rare goudey or piece of crap

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>Always wondered about this goudey if it was some kinna early print or if its just a beat up peice of crap?<br /><br /><img src="http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t85/milkit1/judge.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>anyone have any ideas?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Back scan please.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>It looks like a colr printing error to me. I've seen Goudey's like this before....back in the 1980's.<br /><br />Otherwise, it's been out in the sun too long and it's colors simply faded.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Red does fade the most, so it could just be faded, but I've never seen one that faded.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>If it's not a reprint, it is almost certainly doctored. It takes some time but a Goudey can be made to look like that. I've done it...more than once.<br /><br />To be positive the back would be nice to see.<br /><br />Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Sometimes cards that have been bleached, chemically or by the sun, look like that. Or Oxyclean...<br /><br />What does the back look like?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>too much border.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The more I think about your card, the more I think it's a color printing error.<br /><br />It's consistent with color error cards I have in which the YELLOW ink is applied<br />first, then the BLUE ink in the standard 4-color printing process.<br /><br />This card never went thru the complete 4-color process.<br /><br />My N162 cards of Dunlap demonstrate what I am trying to tell you.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/dunlaps.jpg"><br /><br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>awesome. first its def not a reprint. I have been buying 33 goudeys for 20 years and have over 500. Unfor. my scanner is not working now so I cant scan the back. However, the back looks like any other 33 goudey. I was thinking it was a printing error cause soem parts are still kinna dark. If it was bleached by the sun I think it woul dbe a lot worse but I have never seen printed goudeys like this so who knows?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>&lt;This card never went thru the complete 4-color process.&gt;<br /><br />Neither did this one <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/ghostcard.jpg"><br /><br />Don't get upset but...<br />My opinion of the Dunlap card is that the blue ink, once removed from the card, could not be removed from creases and white corner areas. This is very typical and almost always seen in the altering process during the initial stage. Once completed it would look much like the soccer card above. <br /><br />If you would like I can make one to show how the creases capture the ink...or I can make an example of the Goudey.<br /><br /><br />Kevin <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I'm not sure what you are seeing in my Dunlap.....that I am NOT seeing ?<br /><br />There are no hints of "blue ink" in the creases of this card. My scan might not be the greatest (possible<br /> shadow effects); but, I assure you this is not so.<br /><br />I've had this card for a long time, way before it was "fashionable" to alter BB cards.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Is there a calendar on the back?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>Ted it does look like, atleast in the scan, theres some blue the creases

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I need to buy you a drink at the National...nice one...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The lithography on T206s, Goudeys and Topps generally fade little naturally. If someone posted a Goudey in a shop window for a few years, sure it will fade, but these cards tend not to fade much. Even those shoe box 1950s Topps collections usually have nice colors ... Though I have also heard the the red can fade more than other colors on Goudeys.<br /><br />If a card is missing a color, it will appear lighter.<br /><br />As far as the Goodwin Dunlap goes, it doesn't appear as if it missed a color plate-- I believe all the colors are there, just not everywhere they are supposed to be. Perhaps the card got in contact with some solvent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DR</b><p>With all the soaking that goes on maybe these cards were just left in the water to long or went through the washing machine (chemicals).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Water won't dissolve card ink, but there are around the house liquids that can. If a card collection is stored in the garage, its conceivable for a can of solvent to accidentally spill on cards.