1910 COUPON Rossman....with EPDG wet-ink-transfer....and it's significance
 

On the front of this 1910 COUPON card of Rossman is seen the faint hint of the "Wet-Ink-Transfer" (W-I-T) of an EPDG back.

So, what does this EPDG W-I-T tell those of us who are serious T206 collectors ?

American Lithographic printed approx. 284 different T206's with the EPDG backs during the year of 1910. It is, therefore, quite
significant that this 1910 COUPON card has a W-I-T of an EPDG impression on it. For this indeed sets a timeframe of 1910 when
the T213-1's were printed. So perhaps the ongoing controversy (by some) on this forum about the date of 1910 will be resolved.


1910 COUPON Rossman....with EPDG wet-ink-transfer
https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...ONRossmanX.jpg https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...smanXepdgB.jpg



Edited (darkened the scan) of my Rossman card to make the EPDG vestige more visible.

. https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...smanXepdgX.jpg . https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...EPDGbkx25x.jpg
---------^^^^^^^------------------------------^^^^^^^------EPDG partial vestige of wet-ink-transfer



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Well how about that? It now makes it very hard to argue against "Coupon" being one of the original T206 backs. I'm not sure how much more evidence some of us need at this point. Thank you, Ted.

Unfortunately, T206's and other cards of the era, often show what appears to be wet sheet transfer, but is really ink transfer when getting damp and stacked together. The Coupon card shows all the signs of being in a humid environment and sticking to the card stacked on top of it, which was obviously a EPDG. The small spot of adhered paper is part of the back of the EPDG card.

1910 COUPON Rossman....with EPDG wet-ink-transfer....and it's significance
 

Hi Scott

Pardon me, but I have disagree with you regarding this card. This EPDG "transfer" is not the result of long term "stacking" under humid conditions.

If it was due to such stacking, then the back of this card would show damage. However, as is obvious, the back is very clean.

I have gotten several opinions from other guys, who have looked at this card under magnification. And, I have yet to get an opinion that the EPDG
impression is not wet-ink-transfer.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Is it just me or does Rossmans haunting look of stern expectation shout "y'all better get this right" once and for all.

Totally agree. Great point, Scott.

The back does show damage. There is paper loss in the scroll design on the right edge.

Amazing card! It's definitely a post-factory transfer as Scott pointed out.

At the very least, it shows that some collector in the past thought to group EPDG with COUPON. I have them in separate boxes today, but I understand why folks would group Coupons and Polar Bears with the other brands.

What makes you think so, Luke? How can the factory wet ink transfer theory be totally ruled out?

+1 for after-production wet transfer.

In addition to the points already made about the damage clues, it doesn't make sense to me that Coupon and EPDG sheets would be stacked on each other in any scenario. I think Polar Bear is obviously T206, and T213-1 was produced alongside T206 in the same time frame (agnostic on if it should be rebranded from Burdick's numbering), but this doesn't fit. Sheets for different brands would go to different factories, and I doubt a press was running a sheet of EDPG, then a sheet of Coupon, etc. to be stacked on top of each other and mixed like this. That Coupon used an entirely different stock would also make this much less likely; it is far more likely that Coupon was its own production run as the evidence suggests was standard for the ALC/ATC partnership sets. Most cards with a wet sheet transfer of a different brand are probably after-the-fact in all of these issues.

1910 COUPON Rossman....with EPDG wet-ink-transfer....and it's significance
 

Although I differ with some of you, I appreciate everyone's opinion posted here.

G1911
American Lithographic printed all the white-bordered and gold-bordered cards (fronts and backs). These sheets were hung up to dry, then cut-up into cards and shipped
to the various Tobacco Factories.
Sheets of cards were NOT shipped to the Factories. Where do you get that from ?

Furthermore, many presses were operating in the process of producing Millions of these Tobacco cards. Stacking sheets of various brands of T206's is a well-known fact,
as we have seen quite a number of "wet-ink-transfers". Simply due to the rush to get these cards cut-down and shipped.

The EPDG impression is very faint, and perhaps my scan isn't sufficient to provide an accurate judgement without closely examining this card. If I come to the National,
I will bring this Rossman card with me for further discussions with you guys.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I have a few of these. And while I have also always been of the understanding that they are post-factory transfers, I struggle to say Definitely.

Here is a Tolstoi back with a Polar Bear transfer on the front.

Here are a few examples I have saved over the years that show the WSTs definitely happened when cards were in the hands of collectors. These do not, of course, mean that WSTs could not have happened during the printing process, but they do prove that they happened after it.

An E90 Bender with a T206 Sweet Caporal transfer and a T206 Waddell with a T205 gold transfer.

It's post factory as I originally said when I pointed it out to you that your
Rossman had a EPDG transfer.

Who erased the ‘88’ pencil mark on the back? Haha

Even though it's technically damage, that's a pretty neat card to look at.

I am not saying that complete sheets would be shipped to a factory for cutting, I am saying that it doesn't make sense to intersect sheets from different jobs going to different places into one mixed stack. Doing that would create far more work and have to be undone while cutting and then boxing them up for delivery, adding a higher margin of error and effort for no gain.

I am well aware that they used more than a single press, but again, it doesn't make sense to me that they would just carry the sheets from every press over to one spot and stack them intermixed. That would create far more work than simply keeping them separate from the get go. Without direct evidence, I think the safest assumption is generally the simplest.

We have a number of wet ink transfers, but that does not mean they happened at the factory. The E90 Bender with a T206 wet ink transfer above is just one example that some of these are 100% after-production transfers. I don't see any reason to assume this card happened at the factory, when there is an easier explanation.

I just can't see this being caused during production.

