Color "error" variations in t206 cards

[GregMitch34]

They can be quite striking, especially in portraits, but I understand they are not generally regarded as 'errors' and just interesting phenomenon. Am I right that they rarely bring much or any premium, even for a popular mid-grade card?

[CMIZ5290]

I know that I have had no luck obtaining any significant premium for my orange Cobb....

[z28jd]

The McGraw/orange portrait gets a nice boost over his red background. Seems to be 3-4x the price depending on grade.

[thehoodedcoder]

The McGraw/orange portrait gets a nice boost over his red background. Seems to be 3-4x the price depending on grade.


what are you basing that off of?

kevin

[ullmandds]

WTF r u gys talking about? True...radical color differences in T206 command a large premium. Kevins "Orange" cobb is definitely "oranger" than the normal red...but is not "orange" enough to command a large premium...in my opinion.

[z28jd]

what are you basing that off of?

kevin

My own sale. The price I was quoted from someone who has two of them and another previous sale I could find. They were all in line with each other

[Paul S]

1.98lb premium

[joeadcock]

Just love this Tinker with the Lon Chaney like look to him, beat up right face and the off colors. I added a typical one(not mine) for comparison.

[ullmandds]

1.98lb premium

That's awesome!

[GregMitch34]

An SGC 60 Eddie Collins--in a nice purple--just went for about $800 in last night's Leon auction--or about twice the normal....Seems about right?

[Paul S]

That's awesome!

Thanks Pete. I did that years ago the last time this topic came around ;)

[DerekMichael]

I was wondering if anyone else has ever felt like Brown Hindu's almost look a bit "lighter" than the other ones? Maybe it is just my imagination, or I am seeing things, or am just completely insane, but in some cases I feel like I have noticed a difference.

I have not handled enough examples to really know, but I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this?

I think what I am saying might not really apply to the original purpose of the thread, and any premium is coming from the front/ back combination itself and not necessarily a difference in the colors, but maybe someone has some information?

Thank you.

Derek

[brianp-beme]

Paul, I suggest you provide a red apple Cobb so we all can compare and judge for ourselves.

Brian

Thanks Pete. I did that years ago the last time this topic came around ;)

[Runscott]

Anyone who has bought/sold these knows that the premiums are all over the board, and really depend on whether or not there are two interested buyers when one is offered. I've seen Willis portraits that had odd but ugly faded purple backgrounds go for 2-3X normal price, and I've seen beautiful orange backgrounds (that should have been red) go for just a small fraction above the normal-background version. Like the others, the orange Cobb is also all over the board - when I was looking for one, and forum members knew it, the premium went way up :). Now it isn't so high. Go figure.

[Paul S]

Paul, I suggest you provide a red apple Cobb so we all can compare and judge for ourselves.

Brian

Hi Brian, Sorry, the red apple is under copyright. But if you squint hard enough at your E90-1 Cobb I swear that the hole will disappear;)

Paul

[Sean]

I was wondering if anyone else has ever felt like Brown Hindu's almost look a bit "lighter" than the other ones? Maybe it is just my imagination, or I am seeing things, or am just completely insane, but in some cases I feel like I have noticed a difference.

I have not handled enough examples to really know, but I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this?

I think what I am saying might not really apply to the original purpose of the thread, and any premium is coming from the front/ back combination itself and not necessarily a difference in the colors, but maybe someone has some information?

Thank you.

Derek

I've noticed that cards with a red background and a Brown Hindu back frequentlly look more orange than red.

[DerekMichael]

I've noticed that cards with a red background and a Brown Hindu back frequentlly look more orange than red.

YES! I have seen Tinker, Willis, Merkle etc. with this exact same characteristic.

The Waddell card seems to have it a bit as well. The blue seems so light. I had a Sovereign 350 at one point and the blue was very dark and rich, almost like a royal blue.

So I am not crazy, per se.

Thank you Sir.

Derek

[DerekMichael]

PS

But, why ? ...

[Sean]

yes! I have seen tinker, willis, merkle etc. With this exact same characteristic.

The waddell card seems to have it a bit as well. The blue seems so light. I had a sovereign 350 at one point and the blue was very dark and rich, almost like a royal blue.

So i am not crazy, per se.

Thank you sir.

Derek

136674

136675

136676

I can't expain why, however.

[thehoodedcoder]

YES! I have seen Tinker, Willis, Merkle etc. with this exact same characteristic.

The Waddell card seems to have it a bit as well. The blue seems so light. I had a Sovereign 350 at one point and the blue was very dark and rich, almost like a royal blue.

So I am not crazy, per se.

Thank you Sir.

Derek

the overpriced devlin on ebay has the same thing characteristic.

kevin

[sebie43]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/10/4aqadeje.jpg This Kling I got off the BST also seems to have some color variation similar to that Tinker. blueish gray on left orangeish on the right.

[Mikehealer]

I've noticed that cards with a red background and a Brown Hindu back frequentlly look more orange than red.

Finding one with a red background is the challenge, most all have the orange. I had two Fosters and I think one may have been red. I can't find the scans.

Every other red background Hindu I had was orange(Chance, Merkle, McGraw).

[Runscott]

Velly ineresting. I currently have two Merkle portraits on my website (and ebay) - the brown Hindu is orange and the other is red (good comparison, since I used the same scanner for both).

http://www.belltownvintagecards.com/product-p/1010101032902.htm

http://www.belltownvintagecards.com/product-p/1010101032901.htm

[MyGuyTy]

I've noticed that cards with a red background and a Brown Hindu back frequentlly look more orange than red.

Gotta agree, I've noticed this with my Elberfeld Hindu, definitely looks more orangey than pure red like it should be.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c228/myguyty366/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps60d34aff.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c228/myguyty366/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps0716535a.jpg

[Runscott]

Perhaps Ted has a theory regarding this - could be a way to tie the non-Hindu orange-background cards, based on print runs, or to determine print runs.

Go get it, Ted.

[tedzan]

Scott......you called ? :)

Currently, in my collection are following color errors. I had more, but traded them away. These I'll keep for a while.

The only brown HINDU with a front color printing flaw that I have is Bridwell. I cannot think of how we can connect front printing flaws with any particular T206 back.
Since, the fronts were printed first. The various T-brand backs were printed later, as the orders for T206's arrived to ALC from the various tobacco factory's.