<br /><br />I've run many pocket-sized things through the washer and dryer-- license, money, membership cards, notes, mail. I haven't tested baseball cards, but I'm sure detergent, bleach, soaking, drying and tumbling can cause damage to the image. I once was doing the wash and noticed that the water was purple. I thought for a moment or two then remembered that I had blueberry tea bags in my jeans pockets.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>&lt;went through the washing machine (chemicals&gt;<br /><br />That's exactly it IMO. Not spilled though...intentional for whatever reason. There are rub marks on the bottom brown section and black ink missing from the lettering on top...more than likely from light rubbing as well. Sorry Ted.<br /><br />I'll make one to show, unless it's not wanted/needed.<br /><br />Kevin<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Kevin,<br />I'll stick a baseball card in with my next wash.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Hey you skeptical dudes.....<br /><br />Are these cards, also "victims" of altering, white-washing, bleaching, solvents, etc.?<br /><br />It's laughable, because you guys don't know what the heck you're talking about.<br /><br />I have been collecting BB card printing errors for over 30 years. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/abmizellplatt.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/abcampy.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />TED Z collection

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>&lt;Are these cards, also "victims" of altering, white-washing, bleaching, solvents, etc.?&gt;<br /><br /><br />Nope, just the Dunlap.<br /><br /><br /><br />&lt;I have been collecting BB card printing errors for over 30 years.&gt;<br /><br /><br />Great! I guess that means you appreciate the help.<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Kevin- something is bugging me here. While I agree that any card could theoretically be altered, I think you take the position that every card that could be is...and I don't buy it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I would like to hear Ted's reasoning that the Dunlap missed something in the 4 color process....it appears as though all 4 colors are there to some extent. Just looks like a faded card to me. I'm not being a smarta$$ here either, I know nothing about printing errors or the printing process. I would just like to hear why Ted thinks his Dunlap is a print error.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>Well I appreciate all the posting on my post <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Im still perplexed about my goudey. Printing error/color proof OR piece of crap?<br />thanks everyone <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DR</b><p>Sean, A reverse image is likely necessary for you to learn more about your card.<br /><br />I think the Dunlap is NOT a printing variation or the soccer card yes the others.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- for the record Ted bought that Dunlap from me about 15 years ago. It came from a group of N162's I bought. There was very little incentive to alter it, as at the time I may have paid about $70 and sold it for $100, if memory serves.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Barry, not all alterations are intentional. It would be hard to say what elements the Dunlap card was exposed to over 100 years. I would like to hear why Ted thinks this is a printing error.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>&lt;I think you take the position that every card that could be is...and I don't buy it.&gt;<br /><br /><br />Not at all. Many print variations are genuine.<br /><br />Buy it, don't buy it, doesn't much matter. Just trying to help where I can. While others have their specialty, this is what I bring to the hobby and usually collectors don't like to hear it. I think I've provided enough examples and proof that there would be few doubts any longer.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>So what is your verdict on the Dunlap card? Did it miss colors in the printing process, or was it bleached?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DR</b><p>I would say chemically 'enhanced'.<br /><br />Any other opinions?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>ok here are the scans for the goudey: the back scan I missed the top of.<br /><br /><img src="http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t85/milkit1/MondayApril0220072.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t85/milkit1/judge.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>The Goudey I'm not sure of. The back seems to indicate it was bleached or chemically rubbed. It's easy to leave yellow and blues but tough to remove red. To be positive I would need to see it. Sure is interesting though. Regardless it looks cool.<br /><br />Duncan - for whatever reason, sorry to say...is altered. Dry ink deposits are usually not seen in creases and other low areas in addition to the normally white border areas...and that's just to start.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>def. not a reprint. .

