Color "error" variations in t206 cards

[GregMitch34]

They can be quite striking, especially in portraits, but I understand they are not generally regarded as 'errors' and just interesting phenomenon. Am I right that they rarely bring much or any premium, even for a popular mid-grade card?

[CMIZ5290]

I know that I have had no luck obtaining any significant premium for my orange Cobb....

[z28jd]

The McGraw/orange portrait gets a nice boost over his red background. Seems to be 3-4x the price depending on grade.

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by z28jd

The McGraw/orange portrait gets a nice boost over his red background. Seems to be 3-4x the price depending on grade.

what are you basing that off of?

kevin

[ullmandds]

WTF r u gys talking about? True...radical color differences in T206 command a large premium. Kevins "Orange" cobb is definitely "oranger" than the normal red...but is not "orange" enough to command a large premium...in my opinion.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

what are you basing that off of?

kevin

My own sale. The price I was quoted from someone who has two of them and another previous sale I could find. They were all in line with each other

[Paul S]

1.98lb premium

[sebie43]

This Kling I got off the BST also seems to have some color variation similar to that Tinker. blueish gray on left orangeish on the right.

[atx840]

I think it's totally plausible these are faded due to sunlight exposure. Hung in a frame in a sunny hallway/room for years.

Cobb has some untouched red, likely hidden under a phot holder.

Auction

[atx840]

Huggins & Scott had a large framed lot where several showed signs of fading reds, including a split Cobb.

Auction





And here's the window.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Such a waste of cards

[atx840]

If this Lord or Crandall hit the market they could be listed as missing red.

[MVSNYC]

Chris- thanks for illustrating my point. UV rays are killer, and can easily fade colors...so can excess exposure to indoor bulbs.

[caramelcard]

Chris,

That piece has faded everything and cards that are heavily glued down, stained, etc. Yes, I see there's a window in the photo, but I don't think it's the culprit.

It faded certain parts of each card more extremely? The Schmidt and Cobb (for example) had much heavier sun exposure on the bottom half of the card?


Rob

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Chris- thanks for illustrating my point. UV rays are killer, and can easily fade colors...so can excess exposure to indoor bulbs.

they do it on everything from the siding on your house, to the paint on your car the baseball cards you hang in a sunny place.

kevin

[steve B]

Originally Posted by atx840

If this Lord or Crandall hit the market they could be listed as missing red.

The Mitchell has the same sort of fading that the small lot I bought had.
NO bright red left, and about 40 years of light exposure.
Lobert and Downey would pass for missing colors, and someone posted that a couple cards from the same batch have been slabbed that way.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-190...vip=true&rt=nc

Yes, It could also be the glue or the cardboard/paper they were glued to. But most likely it was the light exposure.

Steve B

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

That's why nice things should be framed behind uv blocking glass.

[teetwoohsix]

Interesting thread, I've been following this and will add some thoughts.

I've always felt the way Rob and Ted have, that sun exposure wouldn't remove all of the red in a card-and, I still pretty much feel that way. I may be wrong, but usually some cards missing red , where you can still see a touch of red (like that Cobb, for instance) can have another explanation.

As you can see in the corner of the Cobb, Chris is right- that corner shows it was tucked in a photo holder, commonly seen in old photo albums where you have one on the upper right, and one on the lower left.

So, I wonder about this- most pages in old photo albums are black. Could whatever they use to dye the pages black react to the red ink over time? That could explain why it did not affect the corner that was tucked, but the bottom of the top page laying flat on the card, over time, reacted with the red ink? Not sure, but something to think about?

The other cards on the montage- can't help but wonder about glue reaction (chemical reaction) on those cards....they all look heavily glued on....

Some people in the past have likened the sun exposure thing to a can that has sit in the sun, and over time the image faded......but, that's an image on aluminum or tin- the sun heats it up a lot hotter than the sun heating up paper? It seems like the sun would heat up a metal more than it would paper? So, I don't think that is conclusive (apples to oranges?).

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Keep in mind, these cards can be soaked and not lose any of the red. It's hard to imaging sun could remove it but water can't.

Again, I may be wrong. These are just my thoughts on this, and I am not a scientist. The Willis portrait is mostly found in red, but you also have many found in this burgundy type of color. Was this deliberate? The Abstein, mostly found in red, but many are found in orange-was this deliberate? Or, did that many Absteins get exposed to sunlight for too long? Sort of seems deliberate to me, because of how many examples have this color of orange. And, this Donie Bush card....look how red it is. Does anyone have an orange Donie Bush card? If so, are there any signs of glue residue on the back?

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Interesting thread, I've been following this and will add some thoughts.

