It’s probably not possible for us to ever know with certainty how many different print runs made up the 350 portion of the 150-350 Series. I think it’s pretty clear there were at least three distinct stages, but beyond that it gets really tricky to say anything with certainty.
I was chatting with my friend Steve Birmingham about this topic recently. Anytime I have a question the printing processes used for T206 production, I ask Steve. He mentioned my observation about the Sweet Caporal 150 Factory 649 and Sovereign 350 connection that I wrote about in Part Two of this series. I noted that only 10 of the 34 subjects in the SC 150/649 Subset were printed with Sovereign 350 backs. This was a departure from Old Mill, Piedmont 350 and SC 350/25 & SC 350/30 print runs which used the majority of the 34 subjects that make up the SC 150/649 subset.
Ten subjects with overlap between SC 649 and Sov 350fg, and only three of those seen with dark ink. That very clearly speaks to different print runs with different sheet layouts each time.
I have to agree. Printing the Sovereign 350 sheets was clearly not as simple as just reusing the layout from an earlier 150 Series sheet. This knowledge may get us closer to understanding the printing process, but it probably creates more questions than it answers. The fact that they used just ten SC 150/649 subjects for the Sov350 print run may mean that it was relatively easy for the printers at ALC to swap poses in or out of a sheet. If this was a common practice, it would be nearly impossible for us to recreate or make sense of the sheet layout for the 350 portion of the 150-350 Series.
I let that idea marinate for a little while, thinking to myself that this puzzle seemed not only immense, but daunting. I had to chuckle when I got Steve’s next email. It seemed we were feeling the same way:
Every time I get into this stuff I realize more and more that Heitman was incredibly right to call it “the Monster”. It looks simple enough, 524 cards with different backs, then you realize that some “common” backs on some cards are anything but common. Then you try to pin it down to sheet sizes, and print groups, and with outliers, and a handful of obvious changes during a run it becomes clear that even a few print groups aren’t really enough. And that it’s more like 12, maybe more.
I also wanted Steve’s opinion on what created the “Dark Ink” and “Washed Out” cards that I’ve discussed earlier in this series. Much like the questions I have about print layouts, there aren’t any easy answers.
Why they’re darker probably won’t be easily solvable. One possibility is that the adjustments to the art between 150 and 350 were intended to save on ink- trivial for one card, but over several thousand it adds up. I can see ATC asking for and getting a volume discount, and also ALC cutting a few corners to preserve profits. Of course, looking at Gilbert that makes no sense! The red in the sky is far more extensive, so they didn’t save much by messing with the art.
Of course, the opposite could be true in a couple ways. ALC could have requested that the cards look more vibrant, and darkening colors and adding a bit more of brighter ones would do that. But it might have cost extra, so they could have decided to tone it back down later.
I don’t really buy the worn plates concept for the more washed out ones. It’s possible, but they’re pretty common, and I doubt they’d run for that long on worn plates. It’s more likely another deliberate adjustment to the art. And a more likely cost cutting move. Plates only lasted so long, especially when using stones. So they would have needed regular replacement.
I imagine I will spend more time in the future trying to make sense of it all. Thanks as always for stopping by to read my articles. And thank you yet again to Steve for helping me understand the printing process used by ALC in the production of T206 cards.