Thought you may like my ORANGE Cobb (with the "snow flake" effect for this wintry season) :)
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/acobb8.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206orangeCobbPinlWillis.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206AdkinsOrangeYellow50.jpg



http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/BridwellBrHINDUx50.jpg

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/abpinklinghuggins.jpghttp://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/beckleydevlinklingpink.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/SovereignWalshGray25x.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/greent206walsh.jpg


And, my favorite color error card....Lundgren without BLUE ink

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/alundgren4versions.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/blundgren4versions.jpg



Furthermore, check-out the UZIT backs....some are deep BLUE, others are lighter BLUE....similar to the PIEDMONT 460/42 backs

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/herzogUZITx50b.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/schaeferUZITx50b.jpg



TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

[Sean]

Hi Ted. I love that Kling with the "rainbow" effect.

[DerekMichael]

The Hindu is the much lighter one.

I traded the Sovereign before I got the Hindu, so I never had the chance to compare them side by the side, but the difference is very distinct as I remember it.

Thoughts?

[thehoodedcoder]

Some of these are just the colors not being printed with enough ink, others are not.

some places, like the uzit backs, you are seeing the cardboard color come through and its affecting your eyes abilitiy to judge the color as the same shade.

some of the card board can probably even be see through the ink to some extent, much like paint on a wall, until you put the second coat on.

kevin

[drumback]

More orange.

[GregMitch34]

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?


I don't think the question of "should" can be answered. People can collect what they want and pay whatever price makes them happy.

Personally, I think it's crazy.

[Sean]

My experience is that they get a very small premium, particularly the commons.

[CMIZ5290]

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

Greg- I paid about 2x premium for this card and I'll be honest, my max bid was higher. Having said that, I have never seen it as this color variation in over 25 years of collecting. My opinion is that red backed cards that come out orange, do not demand much of a premium. There is too much debate on just how orange is it? But when you have a normally red backed card that comes out a true purple, I think that enters into the equation greatly because of uniqueness. Another example I can think of is Brian's SGC 70 Manion (normally a vivid green background, this card is light blue). There are many red T206s that have orange varieties (Cobb, Abstein, Bush, Chance, etc...)

[Runscott]

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

Several people have answered the original question. There is not a consistent answer, because the premiums have not been consistent.

[MVSNYC]

Some cards posted here are either faded from the sun, or have been altered (either intentionally or unintentionally) with chemicals. they command no premium. cards with "mild" color variations command little to some premium (orange backgrounds, etc). cards which are clearly missing color passes, command big premiums.

[bn2cardz]

Some cards posted here are either faded from the sun, or have been altered (either intentionally or unintentionally) with chemicals. they command no premium. cards with "mild" color variations command little to some premium (orange backgrounds, etc). cards which are clearly missing color passes, command big premiums.

...And cards with a second color pass are ignored completely:

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/k607/bn2cardz/bn2cardz/t206Groom5cardComparisonsmall.jpg

...every card has some variance, but the card in the center is clearly darker. So much so that my wife can spot it from across the room (I know this because when she saw it sitting out she asked why it looked different and if it meant we could retire if I sold it :rolleyes:).

[thehoodedcoder]

...And cards with a second color pass are ignored completely:

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/k607/bn2cardz/bn2cardz/t206Groom5cardComparisonsmall.jpg

...every card has some variance, but the card in the center is clearly darker. So much so that my wife can spot it from across the room (I know this because when she saw it sitting out she asked why it looked different and if it meant we could retire if I sold it :rolleyes:).

I think that this is really just an optical illusion. The blue color is identical, but you are looking at something that is over saturated. You are not seeing what is under the ink as well, and what is around the blue ink and combined that makes it appear darker, when in fact the color of the ink is almost virtually identical.


There may be slight differences, if the printer mixed multiple batches of ink, but to think they vary that much....I don't think so. There are ink weight formulas to produce specific colors and a printer would use that to make sure they are not vastly different.

Kevin

[bn2cardz]

I think that this is really just an optical illusion. The blue color is identical, but you are looking at something that is over saturated. You are not seeing what is under the ink as well, and what is around the blue ink and combined that makes it appear darker, when in fact the color of the ink is almost virtually identical.


There may be slight differences, if the printer mixed multiple batches of ink, but to think they vary that much....I don't think so. There are ink weight formulas to produce specific colors and a printer would use that to make sure they are not vastly different.

Kevin

Wrong. The face is obviously more pink, not an illusion. This is a double strike of the magenta. Also the card was miscut but it doesn't look like a recent trim as the edge is worn even.


There was a thread I started about it when I first bought it. This is from that thread and shows closeups of the dot pattern:
Looking at a high res scan it looks like it's actually two passes of the same color.

In the pic below which is a blowup of a section near the upper left corner you can see the two passes. one appears lighter and is slightly left and lower than the other. The blue lines point to the top of a kidney bean shaped part of the dot pattern that's both repeated and easy to see. The other lines and brackets point to other features of the pattern that are visible.

Since the two patterns match up it's extremely unlikely to be a different color.

I can't tell if one is actually darker than the other or if it's just that the areas where the two overlap is darker. Possibly a bit of both. And the patterns overlapping means the face and all the other areas where the pink overlaps itself have little to no white showing through.

The other thing that can cause this is running the inking rollers while adjusting the registration like on the Garvey I posted in another thread. But that usually gives a very reduced first impression and a proper second impression. On this card the two appear to be nearly the same.

I'm fairly sure it's a double printing of the pink, and the first card of any sort I've seen that I feel confident is a double pass of the same color.

Steve B
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=6285


Link to that orig thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=969213

[CMIZ5290]

Some cards posted here are either faded from the sun, or have been altered (either intentionally or unintentionally) with chemicals. they command no premium. cards with "mild" color variations command little to some premium (orange backgrounds, etc). cards which are clearly missing color passes, command big premiums.

Michael- I'm a bit confused. On cards with definite color variations, if they were in the presence of chemicals, wouldn't the borders of the card be off as well? Also, if the color was altered by the sun, wouldn't there be discoloration or toning on the borders?

[CMIZ5290]

Ted Z- Do you have any opinions on what I was commenting on? Thanks...

[tedzan]

All my cards that I have on display here in Post #26 are errors due to printing flaws at American Lithographic.

My opinion regarding any premium to be paid on such cards is a very subjective matter.

Personally, I will not pay a premium....all the T206 color errors that I have acquired, I have paid very liitle for.


TED Z

[CMIZ5290]

Thanks Ted, What about my questions pertaining this post? Chemicals, sun fading, etc...

[steve B]

Michael- I'm a bit confused. On cards with definite color variations, if they were in the presence of chemicals, wouldn't the borders of the card be off as well? Also, if the color was altered by the sun, wouldn't there be discoloration or toning on the borders?

The inks were and are colored by a variety of pigments. Some are more stable than others.

