The statement that "Single note replacements can not fall within a sheet replacement range" is based on a very large assumption.
The assumption that a ream set aside as replacements is used entirely as sheets or is entirely cut into bricks, is not necessarily the case.
There is a slim possibility, but thats why we need the hard evidence.
This assumption is based on the fact that if you use the 000 sheet as a replacement, then each and every sister brick is now missing a single note. Here are the possibilities:
a) That missing note would have to be replaced from somewhere somehow (putting replacement notes into replacement notes - yikes), or
b) Each brick which is missing that sheet, also has the rest of that brick's sheets designated as replacements (sheet or single)
From what I understand, the evidence found points to b, and in sheets.
Suppose:
I find wxyz120-126 in my brick, you find wxyz225-226 in your brick, and Mr X. finds wxyz662 in his brick, and Mr. Y finds wxyz855-870 in his brick.
In this example, each finding would be from bricks that come from
different reams (thus each "regular brick showing different replacement needs).
I think the point I was making is: as soon as a sheet is used as a replacement from the "replacement ream" then there can only be a maximum of 999 consecutive serial numbers (repeated 39 more times).
We have no concluding evidence of course to say wether single note replacements are from a full brick, versus perhaps just one or two bundles. If single note replacements are as small as 100 notes for example,
Then, if it lies
within a sheet replacement range:
then that means that there are 100 sheets that are spoiled from being sheet replacements - because their sheet is incomplete by one note per sheet.
Therefore, you would have
40 single note replacement ranges of 100, all within one ream that has been designated as sheet replacements.
Note: even if this were the case the overall replacement range would not change at all.Once evidence of sheet replacements are found, the assumption is that the entire ream is used as sheet replacements. From what I have learned, the finds validate this assumption. JWS, I humbly welcome evidence showing what you are proposing.
In my opinion, single note replacements found within an established range of inserts are merrily part of the broader range.
This would be the case if in fact single note replacements were found within a ream that also showed signs of sheet replacements. Agreed.
To disallow inserts to fit the quoted statement is a disservice to the hobby.
I see your point. I am not making the rules of what is allowed and what is not (I apologise if it sounds like that), I am doing my best to present the logical storyboard about what happens in bricks and what is [impossible] - how about least probable. -- And again, that is from the evidence that I have learned from, and in talking about finds.
To clarify perhaps would be the best thing:
"A SINGLE NOTE replacement range CANNOT lie within the boundaries of a sheet replacement range."
In more detail means:
If replacements are found from 000-999 in the ream, with sheet replacement characteristics showing, then a single note range cannot be - because all the notes are occupied in a sheet replacement form.
Its the mathematical "pigeon-hole principle". If the notes are found to be sheet replacements, then they cannot also be defined as single note replacements.
One pigeon (sheet vs single replacement note)
per hole (note position in the 3D matrix).
JWS, I know you have more data stored than I do, and alot more experience, so I am anxious to learn more about what you find.
Regards,
H
