T206 Printer’s Scrap 101

Christy Mathewson “Yellow-Brown” Printer’s Scrap

Recently, I’ve received a few emails recently from friends and readers asking me to explain the term “printer’s scrap” as it relates to the T206 set.  I figured it would be a good idea to post something that everyone can read.  In fact, I am probably long overdue in writing an article on the subject.

The T206 set offers a myriad of collecting niches from the straight-forward, to more esoteric pursuits.  Of the many mysteries and intricacies of the T206 set,  printer’s scrap may be the least understood.  Because each example is unique, it can be very difficult to figure out a price for a given card.  As a result, most collectors do not feel comfortable buying them, and tend to stay away.  With this article, I hope to make you feel a little more comfortable the next time you come across a piece of T206 printer’s scrap.

The Short and Simple Definition:

Any T206 that was discarded by the printers prior to production being completed.

The Longer, More Detailed Definition:

The term “printer’s scrap” can be used to describe cards that vary greatly in appearance.  The one thing that all printer’s scrap cards have in common is they were not inserted into packages of cigarettes/tobacco and were not released to the public.  They were either thrown away at the factory and saved by neighborhood kids, or perhaps brought home by the printers and given to kids (or even adults) who collected them.   This means that a sheet of cards could have gone through every step of the printing process, but then been discarded for some reason prior to being cut.  If that sheet of cards was cut up by hand rather than being factory-cut and inserted into packages of cigarettes, the card is considered printer’s scrap.  On the other hand, some of the more striking examples of printer’s scrap cards feature drastic printing mistakes, blank backs, or multiple players and/or back advertisements.

Let’s take a look at the various types of T206 printer’s scrap:

Brown Old Mill Southern Leaguers

The most sought after examples of printer’s scrap are the Brown Old Mill Southern Leaguers.  These cards were created accidentally.  Old Mill Southern League backs were supposed to be printed with black ink, but at least one sheet was printed with brown ink by mistake*.  After the sheets were printed, the mistake was caught.  All Brown Old Mill Southern Leaguers are hand-cut, and it is believed that none of them were inserted into packages of Old Mill Cigarettes.  This back is either the rarest or second rarest T206 back, depending on whether you consider the Ty Cobb back a T206.  Brown Old Mill Southern Leaguers tend to sell in the low five-figure range.

Johnny Bates Proof
Proofs

These are the early versions of the artwork for each pose.  Some proofs feature the caption at the bottom while others do not.  Each proof has cross marks on the borders of each edge that were used to help the printers with alignment.  Proofs tend to sell in the $10,000 range, give or take.

Geroge Merritt with the Ghost of Sam Crawford
Multi-Player Prints and Ghosts & Multi-Strike Backs

These were essentially test sheets used by the printers to calibrate the equipment.  You can imagine most of the test sheets would have been discarded after use, but luckily for us some were saved.  Values vary greatly depending on how visually striking or unique each card is, but it’s rare to find one of these for less than $1,000.

Blank Backs

Blank Backs are the easiest form of printer’s scrap to identify.  Sometimes people will have differing opinions on whether a card is scrap or not, but with Blank Backs, there is no such confusion.  They exist in varying levels of completion.  The fronts of some Blank Backs look like a completely finished product,  and make you wonder why they were never finished.  Some are missing one or more color passes while others have registration or “ghosting” issues as the telltale signs of why they were scrapped.  Blank backs are currently selling for $800 and up with individual prices varying based on condition, player, and whether the card has any additional printing oddities other than the blank back.

 

Tom Downey “Yellow-Brown” Printer’s Scrap
Yellow-Brown Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30

Though they were printed with normal backs, the “yellow/brown” scraps received only the yellow, brown, and black color passes.  Very distinctive and unique, copies in Fair condition and above will typically sell for in excess of $1,000.

Bill Bradley Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30 “No Print”
Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30 “No Prints”

I plan to devote an entire article to these at some point, but the short version is this:  These sheets of cards were almost completely finished, but they had one final step of the production process that still needed to be completed.  They were supposed to get the Factory 42 Scroll Overprint, but for some reason, they never did, and were instead cut up by hand and kept together for over 100 years.  The person who cut them did a very nice job, and the cards were kept in very nice condition all these years.  Two or three years ago the cards were brought into a card shop in the Midwest and slowly sold over the course of a few months.  There were hundreds of cards in the collection.  Most were poses that are in the Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30 checklist, but the ones that are known as “Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30 No Prints” are the most sought after and valuable cards in the group.  In my opinion, it’s a little too early to say what the market is for these as many of them went from eBay directly into collections and not too many have been offered again publicly.

Harry Krause Hand-Cut and Missing Color Passes
Hand-Cut and Missing Color Passes

These are easy to spot because their fronts look a bit odd due to the missing color pass(es).  Their value is directly tied to three factors:

  1. How striking the missing color passes are
  2. Registration (the more messed up, the more desirable)
  3. The borders (the larger the better, and the more jagged the edges are, the better)

Hand-Cut but not Missing any Color Passes

Because these look very similar to a card that was inserted into a cigarette pack, it can be difficult to determine whether a card should be given the “printer’s scrap” moniker or not.  The Bob Groom below is a good example of one that’s hard to classify.  All four edges are hand-cut, but the card is of normal size.  In my opinion, it has to have been cut from a sheet by hand because if not, it would have to have had huge borders in order for someone to have been able to trim each side and have the finished product still have roughly normal dimensions.  While rare, these cards do not sell at much of a premium over a similar factory-cut T206.  In my opinion they are among the best values in the T206 world.