A chemical that changes the color might only affect one of the colors. That would depend on the chemistry of the chemical and the pigment.
Other chemicals could affect the carrier, usually some sort of oil or grease with lithography inks. Some oils like linseed oil eventually harden, others don't. Modern environmentally friendly inks are often based on vegetable oil and can be smudged or removed in normal handling if your skin isn't especially dry. Sports illustrated used inks like that for a while.

I'm not really up on the exact pigments for most colors, but know a little about a few of them.

Most black ink is colored with carbon, either carbonblack or lampblack. (A fine distinction of the process used to get the carbon pigment. And usually one that doesn't matter. ) Carbon won't fade, and isn't affected by most chemicals.

Reds are sometimes done with Cochineal. And while it makes a nice bright red dye that resists fading from soap, it will fade with exposure to light.

Many other colors don't fade.
That's why I bought a small lot of cards with no bright red, but a known history of light exposure of around 40 years. Unfortunately a few other cards from the same batch have been slabbed as missing colors. The good look I've had at mine is to me inconclusive. One shows gloss where the bright red should be, the other doesn't.
On both, none of the other colors have faded much if at all.

The borders on T206 fronts won't be affected by light. Backs exposed to light might be affected a bit, but I don't have any examples. The good news is that the cardstock is probably not particularly acidic.

A lot of lithography stock is coated on one or both sides. The fronts of T206s are coated stock. Probably a clay based glaze. The coating makes the inks appear a bit brighter and helps them adhere better to the surface without getting into the paper itself. The backs are uncoated. So stock that's more porous than usual will absorb more ink. I should also make clear that the ink is very thick, and won't bleed through. The depth it penetrates porous uncoated stock is very small. Maybe a layer or two of fibers.

Many T206s under a lot of magnification will show a bit of fine cracking to the glaze coating on the front.

And, over three years the exact cardstock and inks may have changed.

As Kevin pointed out the press operators have formulas they follow. But they don't always follow them as precisely as they should. Other things during printing can also change how a color looks. The amount of ink put onto the plate can be changed, as can the amount of water. So a color can be overinked or underinked, making it darker or lghter. Or printed drier leading to small areas being filled like the drame lines on Piedmonts, or printed wet, which can prevent some areas from printing at all. Dry prints are pretty common on T206 backs, wet prints aren't common at all. I can't recall seeing one, but there's probably a few.

Steve B

[MVSNYC]

Kevin- you just have to keep an eye out for cards that are not legitimate errors from the factory. they are often "psychedelic" and swirly, and have a kaleidoscope of colors. i don't want to call out any specific ones from this thread, but one or two caught my eye that seem like they were either faded, or touched with chemicals (be it glue, or something else unintentional).

Here's a link i found on the subject:

http://t206museum.com/page/periodical_43.html

[thehoodedcoder]

Wrong. The face is obviously more pink, not an illusion. This is a double strike of the magenta. Also the card was miscut but it doesn't look like a recent trim as the edge is worn even.


There was a thread I started about it when I first bought it. This is from that thread and shows closeups of the dot pattern:



Link to that orig thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=969213

my point here would be:

it also appears that what you see is really in your card's edge image is the blush color and a light magenta color, not a double strike of the same color. why would anyone print the same color down two times?

take two cards that appear different and explode out the dot patterns and colors to show what distinct colors were laid down on the card some where in the middle of the card. I say middle of the card because the edges more commonly show more staining and wear, than the middle, particularly from hand oil, dust and dirt etc.

if there is an extra dot color on one card vs the other then you are not correct. pick a plain Jane red background card. that would probably be the easiest to do.

I'm not home or I would do it.

Kevin

[bn2cardz]

why would anyone print the same color down two times?
Kevin

The same reason some cards have multiple ads on the back...
This card was not factory cut as can seen by the curved edge that is evenly worn. I have looked at this card enough to know that it has nothing to do with dot patterns not lining up. The face is way too pink for that explanation to make sense. Also that is the reason the comment points out that the dots are the same shape but offset. The dots should look different if they were from different colors. Anyways I am not really going to argue it anymore. My point is that most cards look faded, but even cards that look darker than the norm will not bring any extra money.

[thehoodedcoder]

The same reason some cards have multiple ads on the back...
This card was not factory cut as can seen by the curved edge that is evenly worn. I have looked at this card enough to know that it has nothing to do with dot patterns not lining up. The face is way too pink for that explanation to make sense. Also that is the reason the comment points out that the dots are the same shape but offset. The dots should look different if they were from different colors. Anyways I am not really going to argue it anymore. My point is that most cards look faded, but even cards that look darker than the norm will not bring any extra money.

no one was arguing. its a discussion.

the quantities and variances of multiple ads on the back no where equates to the variances of color on the front. say for instance 5000 of one card in existence. how many variations of the color red background do you think you could distinctly see? the answer would be some where in the order of an entire color palate full of them.

its not quite the same thing as saying they were run through as test sheets for that color pass and then some how made it into a production distribution. lets also not forget the images that were posted here where there are multiple different saturations within the same ad backed card. that is a perfect example of it.

even if they did go through two times, you basically are saying I am correct. it would be the same color ink, just that you are covering more of the cardboard, possibly due to print registration being ever so slightly off as the sheet goes through the press a second time.

that is all completely different than saying, the printer laid down one red pass and in one instance it was this color red and then remixed the next batch of ink and continued to lay down just one pass of red and it was a totally different color.


kevin

[caramelcard]

There's not an abundance of tobacco cards that are "faded by the sun." Makes no sense. And red cards don't fade to orange.

Cards that have had the color changed by a chemical are usually pretty obvious. Just use common sense if you're buying them. If they look fishy, severely stained, etc, then I'd stay away.

Certain cards (like Abstein for example) just have a wide amount of red/orange tones and are completely legit.

Rob

[tedzan]

There's not an abundance of tobacco cards that are "faded by the sun." Makes no sense. And red cards don't fade to orange.

Cards that have had the color changed by a chemical are usually pretty obvious. Just use common sense if you're buying them. If they look fishy, severely stained, etc, then I'd stay away.

Certain cards (like Abstein for example) just have a wide amount of red/orange tones and are completely legit.

Rob


I totally agree with Rob's three points here. As a grown-up, I've been collecting Sportscards of all varieties since 1977.....and, T206's for the past 34 years.
I have yet to see a "faded" T206 due to sun exposure.

Furthermore, the few T206's that I have seen that appear to have been tampered with (chemically, or otherwise) are quite easy to detect.


TED Z

[atx840]

I think it's totally plausible these are faded due to sunlight exposure. Hung in a frame in a sunny hallway/room for years.

Cobb has some untouched red, likely hidden under a phot holder.

