Tag: Pat Romolo

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 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:

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

On February 6th 2016, Pat posted a thread on net54 titled “I Believe This Could Be A Complete Horizontal Layout For This T206 Sheet”.  In it, he goes into great detail about how he re-created a Piedmont 150 sheet by connecting the Plate Scratches on the backs of the cards.

In Part One of this article, I posted a Cliffs Notes version of Pat’s net54 thread. You can read Part One by clicking the link below:

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

Piedmont 150 Bull Durham with dark plate scratch on the back

For Part Two, I wanted to dive in a little deeper.  Pat was kind enough to work with me by providing scans and answering all the questions I had.  Our conversation is below:

Q: How long have you been collecting T206?

A:  I purchased my first T206s at the 2003 National in Atlantic City.  I don’t remember exactly how many, but it was around ten raw Fair-to-VG commons that included a couple of Sovereigns and a Jennings (One Hand) in a PSA 5 holder.

Q:  Before beginning to collect the P150 Plate Scratches, how did you collect the set?
A:  I never really had a strategy, but early on I did have a phase when I was collecting non-Piedmonts and Sweet Caporals (like many T206 collectors, I wish I had stayed with that longer).
Q:  How did you first become interested in the plate scratches?
A:  When Steve Birmingham started the thread on Net54 about the plate scratches, he was looking for scans.  So I checked my collection and found that I had one.  I started tracking ebay and past sales looking for scans to send Steve.  Each one I found motivated me to search for more, hoping he would be able to come up with a sheet layout from them.
Q:  Do you remember the first card you owned that had a plate scratch?
A:  It was a Shipke scratch that I had in my collection and, coincidentally it matched up next to one of the Cobb scans that Steve had.
Q:  What gave you the idea to try and re-create an entire sheet of Piedmont 150s using the plate scratches?
A:  Once again, all the credit goes to Steve.  Steve and I were emailing back and forth.  I was sending him scans of the scratches I found and he was working on trying to piece a sheet together.  At the time it seemed like he was gaining the most traction around the Cobb, but in a couple of our emails he stated he didn’t have much free time to work on it.  I don’t think anyone was sure if there was more than one sheet involved, but I decided to try and see what I could come up with from a Seymour I had with a double scratch on it.
The circled pink mark offers more evidence that Seymour and Cicotte were neighbors on this Piedmont 150 sheet

Q:  Can you share any breakthroughs that you have had while working on it?

A:  There have been several, but I would say three of the main ones are:

  1. The first time I found an unconfirmed scratch using a template I made off the Seymour scratch.
  2. Finding a Seymour with a print mark on the front that connected to a mark on the front of a Cicotte (Seymour and Cicotte have several different scratches on the back that link them together).
  3. Filling the last missing slot on what I call the “A-B sheet”.

Q:  Have you had any missing pieces to the puzzle that have taken you a very long time to find?

A:  There are still a few that I think should exist and probably a lot more I don’t know about.  I think the A-B Sheet is complete minus a second subject that matches O’Leary, but I can’t say for sure.  It took me four years to find a Gibson that filled the Gibson/Bresnahan slot in the A-B Sheet.  A month or two later, I found the Bresnahan.  Also, Steve had sent me a scan of a Powell scratch that I could never find another scan of until one was listed on ebay about a month ago.  Coincidentally, another one popped up a couple weeks later.  So it took me almost five years to find one, and then two showed up within weeks of each other.

Q:  Do you try to own a copy of each scratch, or are you generally happy to just save scans?  
A:  In the very beginning I was just saving scans, but I purchased a couple of the cheaper ones when I saw them on ebay.  I found when I had them in hand I could glean more information from them.  I have a few that had a second scratch on them that I didn’t notice until I had them.  I have also picked up a few that only had front scans in the listing but I knew they were plate scratches because of a flaw on the front.  I have at least one copy of the majority of them, but I do lack most of the expensive ones.  There are four different Cobb (Bat on) scratches, two Cobb (Green Portrait), three Johnson (Portrait), three Mathewson (White Cap) and one Mathewson (Portrait).  I do have one of the Cobb (Bat On), but the rest are too expensive for me.
Q:  Is there anything I didn’t think to ask that you have learned from your work on this project?
A:  On a side note, the mystery surrounding the Plank continues over to the Plate Scratches.  There are only a few (all hand-cut) Piedmont 150 Planks, but two of them have the same Plate Scratch.  The Plate Scratch on the Plank goes almost straight across.   All of the other Plate Scratches are on a few different angles, so the Plank doesn’t match up with any of them.
I do have a theory about why this might be.  Awhile back someone mentioned that the scratches could have been caused by a nail or something on a shelf they were stored on.  I have seen pictures of the stones on shelves and also on pallets.
If a worker taking one of the stones off the shelf or pallet slid it back and turned it to grab one of the corners, it would create a straight scratch for a couple of inches and an angled scratch across the rest of the stones.  If Plank was on the end of a sheet, that would cause the straight scratch that’s seen on the two examples.