Was it worth it?

[lharri3600]

Hello,
i just bought a bill bradley portrait with a ty cobb red image on back. Was it worth it? Just looking for your thoughts.


http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm269/lharri3600/t206/COBB-GHOSTIMAGE.jpg

[jcmtiger]

Let's see a scan.

Joe

[Epps]

There was a thread on this a while back ago and if I remember correctly someone suggested that the Cobb card was stacked under Bradley at one time and they both got wet and Cobb's ink transfered to the back. Hope this helps.

[Mikehealer]

Larry
I was watching this card and thought it was pretty cool. I would say if you like
it was worth it.

[iggyman]

Larry, this was the old thread discussing the Bradley/Cobb card:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=114779&highlight=bradley

[Tao_Moko]

Considering some of the things I've seen sell as "unusual" and "rare", I can't imagine someone wouldn't be interested for what you paid for it. There is a very popular site about this set that has sold less interesting oddities for more. My fear when looking at it was that a transfer like that could be replicated easily from the home and was probably due to moisture. The question is whether or not it's worth something if the transfer occurred from a period Cobb.

[FrankWakefield]

I think a lot of the cards that folks dance about, proclaiming 'wet sheet transfer' as some magical mantra.... I think a bunch of those cards, most of them, are just where some kid had a bunch of cards stacked together, maybe in his pocket, and they got wet. No magic, no wet sheet... just a messed up card.

Don't know what you paid for it. If you're happy with it, then you got a good deal. Sincerely.


If I'm wrong, if all of these things are 'wet sheet transfers', then what are the cards where they just got wet and the ink bled... what are those called, and where are they?

[rhettyeakley]

It's kinda fitting it would be Bill Bradley on the front w/ the Cobb wet sheet transfer as Bradley (according to some accounts) was one of Cobb's favorite ballplayers as a youngster. A young Cobb who had attended a spring game (I believe) and Bradley took some time out and spoke w/ Cobb and he was instantly one of the few ballplayers Cobb ever really looked up to for a while.

Fairly ironic/fortuitous card given the circumstances behind the two men together (not to wax too poetic or anything).

-Rhett

[Jantz]

Larry - I was watching this card also and found it to be very interesting. As far as it being worth what you paid for it, only you can answer that question. If you enjoy having this card being a part of your personal collection, then I think its worth it.

As far as this card ending up this way from getting wet and being stacked on another card, let me ask this question then.

Why doesn't the color fade out of T206s when they are soaked?

C'mon now...we all know there are cards out there that have been soaked. There is even a link on this site with step-by step instructions on how to do it. In the instructions, it says to place the wet (soaked) card in a folded paper towel. Isn't this the same as stacking wet cards? Does the card image transferred onto the paper towel?

I can't answer these questions because I have never soaked a card, but I own a soaked T206. One of the hazards of buying from a scan and not having the card in-hand. I can say from looking at my soaked T206 that it
doesn't appear to have lost any of it's original color. I'm not saying I'm right, just relaying my experience.

Jantz

[Tao_Moko]

I unsucessfully transferred a Pfeister seating (has a nice bright orange background) to the back of a Piedmont. The attempt was to apply reasonable moisture with that equal to a damp environment instead of a deep soaking. There was no evidence of any transfer of ink, but it's possible that it could occur over an extended period of time.

If you're happy with it and you didn't use the power bill money to buy it then I'd say you did good.

[FrankWakefield]

Jantz, I agree with you as far as today's water, and 100 year old dried ink. The cards are soaked with virtually no bleed. (Although I do think there's a slight bleed if soaked for days.)

Put some old, ragged T206s in your pocket and splash a bit of kerosene on there. Kids would not have been around gasoline, much, in 1910. Kerosene was all around. I think with kerosene on fairly recent ink you get a different result.

It seems an amazing coincidence that a wet sheet, placed atop another, would align so that the wet transfer exactly matched up, card for card. Such a transfer seems more likely from card to card, after they were cut.

Anyone with such a card wants it to be a 'wet sheet transfer', so that's what they'll see it as, whether it is or isn't.

[iggyman]

If you're happy with it and you didn't use the power bill money to buy it then I'd say you did good.


Hmmm, so are you saying that if I go without electricity for a few months out of the year I could have more $$$ for pre-war cards? I'm game, but I'm not sure on how flexible my wife is going to be.

Lovely Day...

[lharri3600]

well i did ask for your input and you all responded, thanks i didn't once say the card was a wet sheet transfer. i didn't buy it for that reason i bought it to add to my wackey t206's. if it is fine, if it's not fine too. to be honest we don't know how the image was transfered. we can specluate and that's about it. again thanks to you all. over the past year all of you have broadened my knowledge in the hobby. oh iggy, don't blame me for the cold weather:D

[steve B]

The inks used for lithography are oil based, and water is used to keep the ink from sticking to the part of the plate that you don't want to print. So wetting with water won't produce a transfer, at least not on a lithographed item. (New stuff might use vegetable based inks which may be more water soluble- Like most magazines these days) The shop I worked for called them offset transfers which is probably the correct name. They required wet ink, AND a bit of pressure. I leaned on a stack of stuff one day, and wrecked about 200 sheets. Some presses stack the sheets very accurately, so the alignment isn't a big problem unless we know for sure the presses used didn't stack the sheets

Wetting with a solvent however just might do it. I have a couple 1970 topps offset trtansfers that I think were made this way the image is just too strong and is a bit blurry. Kerosene, gasoline, mineral spirits etc. Mineral spirits is used in the printing process, which leaves a few interesting scenarios.

One as already mentioned is a spill onto either a pocketed stack of cards or just the stack of cards. with this, the Cobb ink would be on top of the Piedmont ink

Another couple are possible at the print shop with either a press that stacks or one that doesn't.
A sheet of leftover 150 series is placed face down on the skid used to hold the pile of sheets. This is commonly done to prevent messing up any of the new stuff
Then a fresh sheet of 350 series is placed face down on the skid, probably the fronts are finished, and they're printing the backs.
At some point solvent spills onto the pile of sheets, maybe when only the one sheet is on the skid, maybe not. presure from folowing sheets causes a transfer. Then the sheet of 150's gets cut up and distributed
It's a bit of a stretch, but it is possible. And I've seen stuff like that happen
Remember those sheets I wrecked? we actually ended up using them because of problems later in the process. One of the few times I saw standards allowed to slip.

Anyone have a red Cobb with a Piedmont 150 transfer on the front?

Also possible is that there was a huge rush one day to get some 350 sheets finished, maybe catching up, maybe a big order? So they run the red of the Cobb on one press, and the black on another, then switch stacks and run sheets through that aren't really dry. Not a good practice, the quality that day will be pretty bad.
Again a sheet is placed on a 150 sheet that's used to protect the sheets from the skid and with a little weight you get the two color transfer.

All of these would leave the Cobb ink on top of the Piedmont ink.
And the stack of cards pocketed or otherwise being subjected to solvents is the most likely

If the Cobb ink is under the Piedmont ink.....That gets weird, as it requires the 150's and 350's to be being printed at the same time.

Any way you look at it, the card is very interesting.

Steve B

[lharri3600]

here's another one i have

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm269/lharri3600/435040.jpg http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm269/lharri3600/435040b.jpg