Auction (http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=118038&searchby=3&searchvalue=T206%20cobb&page=0&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=15&category=1&seo=1909-11-T206-White-Border-Ty-Cobb%2c-Red-Portrait---Displays-as-a-Very-Interesting-%22Orange-Background%22)

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/ItemImages/000118/121736a-copy_lg.jpeg

[atx840]

Huggins & Scott had a large framed lot where several showed signs of fading reds, including a split Cobb.

Auction (http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=43886)

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/43886b_t206_caramel_card_collage.jpg

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/43886d_t206_caramel_card_collage.jpg

And here's the window.

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/43886m_t206_caramel_card_collage.jpg

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Such a waste of cards

[atx840]

If this Lord or Crandall hit the market they could be listed as missing red.

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/43886j_t206_caramel_card_collage.jpg

[MVSNYC]

Chris- thanks for illustrating my point. UV rays are killer, and can easily fade colors...so can excess exposure to indoor bulbs.

[caramelcard]

Chris,

That piece has faded everything and cards that are heavily glued down, stained, etc. Yes, I see there's a window in the photo, but I don't think it's the culprit.

It faded certain parts of each card more extremely? The Schmidt and Cobb (for example) had much heavier sun exposure on the bottom half of the card?


Rob

[thehoodedcoder]

Chris- thanks for illustrating my point. UV rays are killer, and can easily fade colors...so can excess exposure to indoor bulbs.

they do it on everything from the siding on your house, to the paint on your car the baseball cards you hang in a sunny place.

kevin

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

That's why nice things should be framed behind uv blocking glass.

[teetwoohsix]

Interesting thread, I've been following this and will add some thoughts.

I've always felt the way Rob and Ted have, that sun exposure wouldn't remove all of the red in a card-and, I still pretty much feel that way. I may be wrong, but usually some cards missing red , where you can still see a touch of red (like that Cobb, for instance) can have another explanation.

As you can see in the corner of the Cobb, Chris is right- that corner shows it was tucked in a photo holder, commonly seen in old photo albums where you have one on the upper right, and one on the lower left.

So, I wonder about this- most pages in old photo albums are black. Could whatever they use to dye the pages black react to the red ink over time? That could explain why it did not affect the corner that was tucked, but the bottom of the top page laying flat on the card, over time, reacted with the red ink? Not sure, but something to think about?

The other cards on the montage- can't help but wonder about glue reaction (chemical reaction) on those cards....they all look heavily glued on....

Some people in the past have likened the sun exposure thing to a can that has sit in the sun, and over time the image faded......but, that's an image on aluminum or tin- the sun heats it up a lot hotter than the sun heating up paper? It seems like the sun would heat up a metal more than it would paper? So, I don't think that is conclusive (apples to oranges?).

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Keep in mind, these cards can be soaked and not lose any of the red. It's hard to imaging sun could remove it but water can't.

Again, I may be wrong. These are just my thoughts on this, and I am not a scientist. The Willis portrait is mostly found in red, but you also have many found in this burgundy type of color. Was this deliberate? The Abstein, mostly found in red, but many are found in orange-was this deliberate? Or, did that many Absteins get exposed to sunlight for too long? Sort of seems deliberate to me, because of how many examples have this color of orange. And, this Donie Bush card....look how red it is. Does anyone have an orange Donie Bush card? If so, are there any signs of glue residue on the back?

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Chris and Mike

What makes you so sure the discoloration of some of the cards mounted on this poster was caused by "sun exposure" fading ?

As Rob A. pointed out.......the red backgrounds of Cobb (red portrait) and Boss Schmidt (portrait) are not uniformly discolored.
Yet, cards below & above them, and cards to the left & right of them are discolored.

I suspect that the discoloration on some of these cards is due to the long-term affects of GLUE seeping thru into the fronts of
the cards and chemically altering their colors. Especially, the Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards......as, the pattern of their RED
discoloration is indicative of this effect. If you recall, we have previously discussed this "glue effect" on Net54 in prior threads.


TED Z

[tedzan]

I was typing my post while you posted and did not see your post. Pardon me for repeating what you stated. Anyhow, it appears that we (along with Rob A.)
are considering an alternative explanation for the discoloration of many of these cards mounted on this poster.

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

I was typing my post while you posted and did not see your post. Pardon me for repeating what you stated. Anyhow, it appears that we (along with Rob A.)
are considering an alternative explanation for the discoloration of many of these cards mounted on this poster.

TED Z

No problem Ted :) thanks.

Yes, there's a window in the picture of the homemade poster on the wall-but, there's also blinds on it. I think that one can easily be explained by the glue as you pointed out Ted. Long term exposure to chemicals.

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

The color differences could be UV or something in the ink. Either way, it seems like a much ado about nothing to me.

[teetwoohsix]

The color differences could be UV or something in the ink. Either way, it seems like a much ado about nothing to me.

Oh, ok thanks.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Oh, ok thanks.


You're welcome.

[steve B]

If this Lord or Crandall hit the market they could be listed as missing red.

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/43886j_t206_caramel_card_collage.jpg

The Mitchell has the same sort of fading that the small lot I bought had.
NO bright red left, and about 40 years of light exposure.
Lobert and Downey would pass for missing colors, and someone posted that a couple cards from the same batch have been slabbed that way.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-1909-1911-T206-Baseball-Cards-/301063802348?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWNX%3AIT&nma=true&si=56X3npJSzJ5fGmivnb8YxCw7oXk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Yes, It could also be the glue or the cardboard/paper they were glued to. But most likely it was the light exposure.

Steve B

[steve B]

Interesting thread, I've been following this and will add some thoughts.

I've always felt the way Rob and Ted have, that sun exposure wouldn't remove all of the red in a card-and, I still pretty much feel that way. I may be wrong, but usually some cards missing red , where you can still see a touch of red (like that Cobb, for instance) can have another explanation.

As you can see in the corner of the Cobb, Chris is right- that corner shows it was tucked in a photo holder, commonly seen in old photo albums where you have one on the upper right, and one on the lower left.

So, I wonder about this- most pages in old photo albums are black. Could whatever they use to dye the pages black react to the red ink over time? That could explain why it did not affect the corner that was tucked, but the bottom of the top page laying flat on the card, over time, reacted with the red ink? Not sure, but something to think about?

The other cards on the montage- can't help but wonder about glue reaction (chemical reaction) on those cards....they all look heavily glued on....

Some people in the past have likened the sun exposure thing to a can that has sit in the sun, and over time the image faded......but, that's an image on aluminum or tin- the sun heats it up a lot hotter than the sun heating up paper? It seems like the sun would heat up a metal more than it would paper? So, I don't think that is conclusive (apples to oranges?).