I've always felt the way Rob and Ted have, that sun exposure wouldn't remove all of the red in a card-and, I still pretty much feel that way. I may be wrong, but usually some cards missing red , where you can still see a touch of red (like that Cobb, for instance) can have another explanation.

As you can see in the corner of the Cobb, Chris is right- that corner shows it was tucked in a photo holder, commonly seen in old photo albums where you have one on the upper right, and one on the lower left.

So, I wonder about this- most pages in old photo albums are black. Could whatever they use to dye the pages black react to the red ink over time? That could explain why it did not affect the corner that was tucked, but the bottom of the top page laying flat on the card, over time, reacted with the red ink? Not sure, but something to think about?

The other cards on the montage- can't help but wonder about glue reaction (chemical reaction) on those cards....they all look heavily glued on....

Some people in the past have likened the sun exposure thing to a can that has sit in the sun, and over time the image faded......but, that's an image on aluminum or tin- the sun heats it up a lot hotter than the sun heating up paper? It seems like the sun would heat up a metal more than it would paper? So, I don't think that is conclusive (apples to oranges?).

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Keep in mind, these cards can be soaked and not lose any of the red. It's hard to imaging sun could remove it but water can't.

Again, I may be wrong. These are just my thoughts on this, and I am not a scientist. The Willis portrait is mostly found in red, but you also have many found in this burgundy type of color. Was this deliberate? The Abstein, mostly found in red, but many are found in orange-was this deliberate? Or, did that many Absteins get exposed to sunlight for too long? Sort of seems deliberate to me, because of how many examples have this color of orange. And, this Donie Bush card....look how red it is. Does anyone have an orange Donie Bush card? If so, are there any signs of glue residue on the back?

Sincerely, Clayton

Sun exposure will fade many red pigments, especially ones derived from natural sources.

Cochineal produces the brightest reds, and sets better than most protein based fibers. In other words It won't easily wash out of wool. It was widely used before cheaper stuff came along, and has made a comeback in food and cosmetics since many of the synthetics are suspected or proven carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal

The main points
"In artists' paints, it has been replaced by synthetic reds and is largely unavailable for purchase due to poor lightfastness."

"Cochineal is one of the few water-soluble colourants that resist degradation with time. It is one of the most light- and heat-stable and oxidation-resistant of all the natural organic colourants and is even more stable than many synthetic food colours."

One of the replacements for it, Alizarin or Rose Madder, is also not particularly lightfast. But it could be made from coal tar rather than the labor intensive insect harvesting for Cochineal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_madder

"As all madder-based pigments are notoriously fugitive, artists have long sought a more permanent and lightfast replacement for Rose Madder and Alizarin"

Those were the two main sources of red in the 1910 era. Both are fine in water, but not great in sunlight. (Sunlight stable reds didn't come along until after 1958)

One of the big surprises in the lot with sun exposure was that the pink which I'd believed to be simply a red mixed with white appears entirely unaffected.


It's possible some chemical put off by the glue or by the cardboard could affect the bright red and other colors. I simply don't know enough chemistry to be sure.
I do know the common red pigments that made up probably around 90% of the red dye/pigment market at the time were probe to fading from light.
So going with the simple explanation seems to work.

I'd be happy to have a real chemist give an explanation either way.

Steve B

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- there is no question in my mind that many years of sun/light exposure faded the cards in that montage. no question. everything is pretty much evenly faded (yes, some more than others, but overall, almost every card looks to have been effected by UV exposure). for example, not sure if you were ever out in Los Angeles, but many many buildings, billboards, posters, murals, etc, etc, are very "sunbleached" due to years of sun exposure. almost everything out there has a washed-out look. furthermore, i've owned several framed posters (this was when i was younger before i spent the money to use UV glass on everything i frame) that were certainly faded over time from being on a wall that was washed with sunlight. in fact, some of the items didn't have direct sunlight, but simply light from the room, be it ambient sunlight or fluorescents.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Sincerely, Clayton

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I quoted myself ^^ because I understand that the UV rays can dull the red-I just have a hard time thinking that it would completely remove the whole color. And, I know that the major TPG's use a UV protective plastic in their slabs for this reason.

But, will it remove all traces of red? In John's poster (thanks for posting that by the way), you can see the UV rays degraded the color red, but you can still tell it was red. It didn't remove the whole color.

Back to the cards.....if those cards weren't glued on to that poster, it would be a little easier to conclude that all of the fading was because of prolonged sunlight-but the fact that they are glued on, makes me wonder if it was the glue-or-a combination of both.