Hopefully these general guidelines will help you to evaluate any T206 printer’s scrap cards you come across.  The general rule is pretty simple:  The cooler the card, the more you should expect to have to pay for it.  The most dramatic examples tend to get the most attention and sell for the highest prices.  However, the less visually striking examples offer a combination of scarcity and affordability that can appeal to collectors of all budgets.

*I’m not certain if there were one or more Old Mill Southern League sheets printed with brown backs.  I’ll look into it further, and if you happen to know, please shoot me an email (luke@thatt206life.com) or leave a comment.

Huggins and Scott Auctions off Three T206 Mis-cuts from the same Piedmont 350 Sheet

Huggins and Scott recently sold this very interesting trio of mis-cut Piedmont 350 backs.  The lot, which ended on February 8, 2018, sold for a final price of $840 after the juice.  Though they were not advertised as such, these three cards all came from the same sheet.

I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the provenance of these cards.  However, I believe they may be Printer’s Scrap.  This means that they were not included in packages of Piedmont Cigarettes, and instead left American Lithographic Company with one of the printers, or were discarded and saved by someone else.

The fact that they are so severely mis-cut is the first clue.  By itself, that doesn’t really tell us much though.  The second clue is the condition of each card.  They are all in very nice, uniform shape.  The third clue is the presence of both Seymour and Cicotte in the group.  The pink print marks below connect Seymour and Cicotte, proving they were right next to each other on a Piedmont 150 sheet.  We don’t know for sure that the layout remained the same for Piedmont 350 sheets, but it’s another piece of circumstantial evidence, all of which points in the direction of these three cards being printed on the same sheet.  To read more about the Seymour-Cicotte connection, and Piedmont 150 sheets in general, check out the links at the bottom of this article to other articles I’ve written on the subject.

The final clue is that all three cards came from the same collection.  It would be hard to imagine these three cards looking as similar as they do without them having been stored together for many years.  In the same vein, it would be hard to imagine them being released in packages of Piedmont Cigarettes and eventually making their way into the same collection without exhibiting different levels of wear.  However, there’s always the chance that these three cards were inserted into one carton of cigarettes and a few packs were purchased by the same smoker.

There are other examples of similar cards floating around in the hobby.  They are often referred to as “no name” cards because they are mis-cut in such a way that the caption has been cut off.  If I saw just one of these cards by itself, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it was Printer’s Scrap.  Though they are severely off-center, they are certainly factory-cut.   The vast majority of cards that we refer to as “Printer’s Scrap” will exhibit rough, hand-cut edges because the cards were scrapped as a full sheet, and cut up by hand.  There’s no way to know for sure, but my guess is the sheet these three cards were printed on did not pass quality control (for obvious reasons) and the cards were never inserted into packs of Piedmont Cigarettes.

In the next couple of weeks, I’ll delve deeper into these topics.  Writing about these three cards (which may or may not be scrap) made me realize I haven’t written anything about the topic on this site yet.  So, next week’s article will be an overview of T206 Printer’s Scrap.  I’ll define the term, talk about all the different kinds, and show off some really cool examples.  Two Sundays from now, we’ll take a look at other examples of T206 sheet-mates that have survived together all these years.

Links and Sources:

Pat Romolo’s T206 Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Project (Part 1/2)

Pat Romolo’s T206 Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Project Part 2/2

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part One

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part Two

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part Three

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part Four

https://hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=25159&catid=135&lotno=412

Home Run! T206 Broad Leaf 460 Uncovered in Auction Lot

1 Comment on Home Run! T206 Broad Leaf 460 Uncovered in Auction Lot

T206 collector Erick Summers, known on net54 as “t206hound” has sniffed out another elusive prize.  This time, he found one of the crown jewels of the T206 set, a Broad Leaf 460 back.  And not just any Broad Leaf 460.  The front of the card features Hall of Famer Frank “Home Run” Baker.  I caught up with Erick to learn more about his most recent T206 discovery.

Q:  This is amazing!  Congrats!  So, where did you find it?
A:  It was affixed to a poster along with the other cards in this Huggins & Scott auction lot:  
 
Q:  What made you decide to go after that lot?
 
A:  After being out of the hobby for about a year, I recently sold my Sweet Caporal 460 Factory 42 subset and had some money to play with, so I had been looking for something interesting.  There were two lots in the Huggins auction that caught my eye, but this one really intrigued me.  Of the 111 cards, there were 16 HOF including Cobb, Young and Johnson.  There was also an Elberfeld Washington Portrait, a card I’ve never owned.  With such a high percentage of “high value” cards (even in lower condition), I figured I could get the thrill of treasure hunting for a tougher back, but still get close to my money back in resale in the likely scenario of all common backs.
 
Q:  Have you ever bought any similar display pieces with the backs obscured?  
 