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe Pelaez</b><p>I find this discussion most interesting.<br /><br />As much as some may not want to hear it, let's hear all sides.<br />I'm sure that there's much to learn from each view point.<br />Collectors/Investors and Dealers, can't afford the innocent naivete that all's well in Muddsville.<br /><br />If there's a problem, let's learn from it?<br />If the problem is innocently caused, we've learned something?<br />If the problem was preordained by a devious scam artist, again we've learned something, and you know how I feel about that, .. get the bastards.<br />Anyway you cut it.<br /><br />Mr. Ted - Mr. Kevin - Gentlemen! ... please go on with your presentation.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Kevin- fair enough and I respect your opinion. I know when I sold it, I just priced it as a very beat up N162. Ted pointed out that it was missing color. I guess he should come on and voice his opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>OK, wiseguy....tell us why anyone would alter a 1933G Joe Judge or a wrinkled up old N162 Dunlap ?<br /><br />Neither of these cards command big $$'s; therefore, only a fool would waste his time altering them.<br />And, a bigger fool to make a determination on a card that he has not even closely examined.<br /><br /> And, I will repeat this for the last time.....the scan must be deceiving you.....or you are deceiving<br /> yourself. There is not a hint of ink in those wrinkles, what you are seeing is "shadow effect" in a<br />wrinkle (or two) in an imperfect scan<br /><br /> I've noticed your previous posts in other Threads, you seem to derive a certain "diabolical thrill" out<br /> of instigating controversy.<br /><br />Well, you claim to be an expert, then why is it you don't understand, that in a 4 (or 6) color printing<br /> process (100 years ago and still today) that the YELLOW ink is the first color to be applied ?<br /><br />Both these cards, simply, never received the subsequent inking phases. I have numerous such color<br /> errors from different BB card sets, that are colored YELLOW....when they should have been Orange,<br /> Green, etc.<br /><br />This ends my discussion with you......as my wise uncle once told me......"don't argue with a fool, for<br /> on-lookers will not be able to distinguish who the fool is".<br /><br />And, I don't want any Net54 members reading this Thread to have any doubts who the fool is.<br /><br />And, it's not me....go back and read this Thread....I didn't start this "bull-crap".<br /><br />T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I'm having less difficulty understanding who is the fool.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I'm guessing that in the 1880s the printing process wasn't completely automated so there was more hands on inspection of the process....how would a sheet of cards that missed part of the printing process escape the notice of the printer not once, but at least twice when you consider the cards had to be cut...and then how were cards placed into cigarette packs? Was it by hand?<br /><br />Anyone know the steps that these cards had to go through from printing to placement in the product?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>&lt;&lt;And, I don't want any Net54 members reading this Thread to have any doubts who the fool is.<br /><br />And, it's not me&gt;&gt;<br /><br /><br />ok<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- it is possible that in any printing job an error may be detected after the first run and then the sheet is just scrapped. That is a plausible explanation for any printed item that is missing several color passes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I can't believe you said what you said......the most celebrated printing error in this past century<br />got past the printers....Quality Control....and the Postmaster.<br /><br />And, this happens in all phases of printed material....yes, including BB cards.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/ainvjenny.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Do you know I've seen counterfeit "upside down jennys" and they are hard to detect?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Ted, there is 30 years difference between the Dunlap and the Jenny. All I'm asking you to do is explain how this card was printed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have described the printing process twice. Go back and read my post of 8:34 PM.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Ted, I have some specific questions that your post at 8:34 does not explain.<br /><br />-Were the sheets placed into the machine by hand?<br />-Were they removed by hand?<br />-Were they placed into the cutting machine by hand?<br />-Were the cards placed into cigarette packs by hand?<br /><br />Just looking at the scan of your card it appears that all the colors are represented, but some are washed/faded out in places - it also appears that there is even some blue in the upper left corner where the top layer of cardboard is worn/chipped off.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>&lt;OK, wiseguy....tell us why anyone would alter a 1933G Joe Judge or a wrinkled up old N162 Dunlap ?&gt;<br /><br /><br />Wiseguy...not so nice are ya' Ted? I don't know the answer, maybe it was a practice card or an accident...who knows.