Now, here's why this topic is important (IMO)- if, as some of you are saying- the red can disappear completely due to prolonged exposure to sun/UV rays- how can one tell a legitimate card that is missing a red pass to one that has been exposed to the sun? I mean, in theory couldn't someone take their cards to a tanning salon, put them under one of those tanning beds for a few sessions, and *POOF* create a "missing red pass" card?

Great discussion, very interesting....

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I quoted myself ^^ because I understand that the UV rays can dull the red-I just have a hard time thinking that it would completely remove the whole color. And, I know that the major TPG's use a UV protective plastic in their slabs for this reason.

But, will it remove all traces of red? In John's poster (thanks for posting that by the way), you can see the UV rays degraded the color red, but you can still tell it was red. It didn't remove the whole color.

Back to the cards.....if those cards weren't glued on to that poster, it would be a little easier to conclude that all of the fading was because of prolonged sunlight-but the fact that they are glued on, makes me wonder if it was the glue-or-a combination of both.

Now, here's why this topic is important (IMO)- if, as some of you are saying- the red can disappear completely due to prolonged exposure to sun/UV rays- how can one tell a legitimate card that is missing a red pass to one that has been exposed to the sun? I mean, in theory couldn't someone take their cards to a tanning salon, put them under one of those tanning beds for a few sessions, and *POOF* create a "missing red pass" card?

Great discussion, very interesting....

Sincerely, Clayton

What I did with the ones from the lot I bought was to look for signs that the ink was still there. My theory was that the ink has a different glossiness than the cardboard, so a card showing the white of the cardboard where bright red should be would be glossy for a faded card and not glossy for a missing color. (Glossy being relative here)

What I saw was one card that was glossy where the red should have been and one that wasn't. So either I was wrong - the most likely answer. Or I'd gotten one faded card and one legit missing color.

One thing I've noticed is that many of the actual missing colors are missing more than one color.
And that color variations can be caused by the level of inking. The colors that usually show up with heavier inking making the card look different are Gray, pink, and blue.
Most of the 350s come with two different bright red layers. Something I think is a legitimate variety I haven't really studied them in detail, but I think it may be a difference between 350 only runs and the later ones carried over to 350/460. And they probably all got redone again for the 460 series.

The farther I get into this stuff the more questions I find. And the answers are increasingly difficult.

Steve B

[wonkaticket]

Ted, my point was very simple. You made a comment above that you now are avoiding or twisting. You said that in all your years of collecting you have yet to see a T206 that showed signs of missing color due to exposure to sun or artificial light.

This is nothing new to any collector especially one with years of collecting. Exposure damage is real, known and and seen quite often.....not only in our world but many other collecting worlds.

Sometimes I think you almost take the polar opposite side just to debate. If someone said tobacco cards were issued with tobacco you would announce that you had a theory that they were put out with pudding.

John

[tedzan]

Chris and Mike

What makes you so sure the discoloration of some of the cards mounted on this poster was caused by "sun exposure" fading ?

As Rob A. pointed out.......the red backgrounds of Cobb (red portrait) and Boss Schmidt (portrait) are not uniformly discolored.
Yet, cards below & above them, and cards to the left & right of them are discolored.

I suspect that the discoloration on some of these cards is due to the long-term affects of GLUE seeping thru into the fronts of
the cards and chemically altering their colors. Especially, the Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards......as, the pattern of their RED
discoloration is indicative of this effect. If you recall, we have previously discussed this "glue effect" on Net54 in prior threads.


TED Z

[tedzan]

I was typing my post while you posted and did not see your post. Pardon me for repeating what you stated. Anyhow, it appears that we (along with Rob A.)
are considering an alternative explanation for the discoloration of many of these cards mounted on this poster.

TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I was typing my post while you posted and did not see your post. Pardon me for repeating what you stated. Anyhow, it appears that we (along with Rob A.)
are considering an alternative explanation for the discoloration of many of these cards mounted on this poster.

TED Z

No problem Ted thanks.

Yes, there's a window in the picture of the homemade poster on the wall-but, there's also blinds on it. I think that one can easily be explained by the glue as you pointed out Ted. Long term exposure to chemicals.

Sincerely, Clayton

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Chris and Mike

What makes you so sure the discoloration of some of the cards mounted on this poster was caused by "sun exposure" fading ?

As Rob A. pointed out.......the red backgrounds of Cobb (red portrait) and Boss Schmidt (portrait) are not uniformly discolored.
Yet, cards below & above them, and cards to the left & right of them are discolored.

I suspect that the discoloration on some of these cards is due to the long-term affects of GLUE seeping thru into the fronts of
the cards and chemically altering their colors. Especially, the Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards......as, the pattern of their RED
discoloration is indicative of this effect. If you recall, we have previously discussed this "glue effect" on Net54 in prior threads.