A:  I’ve been tempted before, but never pulled the trigger.  I’ve soaked cards in the past, so I’m familiar with the practice.  These cards were all rough, so I wasn’t worried too much about ending up with cards with back damage in the event that the cards didn’t come off clean.  I was more concerned about cards being offset as it was apparent that the cards on front and back of the display were not aligned.  I was hoping I wouldn’t have to “sacrifice” a card on one side to remove another.
 
Q:  If so, have you ever found any rare backs in similar fashion?
A:  Never.  In fact, this purchase looked like it was going to yield nothing but Sweet Caporals.  It wasn’t until I got to the two Crawfords that I came across a different back.  The Crawford was one of only four Sovereigns to go along with 106 Sweet Caps.  I had been texting Johnny Vanderbeck and the last message I received from him before seeing the Broadleaf was “I’m hoping you have something really crazy in there.”  It took me two more hours before I had moved on to the Baker.   I got glimpse of the back of the Baker, and I saw that the back was brown.  Initially I was thinking it was a Hindu as I didn’t recall that Baker isn’t available with that advertisement.  Imagine my surprise when I saw “Leaf” on the back.
Q:  Have you decided if you will keep it? 
 
A:  I’m honestly not much of a collector as I enjoy the hunt more than acquisition.  However, in this case I’m going to keep the card.   The other 110 cards, however, will likely find new homes.

Collecting a T206 Master Set with Ron Kornacki

 

Q:  How (and when) did you get into collecting T206s?

I started collecting T206s at the end of 2010. I have always had some interest in them but when I started going to card shows in the mid 1980s, I just didn’t feel comfortable buying something I knew very little about. At that time I was only 12 years old and didn’t have many ways of learning about the set except for the basic card value catalogs that were out at that time. I remember being at the shows and only a few tables having the older tobacco cards and there were always older guys at those tables and it felt like it was not a kid type of card display. It just didn’t feel too inviting. Too bad I didn’t just jump in there the same way I would when I was buying gold coins at the age of 12.

Q:  How did you get interested in back collecting?

My first Tolstoi back card was Bob Groom. A month after that purchase, I bought a PSA 4 Bob Groom Polar Bear. This was only a few months into collecting T206s. I think I only had five different cards when I added my first duplicate front with a different back. That purchase opened up a lot of research on different combinations that were out there and also led me to net54. The more I read and researched, the more I was hooked on the idea of back collecting.

Q:  Was there a certain card that piqued your interest in collecting cards based on their backs?

Besides the Bob Groom being my first duplicate front, the Hal Chase Blue Portrait was my first T206 project that I had more focus on than anything else at that time. I got up to 15 different backs before I jumped to another area of the set.


Q:  How did you decide to go after a T206 Master Set?

It seemed like many collectors were going after certain card front runs of the different backs. There were many that I wanted to collect along with the basic 520-card set that it just made sense to go after them all. I figured that I could just buy cards when they were priced right and at some point I would be close to many goals that I wanted.

Q:  What is your favorite back (and why)?

I can honestly say that I don’t really have a favorite back. If value is left out, I enjoy them all equally. If I had to choose at least one, it would be the Carolina Brights. I actually like some of the non T206 backs more, such as Mello Mint, Pirate, and Obak series one’s with or without the border.

Q:  Working on a master set is a huge and potentially overwhelming project.  Do you break it down into smaller projects in order to make it more manageable/approachable?

I bounce around the set so much. I don’t think I’ve ever been 100 percent focused on a goal in the master set. Every couple of weeks I’m changing my mind on what to go after. I can say that I actually stay away from Piedmont backs unless they are factory 42s or Elite 11s, and I was staying away from Sweet Caporals until recently. There’s just so many Piedmonts that there’s no point in purchasing them until there’s nothing else to buy.

Q:  If so, which of these projects is closest to completion?

Even though I don’t focus 100 percent on one thing, after acquiring over 1000 different cards with nearly no Piedmonts or Sweet Caporals, you’re bound to be close to some subsets. I have a complete Old Mill Southern League set. I’m two cards away from a Sovereign 460 set, and eight cards away from a Polar Bear set.

Q:  I recall you saying on net54 that you chose to go after a master set because you wanted a project that you couldn’t complete.  That struck a chord with me because my collecting goals are similar in that I can never be finished.  Can you elaborate a little on why that appeals to you?  (No worries if not, I just think it’s a really interesting thing to think about.  I think a lot of people collect sets, then sell them and keep moving on to something new, not realizing that getting the finish line isn’t as satisfying as they expect it to be.)

I’ve collected so many things over the period of my life from coins, stamps, comic books, and sports cards. What I’ve learned about myself is I enjoy the hunt and the chase the most. I actually lose interest in a set as I get closer to finishing it. For me, that’s an awful feeling, especially since so much time, money, and effort was spent into something and then you’re just looking to unload it to start something else. I feel with the challenge of a T206 master front/back set, I don’t ever have to worry about getting to that point and just continue to hunt and chase every day.

Q:  Do you have a favorite card or cards in your collection?

As with not having a favorite card back, I don’t really have a favorite card front. I do like some, more than others. A few that I prefer: Bill Bradley with bat, Ty Cobb bat off shoulder, Wid Conroy with bat, Nap Lajoie with bat, and Heinie Zimmerman.

Q:  Do you have a “white whale” or dream card that you’d like to someday own?

Well, since I am going after every card possible, The Honus Wagner is going to be needed. The only thing is I’ll need all 3 different card backs.

