Where have all the T206 uncut sheets gone.... ?

[Runscott]

Thanks Tim. I was looking for that page, but the link was sending me somewhere else (I think ).

As far as presenting 'the most minute detail', it doesn't have to be 'minute' . I just think that you are keeping it TOO simple. You have alluded to backing facts that aren't being presented, and without those, it's a very interesting theory, but not convincing enough to state so definitively that other theories are rubbish. So far I'm getting the feeling that some of the evidence behind it is being taken by you all to mean something that could be interpreted differently;i.e - the advertising, as I've already explained (as have others).

Don't get me wrong - yours is as good as any presented. I doubt anyone would dispute that. Well, maybe a couple

Thanks,
Scott

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Scott - The closest explanation we give to what you're looking for is on the Print Group 1 page on T206Rsource.com.

It states the following about the Sovereign 150

Original 150 Subjects

Throughout the T206 set, the Sovereign back brand is an important key for understanding the set's composition. During the early production of the 150 Series, subjects from group 1 were printed with the Sovereign 150 back. Though this group totals 159 subjects, the Sovereign 150 checklist is complete at 150 subjects. This Sovereign checklist is thought to be the original 150 subjects in the set, with the additional nine being updated or added to the print group after the Sovereign 150 printing -- or in the case of Magie/Magee, corrected prior to this printing.

We would love to breakdown every single conclusion that we draw on the site to it's most minute detail, but we felt it best to keep as much as possible simple and to the point.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by Runscott

As far as presenting 'the most minute detail', it doesn't have to be 'minute' . I just think that you are keeping it TOO simple.

Thanks,
Scott

We knew when the site went live that some areas would need additional information added. We decided that once we launched the best approach would be to listen to the feedback of the readers. If we receive questions about specific sections and it's evident more content is needed to clarify certain points we will be adding it. The entire site is a work in progress and will grow over time. Thanks for the feedback.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

We knew when the site went live that some areas would need additional information added. We decided that once we launched the best approach would be to listen to the feedback of the readers. If we receive questions about specific sections and it's evident more content is needed to clarify certain points we will be adding it. The entire site is a work in progress and will grow over time. Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks Tim. Sadly, I don't think the 'where did Plank and Wagner start off?' discussion is going anywhere without your backing evidence, but that's fine. We have a couple of theories with very little to back them up and that's basically where we were a year ago.

If you ever decide to publish your evidence that backs up your theory, I will be the first to read it.