TED Z

I'm not referring to the kind of posters you displayed....I dig the fading of those type of things.

My contention is.....that Rob A. first made the point of the red Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards having non-uniform discoloration. I observed this also; and,
added that fading due to "sun exposure" does not result in this kind of effect. We attributed this type of discoloration in these two T206's as possibly having
been caused by the chemical reaction of the glue used to mount these cards on that poster.

So, I am not sure of what your point is ?

Anyhow, since no one here has yet to address the Cobb and Schmidt cards' discoloration, perhaps we can get your take on these two cards on that poster
exhibiting a different effect than the others ?


TED Z

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I'm not referring to the kind of posters you displayed....I dig the fading of those type of things.

My contention is.....that Rob A. first made the point of the red Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards having non-uniform discoloration. I observed this also; and,
added that fading due to "sun exposure" does not result in this kind of effect. We attributed this type of discoloration in these two T206's as possibly having
been caused by the chemical reaction of the glue used to mount these cards on that poster.

So, I am not sure of what your point is ?

Anyhow, since no one here has yet to address the Cobb and Schmidt cards' discoloration, perhaps we can get your take on these two cards on that poster
exhibiting a different effect than the others ?


TED Z

Hi Ted,

I think the discoloration of the Cobb and Schmidt cards (in my opinion) have a lot to do with glue/chemical reaction. I think all of those cards discoloration/fading have something to do with the glue/chemical reaction. I've been wrong before, and may be wrong now, but so far this is what I think-regarding this card montage.

Sincerely, Clayton

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

The color differences could be UV or something in the ink. Either way, it seems like a much ado about nothing to me.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

The color differences could be UV or something in the ink. Either way, it seems like a much ado about nothing to me.

Oh, ok thanks.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Oh, ok thanks.

You're welcome.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I am tempted to sun bleach a card just to prove that this happens.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I don't know how anyone can arise against uv damage as a source of variations.

[teetwoohsix]

NM

[teetwoohsix]

Alright, I've been putting a lot of thought into this subject. I understand that UV rays can potentially fade colors on a card. I still have a hard time believing that it will completely remove a color though, to the point that you can't even tell the color was ever there. I understand many disagree with this.

With that being said- if a card sat in the sun for so long that it completely removed *let's say the color red* from the card- wouldn't the sun also degrade the composition of the paper as well? Would the sun's UV rays make the paper brittle? Not trying to sway the conversation into another direction, but I thought this was worth bringing up. The point I'm trying to make is-in my mind, a card would have to sit under direct sunlight for a pretty long time to completely remove a whole color-so, wouldn't we also be able to tell by the cardboard that this was a sun soaked card we were looking at?

Thanks for all well thought out and informative input-

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Alright, I've been putting a lot of thought into this subject. I understand that UV rays can potentially fade colors on a card. I still have a hard time believing that it will completely remove a color though, to the point that you can't even tell the color was ever there. I understand many disagree with this.

With that being said- if a card sat in the sun for so long that it completely removed *let's say the color red* from the card- wouldn't the sun also degrade the composition of the paper as well? Would the sun's UV rays make the paper brittle? Not trying to sway the conversation into another direction, but I thought this was worth bringing up. The point I'm trying to make is-in my mind, a card would have to sit under direct sunlight for a pretty long time to completely remove a whole color-so, wouldn't we also be able to tell by the cardboard that this was a sun soaked card we were looking at?

Thanks for all well thought out and informative input-

Sincerely, Clayton

It depends on the cardboard.

Late 70's-early 80's Topps, many of the strip cards, and others yes the cardboard will start having problems. Those are all printed on paper with a lot of wood fiber which makes it acidic and that's what makes it brittle. The sun can speed that up a bit.

But T206 are printed on a paper that's got a lot less or maybe even no wood fiber. (I don't think any have ever actually been tested for the paper content) It's a reasonably close match for the acid free cardstock used for some comic backing boards and for some artists cardstock.
As far as I know sunlight either won't affect it or it will take so long none of us will see it happen.

Steve B

[bnorth]

I think most of you would be very surprised at how easy sun removes colors from cards. Different years and brands are affected differently. I have never tried a T206 card, but would like to. The card on the left took 45 days to look like this and it had a darker yellow than the control card. It was faded under 3 layers of UV plastic and 25% shade cloth.

When taking a picture of a faded card the faded color leaves a dull area were the color was completely faded off. The card pictured does not have the slight contrast in hand that shows up in the photo.

The so called blue 58 Topps Hank Aaron are a great example of this. There is a thread in the post war section on them now. Notice the off white around the Indian. If it really left the factory missing the yellow to make the card blue it would be white there not off white.