Q:  Who is your favorite player in the T206 set?

I would probably have to say Hal Chase. I’m a New York Yankees fan anyways, and Chase was a good player, but controversy and corruption always seemed to follow him.

Q:  Do you have any favorite stories of how you acquired certain cards?  Are there any cards that you searched for for a long time before finally getting one?

I don’t really have any stories but during my first couple years of research, I was determined to find some of the now-well-known Sweet Caporal 350-460 Factory 30 “No Prints”. I found my first two cards in April 2014, after nearly two years of searching for something that wasn’t supposed to exist. You can imagine the heart pounding through my chest feeling. Fourteen months later the largest group of them started showing up on eBay and I was ready. I picked up the first two weeks of cards undetected until someone posted on Net54 questioning them. Then it was game on and time to show the deep pockets.

Q:  Is there anything that you’ve learned along the way about the T206 set that was unexpected

Probably the fact that there’s always more to learn. As much of an expert you think you might be, there’s so much more that’s just not known for sure. That is one of the things I really do like about the set. All the answers can’t be found online. Many theories need to be investigated and even then, you may just have a bunch of great theories.

Q:  Have you made any fun trades while building your collection?

I haven’t traded too much since I buy usually only what I need for my set. I’ve upgraded maybe 15 cards so far. I’ll pick up a Piedmont Elite 11 or similar if the price is right to either resell or trade for something else that I need for that subset but it doesn’t happen often.

Q:  Have you made any friends along the way from trading, buying, chatting on net54, etc?

Yes. I like to think of everyone as a friend until they have given me a reason not to be. T206 collectors are like online family to me. Probably my best online friend/T206 family is Pete Gustafson.

 

Lena Blackburne’s Baseball Rubbing Mud

1 Comment on Lena Blackburne’s Baseball Rubbing Mud

Lena Blackburne appears in the T206 set with the Providence Grays, with whom he played in 1909 as a 22 year-old.  He spent parts of the next five seasons with the Chicago White Sox before bouncing around the National League with Cincinnati, Boston, and Philadelphia in 1918-19.  He is credited with playing one game with the White Sox in 1927, and another single game with the Sox in 1929, when he was the manager of the club.  Blackburne managed the White Sox in 1928-29, to a 99-133 record over that span.

Clearly this article is not going to be about his playing days, though he was a baseball lifer who had a lengthy career as a coach and manager in both the Major and Minor Leagues.  In addition to his managerial record shown below, he served as a coach on Connie Mack’s Philadelphia Athletics ball clubs for the better part of 16 years between 1933 and 1948 (1933 through 1938, as well as 1940, 1942, 1943, 1947, and 1948).

Though his playing career was fairly nondescript, Blackburne left a lasting imprint on the game of baseball.

It all began in 1938 when an umpire complained to Lena Blackburne, a third base coach for the old Philadelphia Athletics, about the sorry condition of the baseballs used by the American League. Back then a ball was prepped simply with mud made of water and dirt from the playing field. The result? The ball’s cover was too soft, leaving it open for tampering. Something was needed to take off the shine but not soften the cover.

-http://baseballrubbingmud.com

Blackburne decided to try to tackle the problem.   He returned to New Jersey and combed the tributaries of the Delaware River, looking for the perfect consistency of mud to rub down a baseball without making it wet.  After some searching, he found just what he was looking for.  He brought some of the mud to the ballpark and found that it worked perfectly.  It took the sheen off the ball and allowed for an easier grip without adding water weight.  It also had no odor, and didn’t turn the balls black.

Thus, Lena Blackburne Baseball Rubbing Mud was born.  By the end of 1938, every American League team was using his Rubbing Mud to prepare baseballs for use in games.  Though the A.L. was using the mud in 1938, it wasn’t until the mid 1950’s that the National League began to use it.  It wasn’t that the N.L. was slow to adopt the product though.  Blackburne was a staunch American League supporter, and refused to sell his product to the National League for almost two decades.

The business still exists today, supplying Rubbing Mud to all MLB and MiLB teams.  Small containers are available for sale to the general public.  Upon Blackburne’s death in 1968, the company was willed to his close friend John Haas.  Haas eventually turned the business over to his son-in-law Burns Bintliff.  The company is currently run by Burns’ son Jim.

The exact spot where the mud is sourced remains a closely guarded secret.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Lena_Blackburne

http://baseballrubbingmud.com

Photos courtesy of baseballrubbingmud.com

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part Four

Here is a good look at two mirrored poses from Sheet 2a/2b. Notice the identical Plate Scratch on each back. Brown is a Sheet 2a pose and Kling is located on Sheet 2b.

In the first three articles of this series, we’ve mostly looked at what the layout of Pat’s recreated Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch sheets can teach us.  This article will be no different in that respect.  However, we’ll also take a look at the relative scarcity of Plate Scratches on individual poses and the surprising connection between Piedmont 150 Plate Scratches and Sovereign 150 populations (for poses on one particular Piedmont 150 sheet).

Today we’re going to take a closer look at Sheet #2, which consists of two mirrored sets of poses that have identical Plate Scratches.  Pat has dubbed them Sheets 2a and 2b.  Sheets 2a and 2b are very interesting for a couple of reasons.  First, all of the “150 Only” subjects with the exception of Powers are located on Sheet 2a.  If you read Part One of this series, you already know the significance of that discovery.  The second reason concerns the Plate Scratches themselves in a way that we haven’t delved into in the first three parts of this series.

