Is it missing......... or not?????????

I mentioned this in the thread about SGC that I wanted this card labeled as "missing red ink" What do you think?????

The first one is borrowed from ebay and is not mine.

The back has a bright red SC back.

[atx840]

Not necessarily missing it as in printer error but possible fading. Interesting nonetheless.

Here is a Cobb up in a current auction and a recent eBay card that have faded reds.

Originally Posted by atx840

Not necessarily missing it as in printer error but possible fading

That might be possible if the rest of the colors showed some type of fading also and weren't so bright. They said the card would grade numerically, and it was not from bleaching since the back is bright red SC print. I thought it was going to be slabbed but.....

[egbeachley]

Looks faded to me. All the colors. But especially the red which tends to come out quicker with a good soaking.

[smtjoy]

I agree looks like the red came off from soaking, soak a red exhibit and you get the same fade look while many other color exhibits do not fade.

[Exhibitman]

I think it may be a case where soaking in a chemical affected it. Look at the ball on the orange Ball. It has pinkish shadowing, as though the red had been washed off and had run a little at that spot. The bases also look 'off' tone. I know if you soak a T202 in turpentine it will discolor the white card stock; perhaps something similar? The gold border also has some odd shading.

Not all the orange background cards are faded, though. Some of them have red ink that simply ran out. Missing or light red seems to be a theme of the T206 set.

[atx840]

If you look at the Cobb, you can see the right top corner has a healthy red section where it was hidden under a corner holder and protected from the light. I assume the same happened with the Beaumont but with a tac.

well after reading all this I have to second guess my standing. Some very good points here. Would like to see more if you guys have them.

[iggyman]

For me, it is simple math......NO "$$$$" premium should ever be applied to a missing red ink T205/T206 card. If that Cobb is mounted just a little bit differently, we would all have assumed it came out of the factory looking that way. Which, as I've learned today is not the case.

Lovely Day...

[steve B]

Not all orange is faded red. There are some missing red cards out there.

I sold one of a pair I had years ago and I'm not sure which one I kept, I'll have to look next time I'm looking at the T206s. I had a Pair of Dygerts one with red lips and one without. Both came from the same batch which had nothing faded.

I'm reasonably confident I could tell the fading from missing ink if a card was in front of me. Going from scans is usually difficult unless they're high resolution. I'm trying to think of how to explain the difference, as it's usually not really obvious.

Steve B

[tedzan]

I tend to agree with your original premise that this T205 Neal Ball is missing the RED ink application. The RED ink was applied in the last phase
of the multi-color printing process of T205's (and T206's) by American Lithographic.


I don't have any T205 examples. Here are some of my T206 "missing red ink" examples......These T206's are not "faded". This I am certain of,
since these cards were glued in an album for 90+ years when I acquired them.










And, here is a Lundgren missing the BLUE ink application........





TED Z

[sb1]

Here's a T205 with the wrong color base, should be white instead of pink. Inking errors were made, but are far and few between. I have seen a couple of others like this. FYI it will be in the upcoming B & L Auction.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

I mentioned this in the thread about SGC that I wanted this card labeled as "missing red ink" What do you think?????

The first one is borrowed from ebay and is not mine.

The back has a bright red SC back.

Just picked up this card that is similar to the one shown above right. It came in a lot of 43 and was the only one with this issue - seems like more than a coincidence that it happened to also be a Neal Ball T205:

[Runscott]

Sorry Leon, perhaps I'm being impatient waiting for a response on this, but I'm thinking the thread has gone belly-up.

Just tossing the 'Ball' out there for discussion.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Sorry Leon, perhaps I'm being impatient waiting for a response on this, but I'm thinking the thread has gone belly-up.

Just tossing the 'Ball' out there for discussion.

You can always bump an old thread if no answer was given or you just want to bump it. Generally, on much older general topics, a new thread is requested to be started, again, if there is no real reason to bump the old one. There are no set rules for a reason....just be cool with stuff (as you are), have a reason for what you do (you do) and all is well .

[joeadcock]

Since I have never really looked in to this topic, does everyone feel that this card is simply faded?