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Keep in mind, these cards can be soaked and not lose any of the red. It's hard to imaging sun could remove it but water can't.

Again, I may be wrong. These are just my thoughts on this, and I am not a scientist. The Willis portrait is mostly found in red, but you also have many found in this burgundy type of color. Was this deliberate? The Abstein, mostly found in red, but many are found in orange-was this deliberate? Or, did that many Absteins get exposed to sunlight for too long? Sort of seems deliberate to me, because of how many examples have this color of orange. And, this Donie Bush card....look how red it is. Does anyone have an orange Donie Bush card? If so, are there any signs of glue residue on the back?

Sincerely, Clayton

Sun exposure will fade many red pigments, especially ones derived from natural sources.

Cochineal produces the brightest reds, and sets better than most protein based fibers. In other words It won't easily wash out of wool. It was widely used before cheaper stuff came along, and has made a comeback in food and cosmetics since many of the synthetics are suspected or proven carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal

The main points
"In artists' paints, it has been replaced by synthetic reds and is largely unavailable for purchase due to poor lightfastness."

"Cochineal is one of the few water-soluble colourants that resist degradation with time. It is one of the most light- and heat-stable and oxidation-resistant of all the natural organic colourants and is even more stable than many synthetic food colours."

One of the replacements for it, Alizarin or Rose Madder, is also not particularly lightfast. But it could be made from coal tar rather than the labor intensive insect harvesting for Cochineal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_madder

"As all madder-based pigments are notoriously fugitive, artists have long sought a more permanent and lightfast replacement for Rose Madder and Alizarin"

Those were the two main sources of red in the 1910 era. Both are fine in water, but not great in sunlight. (Sunlight stable reds didn't come along until after 1958)

One of the big surprises in the lot with sun exposure was that the pink which I'd believed to be simply a red mixed with white appears entirely unaffected.


It's possible some chemical put off by the glue or by the cardboard could affect the bright red and other colors. I simply don't know enough chemistry to be sure.
I do know the common red pigments that made up probably around 90% of the red dye/pigment market at the time were probe to fading from light.
So going with the simple explanation seems to work.

I'd be happy to have a real chemist give an explanation either way.

Steve B

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- there is no question in my mind that many years of sun/light exposure faded the cards in that montage. no question. everything is pretty much evenly faded (yes, some more than others, but overall, almost every card looks to have been effected by UV exposure). for example, not sure if you were ever out in Los Angeles, but many many buildings, billboards, posters, murals, etc, etc, are very "sunbleached" due to years of sun exposure. almost everything out there has a washed-out look. furthermore, i've owned several framed posters (this was when i was younger before i spent the money to use UV glass on everything i frame) that were certainly faded over time from being on a wall that was washed with sunlight. in fact, some of the items didn't have direct sunlight, but simply light from the room, be it ambient sunlight or fluorescents.

[wonkaticket]

I've been collecting Sportscards of all varieties since 1977.....and, T206's for the past 34 years. I have yet to see a "faded" T206 due to sun exposure.

Really Ted? I have and seen plenty of them. Glad someone posted the above from Huggins & Scott because it was one of the more recent examples of UV damage from sunlight or artificial light IMO.

Here’s another example no doubt this was exposed to quite a bit of UV overtime from the original framing and old glass it was behind. Hence why my copy on the left is more pink than red.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/a-state-flags.jpg

[caramelcard]

Ok. Sun can cause some fading. So can other variables after the printing process. In my opinion, a very small percentage of the color errors that are out there are caused by sunlight.

[tedzan]

Hey guys....you're ganging up on me :)

This is what I stated in Post #50 here......

I totally agree with Rob's three points here. As a grown-up, I've been collecting Sportscards of all varieties since 1977.....and, T206's for the past 34 years.
I have yet to see a "faded" T206 due to sun exposure.

Furthermore, the few T206's that I have seen that appear to have been tampered with (chemically, or otherwise) are quite easy to detect.
TED Z

Note that I was referring to individual T206 cards. Not posters of cards.

However, speaking about "posters"....the discoloration of the Red Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards on the poster that Chris has displayed is the result of something
more than just "sun exposure" fading. There is no way that those two cards got to look the way they do, due to fading.


TED Z

[wonkaticket]

Ted, you may want to re-read this thread. Those are not posters of cards they are cards made into a folk art display that were in Huggins & Scott. So those are T206 cards with faded colors FWIW.

My image was just showing that Red is the first color to go on many printed or even painted surfaces. This is common knowledge and nothing to out there in terms of and idea.

Cheers,

John

[tedzan]

Chris and Mike

What makes you so sure the discoloration of some of the cards mounted on this poster was caused by "sun exposure" fading ?

As Rob A. pointed out.......the red backgrounds of Cobb (red portrait) and Boss Schmidt (portrait) are not uniformly discolored.
Yet, cards below & above them, and cards to the left & right of them are discolored.

I suspect that the discoloration on some of these cards is due to the long-term affects of GLUE seeping thru into the fronts of
the cards and chemically altering their colors. Especially, the Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards......as, the pattern of their RED
discoloration is indicative of this effect. If you recall, we have previously discussed this "glue effect" on Net54 in prior threads.


TED Z

I'm not referring to the kind of posters you displayed....I dig the fading of those type of things.

My contention is.....that Rob A. first made the point of the red Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards having non-uniform discoloration. I observed this also; and,
added that fading due to "sun exposure" does not result in this kind of effect. We attributed this type of discoloration in these two T206's as possibly having
been caused by the chemical reaction of the glue used to mount these cards on that poster.

So, I am not sure of what your point is ?

Anyhow, since no one here has yet to address the Cobb and Schmidt cards' discoloration, perhaps we can get your take on these two cards on that poster
exhibiting a different effect than the others ?


TED Z

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I am tempted to sun bleach a card just to prove that this happens.

[teetwoohsix]

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Sincerely, Clayton

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I quoted myself ^^ because I understand that the UV rays can dull the red-I just have a hard time thinking that it would completely remove the whole color. And, I know that the major TPG's use a UV protective plastic in their slabs for this reason.

But, will it remove all traces of red? In John's poster (thanks for posting that by the way), you can see the UV rays degraded the color red, but you can still tell it was red. It didn't remove the whole color.

Back to the cards.....if those cards weren't glued on to that poster, it would be a little easier to conclude that all of the fading was because of prolonged sunlight-but the fact that they are glued on, makes me wonder if it was the glue-or-a combination of both.