This is the partial layout for Sheet 2a/2b. As you can see, there are still many missing pieces of the puzzle.

The above image of Sheet 2a/2b is too small to be viewed on many devices.  Please click this link for a larger, zoom-able image

You would expect the population of Plate Scratches to be roughly equal for each mirrored pair of poses on each sheet.  For Sheet #2, that expectation doesn’t hold.  The poses on Sheet 2a are far easier to find with a Plate Scratch than the poses on Sheet 2b.  Hold that thought for a moment, while we turn our attention in a completely different direction.

Flick (Sheet 2a) and Clarke Portrait (Sheet 2b) are a matched pair on Sheet 2a/2b

Recently, I found myself thinking about the Sovereign 150 subset.  If you’ve collected this subset for a while, you know some poses are much more difficult to find than others.  It’s relatively common knowledge that the “150 Only” poses are harder to find with Sovereign 150 backs than the typical 150-350 Series pose.  I’ve accepted this as fact for a while, but it bothered me a little that I couldn’t explain why.  Sovereign 150 backs were printed fairly early in the 150-350 Series, so it doesn’t really make sense that these poses would have been pulled from production during the Sovereign 150 print run.  In addition, there are other poses that are extremely difficult to locate with a Sovereign 150 back.  So, I got to thinking: Perhaps Pat’s recreated Piedmont 150 sheets could shed some light on the matter?  I reached out to him with a list of the toughest Sovereign 150 front/back combos and asked him if by chance any of these poses might be located on the same sheet.

Before we get to his answer, let’s take a quick detour in order to prove that Sheets 2a and 2b were used to print both Piedmont 150 and Sovereign 150 backs.  Check out the pink mark on the left border of the Piedmont 150 Cicotte above.  This is a print mark that can be found on some (but not all) Cicotte Piedmont 150s.  If you take a look at the Sovereign 150 example below, you’ll see the pink mark was printed on it as well.  As a result, we can safely conclude that Sheets 2a & 2b were used to print both Piedmont 150 and Sovereign 150 backs with the exact same sheet layout.

As it turned out, Pat was way ahead of me.  He already knew the poses on Sheet 2a were easier to find with Plate Scratches than the poses on Sheet 2b.  And he had already found the connection I was looking for.  The poses on Sheet 2a are easier to find with Piedmont 150 Plate Scratches than the poses on Sheet 2b.  Conversely, Sheet 2a poses are much scarcer with Sovereign 150 backs than their Sheet 2b counterparts.  Pat’s theory (which I agree with) is that Sheets 2a and 2b were printed in similar quantities, but Sheet 2a was printed with more Piedmont 150 backs than was Sheet 2b.  As a result, Sheet 2b was printed with more Sovereign 150 backs than was Sheet 2a.  This is the reason why the “150 Only” poses are scarce with Sovereign 150 backs (with the exception of Powers*).  It has nothing to do with the fact that they were pulled from production early.

Still, there’s more to the story.  The 11 “150 Only” poses are not alone on Sheet 2a.  Other notoriously scarce Sovereign 150 poses such as Joe Birmingham, Fred Clarke (With Bat), Ty Cobb (Green Portrait), Elmer Flick, and Frank Isbell also reside on Sheet 2a.  As you can see from the recreated sheet above, Pat has already found where Cobb and Isbell fit.  However, there are a number of Plate Scratches that Pat hasn’t found yet, so for now the puzzle remains unfinished.  As for the other three poses I just mentioned (Birmingham, Clarke (bat), and Flick), they belong on this sheet, but as of now it’s unclear where they fit.

You might be wondering how we know they belong on Sheet 2a if their Plate Scratches don’t fit neatly into the layout above.  To discover the answer takes a complete understanding of how Sheets 1a/1b, 2a/2b, and 3 are laid out.  Sheets 1a and 1b are similar to Sheets 2a and 2b in that they are also a set of matched pairs.  However, there is one big difference.  Sheet 1b was also used to print Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 backs.  So, if we find a matched pair of Plate Scratches, and neither pose was printed with a Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 back, we know that pair of Plate Scratches doesn’t belong on Sheet 1a or 1b.  The Plate Scratches that comprise Sheet 3 do not have a matched pair.

In other words, any matched pair of Plate Scratches that doesn’t include a SC 649 pose is a virtual lock to belong on Sheets 2a and 2b.  The connection between Piedmont 150 Plate Scratches and Sovereign 150 populations is perhaps the most exciting of Pat’s discoveries, at least in my opinion.  As someone who has been collecting Sovereign 150s for a while, I know that some of them are fairly common, while others are like ghosts.  It’s not unusual to find variances in populations within a given back subset, but it’s very rare that we’re able to definitively prove why they exist.

Another reason this discovery is exciting is that the research is ongoing.  There are still a bunch of holes that need to be filled on Sheet 2a/2b.  I have my suspicions of which poses belong on Sheet 2a (based on which as-of-yet uncatalogued poses have the lowest Sovereign 150 populations), but hopefully in time, Pat will be able to find the missing Plate Scratches and put the full sheet back together.