<br /><br />This will have to do on short notice. Different colors but close to the same effect. I matched your bad shadow deceiving scan with mine and tried to match the color run-off on the corners and borders <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>.<br /><br />Almost looks like a side profile of Duncan huh Ted? <br /><br /><br /><img src="http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8091/dunlap2kv2.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />&lt;I've noticed your previous posts in other Threads, you seem to derive a certain "diabolical thrill" out of instigating controversy. Well, you claim to be an expert&gt;<br /><br />I'm no expert. Not getting a diabolical thrill either. Just trying to show the various possibilities and things to watch out for.<br /><br /><br />Kevin<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Risking the possible wrath of Ted, the Dunlap doesn't look like a printing error to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Some more from my color errors collection.....<br /><br />Net54 members.....do you think I bleached, soaked, applied solvents, or otherwise altered these cards, as....<br />the usual skeptical suspects....on this Forum are alluding to ? ?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/brizz.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/ashburnye.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/a49bcolore.jpg"><br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Ted, I don't think anybody is actually accusing YOU of altering the Dunlap.<br /><br />That said, I've watched this thread evolve, and here's what I think.<br /><br />I think it's really cool to chase after an oddball type of card that doesn't necessarily appeal to a huge group of collectors. I collect E121s with the Henry Johnson Confectioners back, and although they don't command an enormous premium, I still get excited when I find one because they don't make themselves available every day. I might be the only guy on planet earth that wants to have more than one or two of these in his collection. I believe I have 19.<br /><br />So I would imagine that you get a similar rush when you find a card with weird coloration or fading. They're cool, and they're uncommon, and you enjoy collecting them. And regardless of whether one of them is not a "natural" error doesn't really enter into the equation.<br /><br />When I look at the Dunlap, I see hints of all four colors. Does this mean the card was chemically altered? Maybe. It could also mean the card sat in the window of a card shop and got faded by the sun. It could also mean that it went through the wash in someone's pocket. It could mean it was shellacked into some sort of furniture, like a bar or table, and was removed with a solvent that removed some of the ink. And it could also mean that there was some sort of problem at the printer that resulted in spotty ink coverage from all four (or six) colors.<br /><br />Personally, I don't care. It's a neat card and I'll bet it's a lot of fun to have in your collection. And I also think that every other card that you posted in this thread is likely to be a legitimate printing freak. And I also have no idea what to say about the Joe Judge that started this thread, other than it's WEIRD.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>&lt;do you think I bleached, soaked, applied solvents, or otherwise altered these cards, as....<br />the usual skeptical suspects....on this Forum are alluding to ? ?&gt;<br /><br /><br />Not at all <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. No one is accusing you of any wrong doing, just trying to make you a more informed collector. There is always something to learn.<br /><br />Those are great looking variations...congrats!<br /><br /><br />Kevin<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>You can't begin to apply ink in such sporadic, limited, lightly worn and faded effect - consistently via the printing process....no matter which inks are applied or left out. And all 4 colors appear plainly on the card, unless you've photoshopped the piece and autocorrected in some of the color that is in fact absent.<br /><br />Clearly the card has had the inks faded/removed by some process, and it looks entirely chemical by appearance.<br /><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Edited to remove the moniker "the fool" after my name.<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Many lightness/color variation printing errors are caused when either a single color<br />is missing (everything else is fine) or a single color is light (less ink). Usually, <br />the missing or light ink is consistent throughout the card. With the Dunlap, all<br />the colors appear to be there, but many of the colors vary in intensity and often <br />in the same area. As each color was printed separately with its own printing plate,<br />it's unlikely for different colors to be light in the same areas and darker in same areas.<br />This would suggest the light/missing areas are due to something after printing.<br /><br />I agree that many of the others are printing errors, caused by different application<br />of a single color.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I wasn't going to respond any more to the absurd statements of certain "pseudo-experts" that have posted<br /> here. But, your comments are quite reasonable; therefore, I will reply to some of your points.