 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-16-2010, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Tim C.
What is all this "double-speak" of yours......
" Using the number of examples in each given series and relating it to the printing process doesn't work. For example the 150 Only group of 12 that Ted cited above. Their only relationship is that they were not continued into the 350 series. There are no indicators that they were related in the printing process but actually the contrary as some can be found with backs others can not. The completed number of printed examples over a period of time does not give us proof of the number printed at a specific time. " We both know damn well that the first (150) Series of Major Leaguers consists of a total of 156 subjects. And, if we consider the PIEDMONT 150 run....all 156 cards were printed. NOW TELL ME (simply without any of your rationalizations or diversions), do these 156 subjects with PIEDMONT 150 backs divide evenly by 12 ? I really don't understand you, you are certainly smarter than this conjecture of yours...... You are taking ONE example, the 34 HINDU SL cards, and attempting to arrive at a baseless premise that American Litho. printed T206's on 34-card sheets. Well, consider this theory: these SL HINDU cards were printed on a 36-card sheet. The 2 missing cards may have been Rockenfeld & Seitz. As you well know these two guys were with their same teams from 1908-1910. Furthermore, Seitz was the batting Champ in his League. Back in 1980, when I first started collecting T206's, Rockenfeld and Seitz were identified with HINDU backs. What has happened to these two, is certainly a mystery. However, if the 2 missing cards from this 36-card sheet are not them, then ALC most likely Double-Printed two SL to fill-out that 36-card sheet. And, how many times are we going to re-hash this ? "Is it a coincidence that a pre printed sheet of Sweet Caporal 150's were over printed with Factory 649 and the number of cards in that set is 34?" Once again....you persist to dispute my contention...... That the SWEET CAPORAL 150/f649 set was printed on a 36-card sheet (and that one card was not issued for whatever reasons)....hence, this is a 35-card sub-set. Well then, check-out this is excerpt...... "150/350 subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back are: Alperman, Bates, Bransfield, Bresnahan (Portrait), Clarke (Cleveland), Davis (Chicago), Davis (H. on Front), Delehanty (Washington), Ewing, Gilbert, Goode, Griffith (Portrait), Johnson (Portrait), Jones (St. Louis), Killian (Pitching), Lajoie (Throwing), Lake (New York), Liebhardt, Manning (Batting), Marquard (Hands at Thighs), Matthewson (White Cap), McIntyre (Brooklyn), McQuillan (Ball in Hand), Nicholls, O’Leary (Portrait), Owen, Pastorius, Ritchey, Schlei (Catching), Schmidt (Throwing), Sheckard (No Glove), Spencer, Wagner (Bat on Left) and Wilhelm (Hands at Chest).The availability of Powers from the 150-only group with this back raises the number of subjects confirmed with the Sweet Caporal 150/649 back to 35." Do you know from where this was excerpted ? And, please, simply respond with the source and a name ? ? TED Z 
|
|
#2
10-16-2010, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Also, there being 6 (or 7) horizontal poses has nothing to do with how the cards were printed. The horizontal poses are printed exactly the same way as the vertical ones and could have been present at any place on the sheet.
|
|
#3
10-16-2010, 08:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is a good thread and an interesting discussion but we're leaving out what seems to be (to me at least) a critical factor. It's great to say that a sheet was X columns wide by Y rows high and contained Z number of cards, or that a series or subset of cards is divisible by 6 or 12 or 34.
But unlike the uncut T212 or E-card sheets, the evidence would suggest that a very great many (maybe almost all), but not quite all, T206s were printed in columns of the same image. We may one day figure out the size of a sheet, the number of columns involved, etc., but it wouldn't tell us how many different fronts were printed on one sheet. Or whether all sheets had the same number of different fronts. Tracking and comparing available backs and "no-prints", as Ted has been doing so well for years now on this board, is essential, but, unfortunately, an analysis of that data suggests that nearly all fronts were printed on more than one sheet. For example, in the 350-460 series no card has both Red Hindu and Uzit backs, which suggests a nice clean picture of the way T206s were printed. However, some of each group can be found with Drum and American Beauty 350 No Frame backs. I don't see how that is possible unless the same fronts were printed from different sheets at different times in different groupings. I hope someone can provide the key, but it just isn't an easy thing to unlock.
|
|
#4
10-16-2010, 09:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
At this point all of the numbers presented by myself or Ted are just opinion. Hopefully through positive sharing of information and further research we will one day know for certain how a T206 sheet was comprised.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 46 uncut sheets available - $2,000 OBO | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 6 | 03-31-2011 12:10 AM |
| Very rare modern UNCUT SHEETS | Archive | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 04-19-2009 11:09 PM |
| more M116 -- any uncut sheets known? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 08-03-2008 12:47 AM |
| 1910 e93 Standard Caramel set on uncut sheets | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 6 | 07-16-2008 07:32 PM |
| Fake Fro-joy uncut sheets | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 06-26-2004 01:57 PM |
Hybrid Mode