If you find any Piedmont 150s with a Plate Scratch on the back, please either post scans in this net54 thread, or email them to me at luke@thatt206life.com and I will get the scans to Pat.

* The reason that “150-Only” poses are scarce with Sovereign 150 backs is because they are located on Sheet 2a.  Because Powers was printed on Sheet 1a/1b rather than Sheet 2a, he shouldn’t be considered a tough Sovereign 150 pose just because he is a “150-Only” subject.  However, population reports indicate that Powers is only slightly easier to find with a Sovereign 150 back than say, Pattee.  There are a number of SC 649 poses that are quite tough to find with a Sovereign 150 back (Goode, O’Leary and Wilhelm come to mind).

I’d like to thank Pat Romolo for collaborating with me on this series of articles.  Thanks for answering all my questions, making sure I wasn’t missing anything, and for providing all the scans I kept asking for.  I also want to thank Steve Birmingham for noticing the Plate Scratches and commencing the research years ago.

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part Three

This is the front-view of Sheet 3

For years T206 collectors have attempted to pinpoint the exact number of cards that were printed on a sheet at American Lithographic Company.  In particular, the width of a sheet has been hotly contested.  Pat’s research shows us that there is more than one answer to the question, “How many poses wide was a T206 sheet?”

Most of the discussions I have read or been a part of have centered on the numbers 34 and 17.  There are multiple subsets that are divisible by 17 and 34, but the two most compelling pieces of evidence are the Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 subset and the Brown Old Mill subset.

Of the 48 Southern Leaguers in the T206 set, only 34 of them were printed with Brown Hindu backs.  This same group of 34 poses can also be found with the rare and coveted Brown Old Mill Southern League reverse.  The fact that those 34 poses comprise the only known cards to exist with Brown Old Mill backs proves that they were printed on a sheet by themselves.  T206 historian Tim Cathey explained this proof in a post on net54baseball.com in 2010, which can be read here.  Because 34 cards placed side-by-side would require a pretty massive printing press, collectors theorized that a 17-card wide sheet was more likely.

The image above is too small for most devices, so please click this link to view a large, zoom-able image

Pat’s research supports the “Theory of 17”.  The recreated Piedmont 150 sheet (above) was first printed with Piedmont 150 backs, and then used for the Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 subset as well.  As you can see, it’s 17 cards wide.

This is the layout of Sheets 1a & 1b

The above information isn’t likely to shock any T206 collectors who have been paying attention to the sheet-size discussions that have taken place over the past decade or so.  However, Pat made another discovery that I don’t think anyone saw coming.

A couple months ago Pat was working on three partial sheets that he had dubbed the “E”, “F” and “G” sheets.  He had thought for some time that two of the three, or possibly all three partial sheets might fit together to form a larger sheet, but hadn’t been able to fit the pieces together.

The breakthrough came when he realized these Wallace plate scratches, which had previously been in a pile of unassigned scratches actually connected the “E” and “F” sheets to form one larger sheet.

The result is a new, larger sheet that Pat has dubbed “Sheet #3”.  There are still a number of missing pieces to fill out the entire sheet, but what stands out is this quote from the net54 thread in which Pat announced the discovery:

This creates a sheet that is at least 24 wide by 11 high based on the scratches.  But it could possibly be larger.

– Pat’s post on net54baseball.com on Oct 29, 2017

The image of Sheet 3 above is too small for viewing on most devices.  Please click this link to view a larger, zoom-able image

This is a pretty cool discovery.  It shows that American Lithographic Company used more than one sheet size (and probably more than one size of printing press) to produce T206s.  Much of the “T206 sheet-size” discussions have centered on collectors trying to prove or disprove a certain sheet size.  Now we know there were some sheets that were 17-cards wide and others that were 24-cards wide.  That opens the door for the possibility that other sheet sizes were used as well.

 

I’d like to thank Pat Romolo for collaborating with me on this series of articles.  Thanks for answering all my questions, making sure I wasn’t missing anything, and for providing all the scans I kept asking for.

SOURCES:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=246846&page=2

http://forum.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=128788&page=3

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part Two

Why was Wilbur Goode printed with Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 back, but Ty Cobb and Cy Young were not?

An unexpected result of Pat’s research is that he was able to recreate the Piedmont 150 sheets that were later used to print Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 backs.  I always wondered how the players were chosen to be printed with this back.  Logically, if I were going to print a subset made up of just 34 cards, I would pack it with stars.  So what was Wilbur Goode doing there?  Well, now we know.  ALC simply took two plates it already had and printed them with Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 backs.  The printers had done their best to include a group of stars, or they might have just gone with pure convenience based on which plates they had handy.  Despite missing Cobb and Young, those two plates include Bresnahan, Davis, Griffith, Johnson, Lajoie, and Mathewson, so it was by no means devoid of stars.

The image below shows Piedmont 150-backed examples of the poses in the Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 subset.  To see a larger image, please click the link below.

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/updatedplatescratchsheets/Sheet%201A-1B.jpg

Why wasn’t Ty Cobb printed with a Brown Hindu back?

Brown Hindu was the first of the tougher backs that I studied and began to collect when I got interested in back collecting.  The first thing I did was to make sure I had a complete checklist of which cards were printed with Brown Hindu backs.  It struck me immediately that neither Ty Cobb pose from the 150-350 Series was printed with a Brown Hindu back.  I wondered why.