Now, here's why this topic is important (IMO)- if, as some of you are saying- the red can disappear completely due to prolonged exposure to sun/UV rays- how can one tell a legitimate card that is missing a red pass to one that has been exposed to the sun? I mean, in theory couldn't someone take their cards to a tanning salon, put them under one of those tanning beds for a few sessions, and *POOF* create a "missing red pass" card?

Great discussion, very interesting....

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

I'm not referring to the kind of posters you displayed....I dig the fading of those type of things.

My contention is.....that Rob A. first made the point of the red Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards having non-uniform discoloration. I observed this also; and,
added that fading due to "sun exposure" does not result in this kind of effect. We attributed this type of discoloration in these two T206's as possibly having
been caused by the chemical reaction of the glue used to mount these cards on that poster.

So, I am not sure of what your point is ?

Anyhow, since no one here has yet to address the Cobb and Schmidt cards' discoloration, perhaps we can get your take on these two cards on that poster
exhibiting a different effect than the others ?


TED Z

Hi Ted,

I think the discoloration of the Cobb and Schmidt cards (in my opinion) have a lot to do with glue/chemical reaction. I think all of those cards discoloration/fading have something to do with the glue/chemical reaction. I've been wrong before, and may be wrong now, but so far this is what I think-regarding this card montage.

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I quoted myself ^^ because I understand that the UV rays can dull the red-I just have a hard time thinking that it would completely remove the whole color. And, I know that the major TPG's use a UV protective plastic in their slabs for this reason.

But, will it remove all traces of red? In John's poster (thanks for posting that by the way), you can see the UV rays degraded the color red, but you can still tell it was red. It didn't remove the whole color.

Back to the cards.....if those cards weren't glued on to that poster, it would be a little easier to conclude that all of the fading was because of prolonged sunlight-but the fact that they are glued on, makes me wonder if it was the glue-or-a combination of both.

Now, here's why this topic is important (IMO)- if, as some of you are saying- the red can disappear completely due to prolonged exposure to sun/UV rays- how can one tell a legitimate card that is missing a red pass to one that has been exposed to the sun? I mean, in theory couldn't someone take their cards to a tanning salon, put them under one of those tanning beds for a few sessions, and *POOF* create a "missing red pass" card?

Great discussion, very interesting....

Sincerely, Clayton

What I did with the ones from the lot I bought was to look for signs that the ink was still there. My theory was that the ink has a different glossiness than the cardboard, so a card showing the white of the cardboard where bright red should be would be glossy for a faded card and not glossy for a missing color. (Glossy being relative here)

What I saw was one card that was glossy where the red should have been and one that wasn't. So either I was wrong - the most likely answer. Or I'd gotten one faded card and one legit missing color.

One thing I've noticed is that many of the actual missing colors are missing more than one color.
And that color variations can be caused by the level of inking. The colors that usually show up with heavier inking making the card look different are Gray, pink, and blue.
Most of the 350s come with two different bright red layers. Something I think is a legitimate variety I haven't really studied them in detail, but I think it may be a difference between 350 only runs and the later ones carried over to 350/460. And they probably all got redone again for the 460 series.

The farther I get into this stuff the more questions I find. And the answers are increasingly difficult.

Steve B

[wonkaticket]

Ted, my point was very simple. You made a comment above that you now are avoiding or twisting. You said that in all your years of collecting you have yet to see a T206 that showed signs of missing color due to exposure to sun or artificial light.

This is nothing new to any collector especially one with years of collecting. Exposure damage is real, known and and seen quite often.....not only in our world but many other collecting worlds.

Sometimes I think you almost take the polar opposite side just to debate. If someone said tobacco cards were issued with tobacco you would announce that you had a theory that they were put out with pudding. :)

John

[caramelcard]

John,

I'm not Ted, but I had the same stance in this case.

It's funny that you mention taking the polar opposite side just to debate because that's what I feel you guys are doing in this case.

Most of the T206 color errors are not due to sunlight. There's not a ton of T206 collections bathing in the sun. Would you agree?

Rob

[MVSNYC]

The majority of color error cards are legit, and are missing color passes and/or were printer's scraps with a variety of (cool) issues...I think what John & I were responding to, was whether or not sun can fade colors on cards, posters, etc...which I think several people have now confirmed it can do lots of damage...I'm at a resort right now, and they have a lounge with a library of books next to the fireplace (sunlight hits the bookshelf)...on most of the older books, the exposed edge is totally faded. See attached.

[wonkaticket]

Robert, where did I say most or mention any percentage of cards with color variations are due to just UV damage?

I'm simply pointing out That UV can be a cause and is not something that is never seen or some odd occurrence that is hardly seen as announced so boldly by Ted and his statement.

I would also disagree with you that T206s aren't sitting in the sun, folk art and displaying cards either glued, pinned or stuck up was common use for these premiums upon issue. Cards don't have sit in the sun for 100 years to be affected.

Cheers,

John

[caramelcard]

Fair enough. But I believe it is an odd occurrence and it's rarely seen. I've handled a ton of them and I know you have too. How many have you had that struck you as altered by the sun?

[wonkaticket]

Fair enough. But I believe it is an odd occurrence and it's rarely seen. I've handled a ton of them and I know you have too. How many have you had that struck you as altered by the sun?

Robert quite a few have struck me as sun/UV, glue, chemicals or something else since you ask.

Finding true missing reds that are bold minus the red isn't an easy thing. I think that's why I own so few them. But that's just my experience with T206s and the set.....

[Bridwell]

Clayton, I used to own a Donie Bush with a bright orange background. I didn't think it was faded and no evidence of soaking or glue. It seems to me it was missing a red color pass. The card was a PSA 4, I believe.

I currently have an Abstein PSA 5 with the similar bright orange background.

[teetwoohsix]

Clayton, I used to own a Donie Bush with a bright orange background. I didn't think it was faded and no evidence of soaking or glue. It seems to me it was missing a red color pass. The card was a PSA 4, I believe.

I currently have an Abstein PSA 5 with the similar bright orange background.

Thanks Ron!

I appreciate the input. I've seen quite a few of the Abstien cards with this orange background. It's hard to imagine that many Abstein cards losing all of the red?

And I posted the Willis portrait because I think some of these slight color changes may have been a deliberate thing. Just my opinion of course, not to be taken as fact.

Sincerely, Clayton

[CMIZ5290]

Clayton, I used to own a Donie Bush with a bright orange background. I didn't think it was faded and no evidence of soaking or glue. It seems to me it was missing a red color pass. The card was a PSA 4, I believe.

I currently have an Abstein PSA 5 with the similar bright orange background.

Ron- I also have a Bush with a vivid orange background, it's a 6.5 Old Mill...

[MVSNYC]

Ron- I also have a Bush with a vivid orange background...