<br /><br />1st....We can discard the fading factor, simply because all colors would have equally been affected. Look<br /> again at the colors of both Dunlap cards. The BROWN (his hair, mustache, etc.) is a rich solid color, in the<br /> error card.... exactly as seen on the normal card.<br /><br />2nd....The RED on his lips and tie are a rich solid color. And, the YELLOW in the background is the correct<br /> base color to create the Green affect when the final CYAN (blue) ink would have been applied.<br /><br />My understanding of the 4-color process employed in printing these cards (and subsequently the T206's),<br />is this sequence......YELLOW - BROWN - RED - CYAN. The other day, I did some color copies at Staples,<br /> and their machine had these Ink cartridges.....YELLOW - BROWN - MAGENTA - CYAN. I tell you this, in<br />order to make the point that essentially the same technique for color printing has been used for over a<br /> century.<br /><br />Can you now understand my argument for why this error card is not the result of being subjected to<br />excessive sunlight......or subjected to some kind of human tampering with whatever solvent. Again, I<br /> repeat....if this were so, you would not have the rich looking YELLOW-BROWN-RED colors on it. It is<br /> impossible that these colors would not have also been been affected.<br /><br />Indeed, this card is the result of an incomplete printing process....as are all the other color error cards<br />that I have displayed here.<br /><br />Thank you for your reasonable post.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>1. The Brown hair is not the same in both examples, in fact it is awfully plain to see the difference in tone and richness from the mostly missing red in that area. Notice the extra 'golden' effect in the highlights and his sides that are bare-ish without the extra filling that the thick red provides.<br /><br />2. Again very obvious to note is the missing 'chip' area in the middle of his moustache that shows light blue ink instead (not merely card stock color), and similarly on his bottom lip and tie. I think this plainly shows that cyan was laid down first (or at least before the magenta), and the magenta over the top gave the darker rose tones required for those areas. There is no proof at all that colors were universally laid down in the same order across all printing presses over all the lands. For blue to somehow be out of register that far to magically fill in the red areas that are mysteriously missing is plain silly. Very very clearly the red has been removed from these areas.<br /><br />3. Finally and mostly unobjectionably, take a quick peek at the borders. Though I'm going to guess that Ted will insist merely dirt, the blue staining of runoff ink into the sections of the border point absolutely at those inks being released and settling into other areas as it was drying. <br /><br /><br />It wouldn't take long Ted, just ask any printer who knows older inks and they will humbly inform you that because different pigments were used to make the dyes, they react differently under chemical penetration and/or sunlight, and fade or release in totally unique ways. Puting a solvent on a turn of the century card does not result in an instant confluence and ooze of colors all mixed together, but will in fact cause different inks to disolve at different rates, sometimes some will not disolve at all.<br /><br /><br />What is altogether laughable is your attitude through this discussion, your wish to simply crown all you know to be all that can be known, and your less than stellar references to other hobbyists is weak at very best.<br />I used to think there was much to learn from you, but why talk to someone who wouldn't deem me worthy of participating in the debate. Even when clearly you were the one not availed of ALL the facts.<br /><br />This is an area you have little to offer.<br />Perhaps you should allow others who do and can - to partake, and you can sit back and save up all your barbs for another witty slab quip.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>grrr can we talk about my goudey now!!!?!?!? waaaahhhhh!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Ted....<br /><br />Please find some really old dog piece of a T card or E card, that still has multicolor print on it... and mix up some Oxyclean, then dip that card in there for too long... and maybe you'll rethink what can happen.<br /><br />Sean, back to your post, did you ever use black light?<br /><br />Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>As far as the Goudey goes, the initial image isn't very clear but perhaps it's missing the red ink. That would account both for the missing bottom bar and the overall lightness. Looking at the picture part, I don't see any red or red combinations (purple, orange, etc), which might mean it's missing the red printing. If so and the card is genuine, this would qualify as a printing error. If you buy a few Goudey commons you should be able to tell if the card is genuine by comparing the stock.<br /><br />As as been already been mentioned once or twice, the red ink seems to fade faster than the other colors-- though it would be rare for the red bar to disappear completely via fading.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>I havent tried a blacklight. What will that do? REALLY hoping I have soemthing other than a peice of crap <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>