The plate scratches answer this question as well.  If you take a look at the Plate Scratch collages below, you’ll notice that all of these players who appear together on a sheet were left off the Brown Hindu print run.  Much like the SC 150/649 subset, the poses that were printed with Brown Hindu backs were likely chosen primarily for convenience on the part of the printers.  In other words, they didn’t pick and choose individual players.  They just took existing sheets and printed them with Brown Hindu backs.  They simply chose not to use a sheet with Cobb on it for the Brown Hindu print run.

The partially recreated sheet below shows us that almost this entire section consists of poses that were not printed with Brown Hindu backs.  Curiously, there is a section right in the middle (the cards inside the red rectangle) with four poses that were all printed with Brown Hindu backs.  That is an odd wrinkle, and likely something that will never be fully explained.

The image below is too small to see detail, so please click this link to take a look at the image in full detail:

https://photos.imageevent.com/patrickr/updatedplatescratchsheets/Sheet%203%20Full.jpg

I’d like to thank Pat Romolo for collaborating with me on this series of articles.  Thanks for answering all my questions, making sure I wasn’t missing anything, and for providing all the scans I kept asking for.

Sources:

What I Have Learned from Pat Romolo’s Piedmont 150 Plate Scratch Research: Part One

Pat Romolo’s research on the Piedmont 150 Plate Scratches has produced a number of interesting findings.  It’s really cool to be able to look at a recreated sheet and see how the cards were laid out when printed.  Pat’s initial goal was to put the cards together like a puzzle, but in doing so, he unearthed numerous nuggets of information.

I believe some of the questions I have about the set have been answered by Pat’s work.  In this four-part series, we’ll take a look at a few of the head-scratchers I have noticed over the years and how they can be explained by Pat’s research:

Why were a number of the “150 Only” players pulled from production before being printed with 350 backs, only to be featured on a new pose in the 350-460 Series or 460 Only Series?

This is a question I didn’t ever expect to be answered to my satisfaction.  There are 14 poses from the 150 series that were discontinued prior to printing of 350 backs.  Among them are Honus Wagner and the Sherry Magie error.  These two were pulled from production early on and exist in very small numbers.  The remaining 12 are generally referred to as “The 150-Only Subjects”.  They are as follows:

  • Ames, Red (Hands At Chest)
  • Brown, Mordecai (Cubs On Shirt)
  • Browne, George (Chicago)
  • Burch, Al (Batting)
  • Donlin, Mike (Fielding)
  • Doyle, Larry (Throwing)
  • Evers, Johnny (Cubs On Shirt – Blue Sky)
  • Pattee, Harry
  • Pelty, Barney (Horizontal)
  • Powers, Mike*
  • Reulbach, Ed (Glove Showing)
  • Schulte, Wildfire (Front View)

You’ll notice I have decided to include Schulte (Front View) in the 150 Only group.  There have long been discussions among collectors as to whether Schulte belongs in this group.  He would be a shoe-in if not for the find of a single Piedmont 350-backed specimen.  To read more about that find, check out the article I wrote about it here.

There are obvious reasons why some of the above players were pulled from production, but most didn’t make much sense.  George Browne was selected off waivers by Washington on April 21, 1909.  Donlin left baseball for Vaudeville following the 1908 season and didn’t return until 1911.  On one hand, that might seem like a good reason for his card to be pulled.  On the other hand, his other 150-350 Series pose, Donlin (Seated) was not pulled from production.  It can be found with EPDG, Old Mill and the entire slate of 350 backs.  Harry Pattee played his final game in the Majors in 1908, so it makes sense that he was pulled from future printings.  Mike Powers passed away two weeks into the 1909 season.  His sad and untimely death was likely the reason he was removed from the set early.

There are rational explanations for why Browne, Pattee and Powers were pulled from production.  The same can’t be said of the remaining nine players (although we have a possible rationale for Donlin).  Each of those nine players were pulled, only to be released again with a new pose later in T206 production.  I have read the theory that perhaps a number of the Cubs players were pulled because ATC wanted to quit using “Cubs” on the players’ jerseys, instead replacing it with the “Chicago” that we see on subsequent poses.  That seemed as good a guess as any but didn’t necessarily make complete sense.

This is where the Plate Scratch research comes in.  Pat wrote the following on net54baseball.com on September 9, 2017 (to read the thread, click the link below under Sources:

Another interesting thing about this sheet is most of the 150 only subjects are all together in a horizontal row, they include Evers(Cubs), Doyle (Throwing), Donlin (Fielding), M.Brown (Cubs), Pattee, Reulbach, Burch, Ames, and Schulte who I consider a 150 only subject.

The other 150 only subjects that don’t have confirmed scratches on this sheet are Wagner, Magie (fixed name), G.Browne (team change) and Powers who is the only 150 only subject in the SC150/649 subset and he has confirmed scratches on another plate scratch sheet (the A-B sheet).