Kevin- you sure you don't want to edit that sentence?

Just bustin' your chops, sorry couldn't help it. ;)

[CMIZ5290]

Kevin- you sure you don't want to edit that sentence?

Just bustin' your chops, sorry couldn't help it. ;)

Priceless!!

[ullmandds]

kevin must have been tanning in the buff again!

[sb1]

Having frequented quite a few card shops in the 1990's/early 2000's you would be amazed at the color transformation of many of the cards that they had in counter displays and cases, they had changed colors quite a bit due to both Sun uv rays and fluorescent lighting. Now most of these were 1950's and 60's cards as that was what was mostly sought after but I am sure that in some areas quite a few early cards were put out as well. I also have a friend who has many of his cards out in the open on display in his home for quite some time and several have lightened up. Further the amount of glued (not paste) in early cards that were removed via solvents has created many of the psychedelic multi color cards as mentioned by others. Food for thought.

[wonkaticket]

Having frequented quite a few card shops in the 1990's/early 2000's you would be amazed at the color transformation of many of the cards that they had in counter displays and cases, they had changed colors quite a bit due to both Sun uv rays and fluorescent lighting. Now most of these were 1950's and 60's cards as that was what was mostly sought after but I am sure that in some areas quite a few early cards were put out as well. I also have a friend who has many of his cards out in the open on display in his home for quite some time and several have lightened up. Further the amount of glued (not paste) in early cards that were removed via solvents has created many of the psychedelic multi color cards as mentioned by others. Food for thought.

Agree 100%

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I don't know how anyone can arise against uv damage as a source of variations.

[teetwoohsix]

NM

[teetwoohsix]

Alright, I've been putting a lot of thought into this subject. I understand that UV rays can potentially fade colors on a card. I still have a hard time believing that it will completely remove a color though, to the point that you can't even tell the color was ever there. I understand many disagree with this.

With that being said- if a card sat in the sun for so long that it completely removed *let's say the color red:)* from the card- wouldn't the sun also degrade the composition of the paper as well? Would the sun's UV rays make the paper brittle? Not trying to sway the conversation into another direction, but I thought this was worth bringing up. The point I'm trying to make is-in my mind, a card would have to sit under direct sunlight for a pretty long time to completely remove a whole color-so, wouldn't we also be able to tell by the cardboard that this was a sun soaked card we were looking at?

Thanks for all well thought out and informative input-

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Alright, I've been putting a lot of thought into this subject. I understand that UV rays can potentially fade colors on a card. I still have a hard time believing that it will completely remove a color though, to the point that you can't even tell the color was ever there. I understand many disagree with this.

With that being said- if a card sat in the sun for so long that it completely removed *let's say the color red:)* from the card- wouldn't the sun also degrade the composition of the paper as well? Would the sun's UV rays make the paper brittle? Not trying to sway the conversation into another direction, but I thought this was worth bringing up. The point I'm trying to make is-in my mind, a card would have to sit under direct sunlight for a pretty long time to completely remove a whole color-so, wouldn't we also be able to tell by the cardboard that this was a sun soaked card we were looking at?

Thanks for all well thought out and informative input-

Sincerely, Clayton

It depends on the cardboard.

Late 70's-early 80's Topps, many of the strip cards, and others yes the cardboard will start having problems. Those are all printed on paper with a lot of wood fiber which makes it acidic and that's what makes it brittle. The sun can speed that up a bit.

But T206 are printed on a paper that's got a lot less or maybe even no wood fiber. (I don't think any have ever actually been tested for the paper content) It's a reasonably close match for the acid free cardstock used for some comic backing boards and for some artists cardstock.
As far as I know sunlight either won't affect it or it will take so long none of us will see it happen.

Steve B

[bnorth]

I think most of you would be very surprised at how easy sun removes colors from cards. Different years and brands are affected differently. I have never tried a T206 card, but would like to. The card on the left took 45 days to look like this and it had a darker yellow than the control card. It was faded under 3 layers of UV plastic and 25% shade cloth.

When taking a picture of a faded card the faded color leaves a dull area were the color was completely faded off. The card pictured does not have the slight contrast in hand that shows up in the photo.

The so called blue 58 Topps Hank Aaron are a great example of this. There is a thread in the post war section on them now. Notice the off white around the Indian. If it really left the factory missing the yellow to make the card blue it would be white there not off white.

[drumback]

I'm wondering why, if indeed sunlight is responsible for the majority of color variations, red sometimes fades to a very light red, and other times fades to a bright orange. Not an expert by any means, but this doesn't make sense to me.

[MVSNYC]

Hi Mark, i don't think anyone here said the sun is responsible for the "majority" of color variations. in fact, i think i stated that the majority of color scraps/errors are legit...suggesting, the sun or chemicals are responsible for the color damage, in only a smaller percentage of cases. we got kinda sidetracked in this thread debating whether or not UV light can damage/fade cards/posters. we know it can...anyway, there's plenty of real, legit color variations out there from the factory.

[t206hound]

I'm wondering why, if indeed sunlight is responsible for the majority of color variations, red sometimes fades to a very light red, and other times fades to a bright orange. Not an expert by any means, but this doesn't make sense to me.

Red on the cards isn't always just red... sometimes red is layered on top of orange (combination of pink/buff and yellow). See the McGinnity's in this auction (http://apr13.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=55701) (I was the consignor and honestly was hoping for a much higher price). It you notice on the one with the red, on the left side near the face you can see some of the orange. I think in the sunlight theory that the red layer is faded away to reveal the color(s) underneath.

[drumback]

So, you are saying they used three different layers to end up at red? Why would they do that? Doesn't that just unnecessarily add cost to the process?

[teetwoohsix]

Ben- very interesting and thanks for showing that. It's also interesting that in was in UV protective plastic and still did that.

Steve- Thanks for the explanation. I was reading about paper & trying to research to find out what type of material they were using back then. I found this site: http://www.pulpandpaper.org/history.shtml Pretty interesting stuff.

O/T a little-my wife bought a floral print very colorful outdoor rug for our patio. I has black, red, yellow, orange, blue, gray. I think it's been out there about 8 months now. ALL of the colors have faded-evenly. Every color faded out the same.No color completely faded away (yet, at least). I know it has nothing to do with cards-but I understand the sun can fade colors. Steve gave a great explanation as to why the red is affected the most, but I'm still having trouble with the idea that you would not even be able to tell the red was once there.

Even on Erick's card (hey Erick :)) you can tell there was some type of glue or paste or something on the back of the card, at one time. It leaves you to wonder, is it missing color from the press, or was it from chemical/glue/paste, etc.? This may have been why it didn't go for as much as you'd hoped for-I'm just guessing on that one. Awesome card though!

