How ghosts came to be

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>More about ghosts</b><p>It seems to me that there are a few different mechanisms that can create a ghost card. Most of the posted images of a week or so ago were a misapplication of one color layer. These were either the same card, or a different one. These cards would usually end up as scrap rather than issued in error.<BR><BR>A second mechanism for a ghost seems to be a transfer of wet ink from the front of a card to the back of another that was probably stacked on top of it. I'm not sure, but it seems like many of these are the black layer that may transfer to the back of another card in mirror. <BR><BR>Here's a card that is similar to the second ghost, but it is the Piedmont back that transferred to the front of another. I assume this is just considered a printing error. <BR><BR>Comments?<BR><BR><BR><BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1079720349.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>It seems that they usually waited for the fronts to dry, but tended to get in a hurry when it came to the backs. Tolstois and Sweet Caps are the ones I've seen the most of. I would be very interested to see a wet-sheet ad on the front that didn't match the ad on the back!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p><IMG height=647 src="aolemb://CAE751B5-BF40-498B-A678-5C5A846C7FF9/Untitled" width=480>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike Peich</b><p> Ever since Seth posted the T-206s with ghost images, I have wanted to weigh in on the subject. One of my interests is fine printing, and in that area of my life I make books by hand from hand-set type, printed on a handpress. As a result, I am familiar with the pitfalls of ink, printing presses, etc.<BR><BR> When I look at the additional image in the Beck card, I do not see a ghost image. I see what printers call set-off, i.e., the ink from one sheet has set off onto the sheet beneath it. In this case the ink from the back of the card has set off on to the front. This is a mistake in the printing process, and if discovered, the sheet is destroyed.<BR><BR> That brings me to the point made a few weeks ago about the rarity of Seth's T-206s. They, like the Beck card, are printers mistakes. Nothing more. I discussed this briefly with Seth at Ft. Washington, and he pointed out, correctly, that even though they are mistakes, T-206 collectors enjoy having odd-ball cards as part of their sets. Fair enough.<BR><BR> My concern is this: By attaching value to these obvious mistakes, the card is being artificially inflated. For example, in the book collecting world of first editions (another addiction for which I am known), there have been notable examples of typos that identify the true first printing of a book. But, once the typo is spotted, someone corrects it, and all subsequent editions are free from the error. By knowing a book's typos a discerning collector can tell whether his copy is a true first edition, first issue, for example, of The Great Gatsby (it has one of the most famous typos). Thus, if one has a copy of The Great Gatsby with the typo, it is worth more than subsequent printings (with the typo corrected) because it represents the earliest version of the book.<BR><BR> That is not the case with printers errors on baseball cards. They are errors, and don't mark a card as necessarily an earlier version of that card. In the case of a book's typo, someone has actually gone into the book, if you will, and made a correction. That action involves a willful act and is much different from a mistake that was the result of a mechnical oversight by the printer, like set-off. Set-off usually results in the sheets being destroyed; however, we have examples of these cards only because someone did not throw the damaged sheet away.<BR><BR> So, instead of praising these printing mistakes by ascribing value to them, let's simply accept them for what they are--mistakes that have no real value. Besides, I think they're ugly, and should be worth less than a good card. <BR><BR> I don't mean to lower the value of Seth's cards with my discussion, because I believe that a card is worth whatever someone pays for it. But, I also find it hard to accept that we look upon obvious mistakes as being somehow more valuable than a clearly rendered version of the same card.<BR><BR> Thanks for reading, and while I await your responses, I'm going to open a beer and watch some more March Madness.<BR><BR> Cheers, Mike<BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>But they are interesting, rare, people like them, and a market has developed for them. Why try to convince people they should not like something that appeals to them?<BR><BR>But I understand your points: theoretically, I should much prefer a vg t206 common that was printed corretly, to one that is in 'g' condition and has ghosts of several other players printed all over it, upside-down and sideways. I should reject this second card as the garbage it was intended to be and ignore it completely...but I don't. The fact that it is completely different from any other version known to exist of that t206 common, and that it somehow escaped it's intended spot in the trash heap, is part of the appeal.<BR><BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>we soemtimes see far from unattractive ghosts, like the simple white background with dark printing card back ( a Piedmont, i think) with a clear, pale recognizable image on it--a sort of 1 1/2 for the price of 1. Neat. If such a card were found with a special relationship of some kind between the front player and the ghost player--pitcher and catcher who worked together, enemies, etc.--. it would be so compelling as to make one wonder if the thing were accidental or intentional.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Robert</b><p>I have some nice cards with ghosts on them. If I ever figure out how to post them I will. I have a couple of t206's a strip card and some 52 Topps. Rob&nbsp;