The image above is too small to be viewed on most devices, so please click this link to see a larger, zoom-able image

This shows clearly that all of these poses were together on a sheet.  While this doesn’t prove anything with 100 percent certainty, I feel very comfortable drawing a conclusion based on this data.  To me, it seems likely that the printers at ALC wanted to remove Pattee from production, and in the name of convenience, chose to pull an entire row of cards rather than do the work it would have taken to replace Pattee with a different pose.  This is why stars such as Brown, Evers and Reulbach were pulled from production: because it was the easiest way to pull Pattee from production.  If you think about it, it makes sense that the reason would be something like this.  It clearly wasn’t a conscious decision.  There’s just no reason to pull Ames (Hands at Chest) but not Ames (Portrait) and likewise Donlin (Fielding) but not Donlin (Seated).  There’s also no apparent reason to have pulled Brown, Doyle, Evers, Reulbach and Schulte, stars who were soon chosen to be featured again.

*Powers is the only member of the “150-Only” group who does not reside on Sheet 2a2b.  Powers is on Sheet 1a/1b with the other poses that were printed with Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 backs.

I’d like to thank Pat Romolo for collaborating with me on this series of articles.  Thanks for answering all my questions, making sure I wasn’t missing anything, and for providing all the scans I kept asking for.

Sources:

Why Was Carl Lundgren (Chicago) Printed With So Few Backs? And What Do Hughie Jennings and Sam Crawford Have to do With it?

Carl Lundgren’s Chicago T206 is one of the more sought-after cards in the set.  Lundgren was a very good starting pitcher for the Cubs from 1904 to 1907 (he also turned in solid seasons in 1902 and ’03), but that doesn’t have anything to do with the popularity of his Cubs card.

Here’s What We Know:

Lundgren (Chicago) was pulled early in the 350 portion of 150-350 Series Production.  It was printed with El Principe de Gales and Piedmont 350 backs before being pulled from production.  Lundgren (Chicago) fits nicely in the “Elite Eleven*” group with other poses that were pulled after being printed with EPDG backs and a small amount of Piedmont 350 backs.

The decision to discontinue the pose makes a lot of sense.  In 1907, he went 18-7 with a 1.17 ERA.  It was his fourth straight standout campaign.  However, in 1908, his innings pitched dropped to 138.2 and he posted a record of just 6-9 to go with an ERA of 4.42.  In 1909, when Lundgren (Chi) was printed with Piedmont 150 backs, he appeared in just 2 games before being sold to Toronto of the Eastern League.

We also know Lundgren was not printed with Hindu, Sovereign 150, or Sweet Caporal 150 backs.  His is the only pose in the 150-350 Series that was not printed with any Sweet Caporal backs.  Let that sink in for a second.  That’s just weird.  In fact, the only other non Southern Leaguers that weren’t printed with any Sweet Caporal backs are the Demmitt and O’Hara St. Louis cards, which were printed only with Polar Bear backs*.

And Here’s What We Don’t Know:

It’s not known why Lundgren (Chicago) was left off the Hindu, Sovereign 150 and Sweet Caporal print-runs.  I do have a theory, but it doesn’t explain everything.  Awhile back, I wrote an article about Hughie Jennings (Portrait) and Sam Crawford (Throwing) (which can be read here).  Those two poses were also left off the Hindu and Sovereign 150 print-runs.  In fact, there are only five poses in the 150-350 Series that appear with Piedmont 150 backs but not with Brown Hindu or Sovereign 150 backs:

Crawford (Throwing)
Jennings (Portrait)
Lundgren (Chicago)
Plank
Wagner, Honus

I theorize that Lundgren is somehow related to Jennings (Portrait) and Crawford (Throwing), both of which were added to the Piedmont 150 and Sweet Caporal 150/30 print runs after production of the 150-350 Series had already started.  Both Crawford and Jennings were left off the Brown Hindu and Sovereign 150 print runs (like Lundgren).  Both Crawford and Jennings were printed with SC 150/30 backs, but left off the SC 150/25 print run.**  The fact that Lundgren was not printed with an SC 150/30 back makes the connection somewhat tenuous, but the three poses do have a lot in common.

Like Lundgren, Jennings was printed with an EPDG back, although Crawford was not.  All three poses were printed with Piedmont 350 backs, although Lundgren was pulled early and the others were not.  Jennings and Crawford went on to be printed with Old Mill, Sovereign 350, Sweet Caporal 350/25, and Sweet Caporal 350/30 backs.

In my earlier article about Jennings (Portrait) and Crawford (Throwing), I put forth the idea that those two poses could have replaced Plank and Wagner when they were pulled from further production.  There’s no way to know for sure, but it does make some sense given the late arrivals of Jennings and Crawford.  Where Lundgren might fit into that scenario is not immediately clear.

The biggest unanswered question surrounding this pose is why Lundgren (Chicago) was not printed with Sweet Caporal 150 backs.  That he wasn’t is one of the more interesting T206 mysteries.  I don’t imagine that question will ever be answered to my satisfaction, but if I come up with the answer, or even a crazy theory, I’ll be sure to let you guys know.

*Southern Leaguers were printed with Old Mill Southern League backs, Piedmont 350 backs, and 34/48 players were printed with a Brown Hindu back.

**Crawford is listed as confirmed with SC 150/25 back on T206resource.com, but I know of a few people who have been looking for one for a few years (if not longer).  It either exists in extremely low quantities, or does not exist at all.  If one surfaces, it will add a very interesting wrinkle to this puzzle, but for now I am going to assume it was not printed.