Sheets being hung up to dry would be very unusual. That may be done at a small art printer producing a handful of sheets a day, but not at a commercial printer. The press automatically stacks the sheets on an outfeed platform, and some air remains in between (It's called "windage", or was where I worked. And it's necessary for drying and handling. ) The ink layer is often thin enough to mostly dry with only minimal air exposure.

Obviously stacking of sheets was done, since that's how the sheets come off the press. But from things like the existence of blank backs, we can be fairly sure the fronts were printed then the backs.
The press would typically print only one color.
The cards printed with EPDG backs would be part of one individual job, to meet a particular order. So they would be stacked together. Too little windage, pressure on the stack (Like from an employee leaning on it - Heard about that one for 2 years :o) Or the ink being too "wet", or conditions that didn't lead to appropriate drying would lead to WST or more properly "Offset transfers" - Either term is ok, the latter is just more technical.

Stacking one order on top of another smaller order, especially one done on a different paper stock isn't something that makes sense. (I'm assuming the overall order for Coupon was much smaller than that for EPDG. I think that's a safe assumption)
It's also entirely possible that a large outfit like ALC would leave presses set up for different stock thicknesses, so the press printing EPDG and the one doing Coupon wouldn't be the same press, and may have been in an entirely different location.
And those presses may have even been printing sheets of an entirely different size. Printing say 100,000 of something vs 20,000 would be very different. Too much setup time for too small of a run would be inefficient and wasteful, and no printer could get to the size of ALC without being efficient.

Ink formulas then were essentially trade secrets for the larger companies.
Some formulations were better than others, but most were a colorant in a fluid medium that dried or hardened.
Linseed oil was a common base for some types of ink, but probably not used by ALC, while it gets "dry" fairly quickly, it may not truly dry for years. I have a printed item that caused a post production offset transfer in shipping - well over 100 years after it was printed!.

Conversely, since lithography requires the rejection of oil based inks by a damp stone or plate, water alone shouldn't cause a transfer. I tried with a T206 a few years ago, and at normal temperatures I couldn't force a transfer using just water. Embossing wood grain onto the card yes, any sort of transfer no.
Heat and or some chemical involvement would be required, eventually I suppose I could duplicate what would cause it, but haven't the time, budget or inclination. (It would also vary depending on the exact ink, and there may be different carriers for the colorant... )

come on ted

Hey, give Ted a break. He was only 4 when he pulled the Rossman card from the pack.

1910 COUPON Rossman....with EPDG wet-ink-transfer....and it's significance
 

Hi Steve

I appreciate what you are saying here. You speak from a Printer's experience. I, too, have had some Printing experience in a small Print Shop back in my High School years.

I singled out your last paragraph, because I, too, have for years tried to simulate "post-production" printing ink transfers with T206 cards. By simulating heat, humidity, and
with various solutions. I have NOT been able to get the ink to transfer from one card to another (even after lengthy periods of time). And especially regarding the ink on the
backs of these cards.....absolutely no transfers.

Apparently, American Lithographic used some very high quality (no-run) ink to print these cards. What is your thinking regarding this ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

lol. good move.

There have been more than one occasion where a seller has sold a group of cards with many of them that had storage transfers on them.

Attachment 464511

How a post production transfer can happen is a very complex puzzle. The try I made was a fairly worn common soaked in tap water, put in a folded paper, and clamped in a vise between boards for about a week (Maybe longer? I don't remember)
That didn't cause a transfer, as I assumed it wouldn't. It also didn't do any major damage to the card. Pressed in wood grain, which took it from a potential 1 to a for sure A... Not that a grade would really matter for a beater common.

The inks used would have to be studied at a level I don't have the resources to get to.
A slow drying ink like something with linseed oil as the carrier/hardener, could harden at different rates depending on temperature. Cards stored in a hot attic would "harden" faster, and probably wouldn't transfer after a fairly short time. (People who collect vises -yes, that's a thing- regularly coat with boiled linseed oil and bake them creating a nice hard glossy finish.
Stored in a humid cool environment? Those might not harden for decades.

And there's the catch. We can't usually know the long term storage, and don't know the makeup of the inks.

Adding to the complexity is that era saw a bunch of technological changes all at once.
The switch from stones to plates
The rise of chemical rather than natural ink colorants
Plus a couple others.
Both of the ones I mentioned would have probably required totally reformulating the inks, possibly with different hardeners and carriers.

One specific thought is that bright red was traditionally done with Cochineal, or carminic acid, which is derived from it. One is soluble in water, one isn't.
That's interesting, because the bulk of the post- production transfers we see are from red backs. SC and EPGD.
I think it's possible that some red ink was used that was one rather than another, and the colorant will dissolve and transfer, while a similar card wouldn't.

There's a group operating in the stamp hobby that's using various spectroscopy to determine ink make up. So far they've found some interesting stuff. Like dark red inks that were believed to be made using rust powder, but have now been proven to contain exactly no iron whatsoever...
And a group of stamps produced by three different companies on a few different types of paper, and are far more complex than the catalog indicates.
Like company A switching to a different paper just before the contract was given over to company B and is way more similar to the paper of company C several years later.
But until now there was no way to prove a stamp was actually company A but on that late use soft paper..... Enter the spectroscope, which says Company A had no white in the ink to get the right shade of green (or other colors) AND the sizing on the paper was different. So those stamps can be conclusively identified. And yes, they aren't common.
And yes, us stamp guys are sometimes insane enough to care that a particular copy is rare, even if the machine to know for sure costs thousands.

Forgot the link....

https://iacmcolor.org/color-profile/carmines/

I bought a lot of 30+ beaters and most had WSTs on them that are definitely after the factory. SC on Pied, Tolstoi on Pied

https://i.imgur.com/0i97mPw.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BmxNqRL.jpg