View Full Version : T206- Which was printed first, the front or back?
Seeing the thread about shipping of T cards reminded me of a question I always ponder; which was printed first, the front or back? The obvious argument would be the front, since there are blank backed cards. But if this is true, then why are there scrap cards out there with backs printed on them? If a printer is going to scrap the front, why even bother printing the backs? Also, I figured this would be a great place (as if we need another one) to show both your scraps and blank backs. I'm sure you guys (I'm talking to you Johnny and Chris) will hate this topic. :rolleyes:
Pilot172000
04-28-2016, 03:38 PM
Do we see blank front cards? Honest question.
Do we see blank front cards? Honest question.
No, as far as I know there has never been a blank front card.
Do we see blank front cards? Honest question.
Of course we don't. There would be no reason for a printer to save a card with no player on it.
I don't think that this proves anything, but here is a card with the back overprinted on the front:
229311
sando69
04-28-2016, 06:57 PM
how can that be "over-printed" if it's backwards...
doesn't that have to be really wet wst?
Pilot172000
04-28-2016, 08:38 PM
Sean it's amazing what people keep. I stand amazed at how many mysteries surround something that was mass produced in the millions upon millions! I mean seriously, how do we not have a single uncut sheet in the entire world.
Bpm0014
04-28-2016, 09:38 PM
Mark great observation. Really. I never realized that! Haha.
how can that be "over-printed" if it's backwards...
doesn't that have to be really wet wst?
That card is an impression cylinder transfer. I did a thread about the difference between that and a WST a couple months ago. I can't link to that thread because I'm still struggling with computers. :o But if you search you can find it. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
I have given this one a lot of thought (as you are about to see) and I was wondering what I would do for my 1000th post so I may as well lay it all out here. I think that the answer is that the fronts were usually printed first but that sometimes the backs were printed first.
First I should note that I agree that it is understandable that there are no blank front cards - as Sean pointed out, who would cut that out and take it home for their kid?
"Hey dad -- who did you bring me? Mathewson or Cobb???? (looks at card) "Piedmont 350-460. I hate you dad."
FRONTS FIRST
There is far more evidence for fronts first.
1) As was also already mentioned, blank backed cards clearly had the fronts printed first.
2) There are error cards from printing flaws that occur on multple backs. I used to own a T206 Murr'y error, a card that can be found with Tolsoi, Lenox, Sweet Caporal 350-460-30, Old Mill, and Piedmont 350-460-25 backs. This for a card with about 10 graded examples, suggests to me that the fronts were printed first. Imagine a printer running off a bunch of fronts, damaging the plate without noticing it, then catching the error a short time later after a bunch of completed sheets were stacked up. Rather than searching through and then tossing a number of sheets for something so minor, they just fixed it and then carried on. However, when it came time to fill that days order for backs they had several small orders that just so happened to hit at the part of the pile where the Murr'y cards were and presto, you have a really uncommon error on a surprising number of backs.
3) Sean's Tinker is also evidence that the backs were printed last no matter which way the ink is facing. That is too bold and crisp to be a wet sheet transfer, it is likely a transfer from the cylinder (I don't know enough to rule out something else, like it having been printed on there but not from the blanket, but cylinder transfer seems most likely). No matter what it is, the ink from the back is clearly over the completed image on the front.
4) "Miscut backs." Miscuts where both the front and the back are miscut by the same amount, cards that are quite rare, were cutting mistakes. However, miscut backs, where the front of the card is perfectly centered but the back is "miscut" show that fronts were printed first. I use quotes because the backs aren't really miscut, they are misregistered just like a color shift on the front. If you think about what would need to happen for this to occur, it means that part of the image was printed in the margin of the overall uncut sheet. Drastic misregistrations like this are usually seen in a single layer on the front or in the back, which is also a single layer. If the backs were printed first and misregistered way into the sheet margin I think it is more likely that the sheet would have been tossed without printing the fronts. However, if the fronts are all finished and you print the back second and mess it up you have a more or less finished product so you cut it and ship it out. This is a little more tenuous, but I think it makes sense.
5) Wet sheet transfers. Also not rock solid evidence, but there are more WSTs of the front of cards on the backs than there are of backs of cards on the fronts. I know WST can happen after the factory and the process has some mystery around it, but if cards were printed fronts first and stacked for long (?) periods with blank backs awaiting the printing of their backs (think about Murr'y again), the fresh ink would have some time to transfer. This is especially possible for the cards at the bottom of the stack with some additional pressure on them from the weight of the pile. Once the backs were printed I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that cards were usually cut and distributed somewhat quickly. There is more that could explain the pattern, link different ink types for the fronts and backs, greater amounts of ink overall being applied to the fronts, etc. WSTs could support the fronts first argument though are not great evidence on their own.
BACKS FIRST
1) The only evidence that I can think of that shows backs were sometimes printed either first or in the middle of the printing of the front (to me the latter is highly unlikely), is the cards that are missing several colors from the front (100% no sun or chemicals here folks) but which have backs printed on them. I am referring to the yellow browns and cards like my Bradley, which is posted here. I see no reason why a printer would scrap a sheet halfway through printing the front and then print the back before tossing the sheet. The only good explanation is that the backs were printed first followed by the fronts.
I am interested to hear if anyone diagrees with this or has anything else to add that I missed. It seems clear to me that the fronts were usually, but not always, printed first.
Boom. Post #1,000!
Pat R
04-28-2016, 10:02 PM
That card is an impression cylinder transfer. I did a thread about the difference between that and a WST a couple months ago. I can't link to that thread because I'm still struggling with computers. :o But if you search you can find it. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=216299
Jantz
04-28-2016, 10:17 PM
Seeing the thread about shipping of T cards reminded me of a question I always ponder; which was printed first, the front or back? The obvious argument would be the front, since there are blank backed cards. But if this is true, then why are there scrap cards out there with backs printed on them? If a printer is going to scrap the front, why even bother printing the backs? Also, I figured this would be a great place (as if we need another one) to show both your scraps and blank backs. I'm sure you guys (I'm talking to you Johnny and Chris) will hate this topic. :rolleyes:
The fronts were printed first and were assigned a back advertisement according to the number/quantity of print orders that needed filled for demand and distribution.
Popularity of the brands of cigarettes dictated the supply or number of orders and the number of sheets printed to fill those orders accordingly.
Bryan, great 1000th post. I never thought about it, but those yellow/brown scraps make me wonder: if the fronts were printed first, why were backs printed on them before they were scrapped?
Bryan, I am honored that my humble thread question earned your milestone post. Great post.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my 1,000th post something other than a "+1" on a pick up thread. :D
Bryan, I am honored that my humble thread question earned your milestone post. Great post.
To me the yellow browns are the only evidence that backs were sometimes printed first. I can see this happening like this: if standard practice was that the fronts were printed first you would end up creating a pile of blank backs. The printer then set up the press and got out the ink to print the backs on those completed fronts. However, it might have sometimes happened that the printer printed backs on all of the completed fronts that needed them but still had the printer set up with ink left and ready to go - so rather than waste that ink he would print some backs with blank fronts to be ready to have fronts added to them later.
I should qualify all of this speculation by noting that I only have a rudimentary understanding of the printing process so I am looking forward to feedback from those who know more than I do.
Bryan, great 1000th post. I never thought about it, but those yellow/brown scraps make me wonder: if the fronts were printed first, why were backs printed on them before they were scrapped?