T210-7 & 5 Printing Oddity & Question

[Michael Peich]

I acquired Cantwell and Bivens (middle) in the recent REA auction. Cantwell, with its uneven borders, appears to be hand-cut, and I suspect that Bivens may be as well, especially with the uneven cut at the top border.

It is also interesting that neither card appears to have had the protective finish applied to it resulting in a flat printed surface devoid of the gloss that characterizes T210s. The contrast between black/white is not as deep when the gloss finish is not used. (For comparison I’ve scanned a Bivens card with the gloss finish.)

I’m wondering if most hand-cut versions of T210s resulted from reject sheets that did not have the gloss coat applied. Does anyone else have hand-cut/gloss-less examples they could post, or send me privately (mpeich12@gmail.com)?

Thanks for looking and for sharing information.

Cheers,
Mike

[caramelcard]

Hi Mike,

I've had some "glossless" and partial gloss cards, but never hand cut and mis-cut. That Cantwell is an interesting T210. I don't recall seeing a top border like that on a T210. Very strange. Wouldn't the name from the card above be there or am I missing something?

Thanks for sharing.


Rob

[autograf]

Could be the top card on a sheet......but all are very cool. Little to no T210 experience so no help here.....neat stuff.

[Brian Weisner]

Hey Mike,
I do have another Winston Salem player that is hand cut and without gloss... I will post it when I get home. As you know, the gloss on T210's is all over the place.. I have quite a few factory cut cards with no gloss too...

Hope you are well Brian

[Michael Peich]

Hi, Rob,

I agree with Tom. I think the Cantwell was probably trimmed at the top of the sheet. These are the first two gloss-less cards I've encountered, and they appear to be hand-cut, hence my interest.

Any thoughts from anyone else?

Cheers,
Mike

[Brian Weisner]

Here you go...
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/hogan6g/Image479.jpg (http://s138.photobucket.com/user/hogan6g/media/Image479.jpg.html)
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/hogan6g/Image478.jpg (http://s138.photobucket.com/user/hogan6g/media/Image478.jpg.html)


Be well Brian

[nolemmings]

Cantwell looks hand-cut on all four sides. That always makes me wonder if the "card" was cut from a poster or advertising sheet of some kind. That also would/could explain the lack of gloss. Is the stock correct for the issue?

[caramelcard]

If it was the top of the sheet, wouldn't it just be red up to the top? That looks like the bottom of another card with no name below it.

[Michael Peich]

Todd-The paper stock seems to be the same so I don't think it's cut from advertising. And the Cantwell is definitely hand trimmed on all four sides.

Rob-That's a good point and I frankly don't know. However, I do suspect that the gloss finish may have been applied as the last run through the press. If a sheet were deemed faulty for some reason, the gloss would possibly not be applied, and the sheet would have been discarded. Discarded sheets must have been ripe for hand cutting.

Brian-Can you show a few of your factory cut gloss-less cards?

I guess we can chalk this up to another one of the mysteries of card production circa 1910!

Cheers,
Mike

[Jaybird]

I would think the sheet was pulled from the line prior to gloss like you say. The red color would be printed on the card, and the red at the top of the card sheet would stop when the card stops. That border on top is not thick enough to account for two cards top to bottom.

Can we see the backs? Often times when the sheet was pulled for misalignment, etc. it really shows up on the backs. Or at least how the backs compare to the fronts. Other issues end up hand cut all time time. Sometimes they are from advertising posters but most times they are because of a printing error or problem at the factory. If the stock feels the same other than the gloss, you'd have to think factory original until some other evidence shows up.

I agree that the gloss would be the last layer. Just like painting a car. It was pulled prior to that stage.

[Michael Peich]

Jason--Here are the back scans in the same order as the front. The alignment is off left-to-right on Cantwell and Bivens, almost as if the sheet was fed into the press at an angle rather than straight.

Cheers,
Mike

[shammus]

Here's the O'Halloran from the same auction. At first I was thinking that there was a sheet of these that got pulled off the printer. But, unless there was space set in between each card, which I don't believe I've ever seen on a panel or strip of cards before, that couldn't be the case for the OHalloran or Cantwell. So it would have to be some sort of an advertisement perhaps?

Generally speaking, when cards are laid out in a panel or strip, there's only enough room to the left and right of each photo for that card's border. So, in theory, if the Cantwell/OHalloran were cut from a panel, you wouldn't see any white around the edges.

I suppose you could make the argument that the OHalloran was the upper-left card in a panel, but even that is unlikely because we can see the rounded corners. So I think I'd have to go with advertising piece for the two Series 7s....

189126

[sb1]

To my knowledge no advertising piece would have printed backs. There was a large number of handcut higher series cards that were in the same auction several years back. Probably just hand cut from bad sheets
.

[Michael Peich]

I think you're right, Scott. I don't see these as cut from an advertising sheet, but I could be wrong.

Nice card, Brian!

Cheers,
Mike

[DixieBaseball]

Jason--Here are the back scans in the same order as the front. The alignment is off left-to-right on Cantwell and Bivens, almost as if the sheet was fed into the press at an angle rather than straight.

Cheers,
Mike

Mike & Brian,

Thnx for sharing... They definitely seem hand cut... Wavy, over size border, bad angle... Reject, that was hand cut and made it out the door to someone's home. I doubt it was in a pack of smokes, but those are scrappy looking. Nice.

[Leon]

Jason--Here are the back scans in the same order as the front. The alignment is off left-to-right on Cantwell and Bivens, almost as if the sheet was fed into the press at an angle rather than straight.

Cheers,
Mike

I agree with Scott B on this one. I guess that feeding sheets through presses wasn't a perfect science a hundred years ago. I could see sheets accidentally getting fed though the presses in a crooked manner by accident.