Possible variation T205 Nee Printers mark on card vs No printers mark

[tedzan]

Andrew

Here are my Batch and Dunn....no hint of printer's marks.

Regarding Nee....most of his cards have the same printer's mark. But, here is one currently on ebay that does not......
http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-T205-Hassan...-/160360451936







I agree with Peter....in the bigger picture of T205's, with or without these printer's alignment marks, it's no big deal.

Incidently Peter, as a long-time Yankees fan, I sympathize with you. But, it's tough to beat Pettitte in October. He has an impressive post-season
record. Anyhow, I'm rooting for the Phillies this year. Or the Rangers, since I'm a fan of Cliff Lee.



TED Z

[T206Collector]

While I can appreciate why T205 fans are envious of all the T206 attention, I have to say that even if that mark showed up on a T206 border it would not be worth much either. Nor would it be considered a "variation." There are all sorts of mysterious lines in the borders, front and back, of plenty of T206 cards.

[asoriano]

These "printer's marks" are actually pretty common in regards to the minor leaguers. This, in no way, is a printer's proof.

[canjond]

Ted, et al. This might not be the correct thread to bring this up in, but since we are talking about printing in terms of T205s, it's somewhat appropriate. I know the board has hashed out in the past the possible sheet arrangements for T205s and T206s. However, the theories never discuss the possibility that cards were printed both horizontally and vertically on the same sheet. We know for a fact that both Obaks, and T207s were arranged both horrizontally and vertically on a single sheet. Why can't the same be true for T205s and T206s?

[canjond]

To illustrate my points...

Obak uncut sheet which clearly shows horizontal and vertical cards:



T207 card clearly showing the upper frame of two cards on the left, hence proving that T207s were printed both horizontally and vertically on the same sheet:



Disclaimer - I do not own either item.

[steve B]

The one on Ebay might have the mark, but it may be scuffed removing the mark. I see a bit of the right end of the mark, the rest is tough to tell from the scan.

The Ebay one does have a couple other interesting things besides maybe not having the mark. The line in the sky is one, may be a print streak, may be a plate scratch. In the left border there's a light line roughly along the line between cards. The tiny bit of the card showing at the left is also a Newark frame.

Steve B

[tedzan]

I don't think we can compare Schmidt Lithography Co. of San Francisco, who produced the OBAK series, with American Lithographic Co. of NYC.

Schmidt Lithography (as is evident by your scan) employed a 33-inch wide press track, while American Litho. (ALC) used a much narrower press
track. My research indicates that (ALC) used a 19-inch press track.

Indeed, Schmidt Litho. (circa 1910) was one of the best in the Lithographic industry.


TED Z

[canjond]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I don't think we can compare Schmidt Lithography Co. of San Francisco, who produced the OBAK series, with American Lithographic Co. of NYC.

Schmidt Lithography (as is evident by your scan) employed a 33-inch wide press track, while American Litho. (ALC) used a much narrower press
track. My research indicates that (ALC) used a 19-inch press track.

Indeed, Schmidt Litho. (circa 1910) was one of the best in the Lithographic industry.


TED Z

Ted - T207s, I thought, were printed at ALC? If this is, indeed, the case, the card pictured above seems to clearly indicate that certain cards on the sheet were oriented differently, does it not? On the left side of the T207 I pictured above, you can clearly see two distinct top borders of other cards. This has to mean that while most cards were oriented vertically across the sheet, there was at least 1 row oriented horizontally on the same sheet.

This may illustrate it better:

[tedzan]

The T80 Military series (50 cards) were printed in the Spring of 1911. Actual records from American Litho. dates these cards. Judging from their style
of their artwork, it's a fair guess that the T205 Minor Leaguer's (ML) were drawn and printed about the same time. These cards were American Litho's
initial venture into their Gold-bordered series. Visible on the T80 card of the U.S. Captain is a hint of similar printer's mark that's seen on the T205 ML
cards (it is not visible on the Turkish Commander).


...............................................\/





TED Z

Oh believe me guys I don't think this card is worth any more than the $125 I paid for it. I was more interested in hearing the opinions of what you guys thought. As far as printers marks on card for cutting reasons is valid but what about some of thos gold less T205's that had none and not all of them have marks. I think it was Leon that had scans of them before. Even the off cut T205's that have tops or bottoms of cards showing don't have them.

Peter I definitely am not envious of the T206's I am glad my 205's fly under the radar. Makes it easier to get for cheaper and they hold value better IMO. Any givin day I could buy 60% of a t206 set. Try getting 30% in a week on T205's. It took me 8 months to hit 50% and I was buying alot. Granit they need to be 4's+ but they are just not as many.