Now, I'm going to post this Sharpe card because I think somewhere along the line this card was either glued into a scrapbook, or came into contact with some type of chemical/glue/solvent/something? The back of the card has blue ink smeared all over it (blue same in from the "Piedmont" add) and the red on the front looks a bit light to me (sorry for the crappy scans). The reason I am showing this is because with whatever happened to this card, you can still see the red is red.

And lastly, I'm not saying anyone is wrong here- just trying to cover all areas, and trying to figure out a sure fire way to detect a true missing red pass card from what some of you say is a card that has been affected by the sun. Rob and Ron posted about the Abstein card, and I think that card is legitimately missing the red pass in quite a few of them. The same way I think the Willis portrait was deliberately printed with two different colors-red and burgundy (or would you call it violet?). Maybe many more missed the red pass, and it would be pretty cool to try to place some of these cards on the same sheet if possible. That's for another thread I'm sure :D

Sincerely, Clayton

[Jantz]

I think in the sunlight theory that the red layer is faded away to reveal the color(s) underneath.

If the sun faded away the red to reveal the colors underneath then shouldn't the background on that McGinnity be yellow instead of orange? Question is not directed at you Er!ck, just asking in general for this discussion.

Yellow was the base background color and the second ink pass applied to darken the background is still evident on the card.

Not saying it isn't possible, but its kind of a stretch to think that the sun faded off only the top layer of background ink and stopped there. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Clayton - I wish the glue on the back of that McGinnity had leached out all of the red ink. Then my McGinnity would be a blank back! ;)


Jantz

[t206hound]

So, you are saying they used three different layers to end up at red? Why would they do that? Doesn't that just unnecessarily add cost to the process?

It's simply a matter of color matching... how deep or bright they wanted the red to be. Not all reds are three layers... but sometimes multiple passes of ink were used to get the "right" color.

If the sun faded away the red to reveal the colors underneath then shouldn't the background on that McGinnity be yellow instead of orange? Question is not directed at you Er!ck, just asking in general for this discussion.

Yellow was the base background color and the second ink pass applied to darken the background is still evident on the card.
Jantz

I believe the McGinnity was missing the ink pass; I'm sure the back damage (albeit very localized) caused the lower price. Maybe the one card I most regret selling; along with a McGraw Red Hindu.

It's my opinion that most Orange that appears in T206 cards is a mix/combination of yellow and pink/buff (not a mix of yellow and red).

In the case of McGinnity, I believe the background color passes for the background were yellow, then pink/buff (to yield orange), then red. Given either the "sunlight theory" (disappearing red ink) or "missing ink theory", orange is the layer underneath. Again, just my guess, but that's why I believe the background in that McGinnity is orange and not yellow.

[steve B]

Ok, this was a reply to Mark. Except I missed page11 and didn't quote. So it looks totally out of place. DOH!

That was the way they did things at the time. Not all of the inks were opaque, so layering worked very well and produced better color. The bright red is typically over at least pink. And many of the brown team logos on uniforms are brown over gray.
It also allows a thinner ink coating, with two benefits. Better detail, and less ink used. Over millions of cards it probably worked out cheaper.

It's similar to painting a car. Most just use the gray primer, but if the car is a dark color a good painter will use black primer. Or red under red, white under white. Gray under light colors.

Steve B

[drumback]

Thanks, Steve, for the explanation. I am learning a lot from this thread.

[teetwoohsix]

If the sun faded away the red to reveal the colors underneath then shouldn't the background on that McGinnity be yellow instead of orange? Question is not directed at you Er!ck, just asking in general for this discussion.

Yellow was the base background color and the second ink pass applied to darken the background is still evident on the card.

Not saying it isn't possible, but its kind of a stretch to think that the sun faded off only the top layer of background ink and stopped there. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Clayton - I wish the glue on the back of that McGinnity had leached out all of the red ink. Then my McGinnity would be a blank back! ;)


Jantz

Jantz, you bring up an excellent point, and it's something I've been overlooking in all of this. I also remember you've brought this up before in the past- if the glue would remove the red from the front, how could it not affect the red on the back?

So, it seems that we could rule that out on the McGinnity. It also has me wondering about the cards on the montage-I wonder how the backs of those cards look.

This has been a great conversation, I love these kinds of threads. :) I'm still not sure about the sunlight removing all of the red on a card-fading, I can buy that one i guess-just having trouble with the sun being able to remove all traces of red, so that you would never know it was even there.Maybe it's possible, and I am wrong.That's my stumbling block in all of this.

Sincerely, Clayton

[MuddyMules]

Red on the cards isn't always just red... sometimes red is layered on top of orange (combination of pink/buff and yellow). See the McGinnity's in this auction (http://apr13.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=55701) (I was the consignor and honestly was hoping for a much higher price). It you notice on the one with the red, on the left side near the face you can see some of the orange. I think in the sunlight theory that the red layer is faded away to reveal the color(s) underneath.

Take a look at the picture I have attached. The halftone dots are all at different angles for each color (Black, Cyan, Magenta and Yellow). Look at both of the McGinnity's with a powerful loupe and see if the magenta dots are running at the same angle on both cards. It is very possible that a yellow negative was shot on a magenta plate for the one on the left. Then it was caught by someone and a new plate was made with the correct negative on the correct plate.

Also, it is possible that the magenta and yellow plates were mislabeled before they went to press or the pressman put the yellow plate on the magenta cylinder and the magenta plate on the yellow cylinder and then caught the mistake and swapped the plates.

[steve B]

Take a look at the picture I have attached. The halftone dots are all at different angles for each color (Black, Cyan, Magenta and Yellow). Look at both of the McGinnity's with a powerful loupe and see if the magenta dots are running at the same angle on both cards. It is very possible that a yellow negative was shot on a magenta plate for the one on the left. Then it was caught by someone and a new plate was made with the correct negative on the correct plate.

Also, it is possible that the magenta and yellow plates were mislabeled before they went to press or the pressman put the yellow plate on the magenta cylinder and the magenta plate on the yellow cylinder and then caught the mistake and swapped the plates.

I'm glad you posted that graphic. I hadn't seen it before.

It only applies to the modern CMYK process though.
T206s are a combination of halftone and solid passes, and use many more than 4 colors. Where they're halftones most seem to be screened at the same angle.

Here's a closeup of Schlei, showing black, gray, light blue, dark blue, and pink.
Gray and Black are halftone the others aren't.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=10425

Steve B

[The Nasty Nati]

Not to completely change the subject, but in regards to UV harm, do SGC and PSA slabs offer UV protection?