an aesthetic redesign of the art style for the single fighter cards to complete the series. The ATC ledger and clean printing of the Tolstoi's both indicate Tolstoi production was at a remove from the Mecca runs. Dixie Queen being before or after Tolstoi, but certainly after Mecca began for the same reasons that none of the defects in early Mecca printing are found in the DQ's. I had thought DQ's were probably a reprint like T213-2 and -3, but the Fullgraff notebook seems to indicate they weren't.

That these sheets and their project managers notebook appeared from unknown but clearly different sources at the same time over a century later is another oddity. Whoever consigned Fullgraff's personal ledger may have other material of knowledge value of his.