I enjoy dragging up this because it seems the only way to break the monotony and actually learn more about the cards. They are not discussed very much and not a whole lot is known. Maybe there is, but I enjoy learning what I can about the hobby.

[Bridwell]

Jon,
Thanks for that scan of the T207 Adams. Very interesting that the sheet would be printed like that!

Andrew (and all),
I enjoy that collectors can find interesting subsets to collect. T206 has many of them, but T205 does also. I never thought anyone would be collecting cards with printers marks. I wouldn't ever call these 'proofs'. It's an unusal variation to be interested in. But that's what makes this hobby so much fun. I never thought anybody would collect miscut T206's, but look how popular those are getting!

Ron

[teetwoohsix]

Have there ever been any T205 proofs found? If so, does anyone have a scan of one? Thanks-

Clayton

Clayton I think Leon and Josh have a few. Maybe they will be kind enough to post them

[steve B]

I had a look at some other Newark cards on Ebay earlier today. Lee has a similar mark, or is without a mark. The two with and without mark also show a difference of the gold at the lower left corner.

Just like on the Obak sheet from a different printer, the cutting marks wouldn't have been on every card.

Steve B

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Oh believe me guys I don't think this card is worth any more than the $125 I paid for it. I was more interested in hearing the opinions of what you guys thought. As far as printers marks on card for cutting reasons is valid but what about some of thos gold less T205's that had none and not all of them have marks. I think it was Leon that had scans of them before. Even the off cut T205's that have tops or bottoms of cards showing don't have them.

Peter I definitely am not envious of the T206's I am glad my 205's fly under the radar. Makes it easier to get for cheaper and they hold value better IMO. Any givin day I could buy 60% of a t206 set. Try getting 30% in a week on T205's. It took me 8 months to hit 50% and I was buying alot. Granit they need to be 4's+ but they are just not as many.

I enjoy dragging up this because it seems the only way to break the monotony and actually learn more about the cards. They are not discussed very much and not a whole lot is known. Maybe there is, but I enjoy learning what I can about the hobby.

[sb1]

You will not find a T205 with printer alignment marks on the gold border, they will only be found in the white area of the Minor league cards or on cards where the gold was never applied, as the marks were printed on the sheets before the gold was applied. I have a Frick with a large crosshair on the bottom border.

[tedzan]

Regarding your question......
" Ted - T207s, I thought, were printed at ALC? "

It's my guess that these two 1912 sets, T207 & Canadian Tobacco set (C46), were produced by a different printer contracted out by ATC.
A printer that had barrels of Brown ink

So, it's my opinion, that the T207's were not produced by American Litho. Both of these sets do not fit the American Litho. style or format.
The T207 lacks the major Stars that were in the T206 & T205 sets. Furthermore, the T207 is made up of many obscure players not found in
those preceding sets. Factors such as these (and some others) have led me to this conclusion.

But. I'm sure others may differ.

Regards,

TED Z

First thing. The T205 Nee printers mark Ted pointed out is part of the ink process and thus can be found on every Nee card made. There are definitly Nee with printers mark and Nee without and both show a varying difference in ink process on the borders. There is a full band of yellow ink below my card making me believe that it was the bottom of the sheet and may have actually been the center card. If you look close just above Nee's head there is a small + sign in the background. Of the 10+ viewed with printers marks none have had this on them. Under a loupe it is a solid+ sign.

Also the card is devoid of any gold on the bottom section. The other printers marked cards are exhibiting the same issue. All without have the gold in the bottom by the name. Here is a great example of another Nee without printers mark showing the yellow ink at bottom. Best example to show compared to mine. Same condition and characters just no printers mark.

This SGC card is not mine.

I say there is a Nee "printers mark variation" and a Nee "without mark".

All the qualifications are there right???

[Matt]

Andrew - isn't it just the prodduct of some being printed at the bottom of a sheet and some in the middle of the sheet? That's very different then, say, the Wilhelm suffered variations where the printing plate was changed to correct a problem with the type.

Originally Posted by Matt

Andrew - isn't it just the prodduct of some being printed at the bottom of a sheet and some in the middle of the sheet? That's very different then, say, the Wilhelm suffered variations where the printing plate was changed to correct a problem with the type.

No sir. I guess the anomaly of missing gold ink is not credible enough. It does not take a plate change to make a variation. Cycle Mathewson, the crazy doyle NY thing that was just being discussed a few days ago over a silly period and part of a letter not being printed. Wasn't that 2 more T206 variations found??

Can anyone prove to me that what I have found is inaccurate

[Matt]

Cycle Mathewson is a plate change - there was an error on the ones printed with the Cycle back that had his record at 37-1 that was fixed for the other back printings.