Missing Ink

[cguidi]

Not sure if this has already been discussed or is of interest to anyone but there was a pretty big collection of T206 cards missing red/magenta ink being sold on eBay recently. I waited until most were gone to post this so it didn't seem like I was promoting them. I snagged a butchered Vic Willis as all the others went for pretty big premiums. I know the Niles missing red ink has been documented before but there seem to be a bunch of other folks affected. Could this be caused by something other then a printing error? Is it safe to assume they all came from the same sheet and what are the odds that they stayed in the same collection for so long.

[Luke]

I looked at a few of these, including the Willis and decided to pass because they all had glue residue on the backs. I figured that may have caused the color variation. I'm far from an expert though, and would like to hear from some others.

[bn2cardz]

There are several threads that express the hypothesis that certain glues made red/magenta to fade. Every time I look at a card that claims to be missing a color I always look at the back. More than not it turns out there is glue residue as there is with these.

[bn2cardz]

Here is a fairly recent thread where the subject of glue comes up:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=173663&page=5

[cguidi]

Thanks for the link to the previous discussion. Very enlightening. I think the fact that so many cards in this single collection were "missing" red ink suggests that it happened post production. Chemical, light, etc.

[1880nonsports]

is a color that usually will fade before most others - at least that's been my experience and what I've read. No idea about the lack of red on these examples.......

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

is a color that usually will fade before most others - at least that's been my experience and what I've read. No idea about the lack of red on these examples.......

I collect printing errors and it varies from year to year and company to company on what ink color will fade the easiest. To make sure I am not buying something someone has altered. I have altered a ton of cards to know what to look for in real missing ink cards verses something someone has altered. My knowledge in mainly from 1960-2000.

[Jantz]

Why doesn't glue leach out the red ink on the backs of T206s with Sweet Caporal ads?



Jantz

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

I looked at a few of these, including the Willis and decided to pass because they all had glue residue on the backs. I figured that may have caused the color variation. I'm far from an expert though, and would like to hear from some others.

exactly. they all had glue residue. the seller said they bought it from someone that had them hanging up. the sun faded the red away.

sorry man. they are a no go or I would have snatched them up.

kevin

[Jantz]

So I guess the sun faded the red off of this Niles too?

[thehoodedcoder]

Not necessarily. It depends on the card. Some are actually missing the ink run and others are just missing because of fading or what have you.

There were about 9 to 12 cards in the guys lot that 'appeared' were missing red ink. Its not like the guy had a card shop, or even had more than a handful of baseball card items for sale. What are the odds? Did you buy your lottery ticket?

Not every card was missing completely. Almost all had a faint remnant of red. I discussed this with some other people and everyone was in agreement that they were printed with red and now its gone. The only question was if the grading company would slab them the notation or not.

The one in your screen shot appears legit. There is no staining on the back, no paper loss and zero evidence of red ink any where on the card.

Kevin

[atx840]

Haven't figured this one out yet, back is fairly clean, front has issues...but not sure it was glue.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by atx840

Haven't figured this one out yet, back is fairly clean, front has issues...but not sure it was glue.

There's a group of 350's that come with odd shading or lack of it. I haven't really kept track of which ones yet, but they do turn up often enough that I think it's a particular run that was eventually corrected.

Steve B

[z28jd]

Don't have a scan available Chris, but I have an orange McGinley too.

[steve B]

I bought one group of cards from that batch that also showed missing red, but weren't listed that way.

Obvious glue and back damage, plus the lengthy exposure to sunlight.

I don't totally buy the glue explanation. Especially if the red on the back isn't faded or removed. The same for chemicals used in soaking. Obviously that would only apply to cards with red backs.

What I found interesting about the batch from Ebay is that there's no other fading. The seller had or maybe has a group still on the cardboard that has apparently faded cards next to cards that appear unfaded.

The ones I got have no color at all from the bright red, but the pink is there, and normal as are the other colors.

I looked at them on an angle, thinking that the difference in gloss between the inks and the cardboard surface would show for sure.
But that wasn't definite when I looked at them. (Both Cincinnati players) One showed gloss where the red on the uniform was, one didn't.
I finally found my high power magnifier, so I can take a better look today.
(The kids are fascinated with the 40X , and regularly take it and lose it)

The red from cochineal is colorfast for washing cloth, but isn't good at dealing with light. Unfortunately the time period for T cards was also one when the use of cochineal was changing to newer synthetic pigments. Some of the new ones were worse, but much cheaper, some were much better. And the exact makeup of the ink was a trade secret, so even if we knew what brand ALC preferred, we couldn't know what pigment was used

----------
Part that will probably draw some negative comments -
It's becoming possible to figure out some approximate ink formulas. There's a group that's begun using spectroscopy to look at the inks used for some stamp issues. The difference between some shades can be thousands of dollars in a few cases. And differences in the hundreds aren't uncommon.
It's still not cheap, but they've already found some surprises. Like a rust brown ink that was assumed to contain rust as the pigment has proven to contain almost no Iron at all.

I know some get down on technology and with good reason, since it's often used by scammers to support their claims. But properly used it can answer a lot of questions.


Steve B

[Gradedcardman]

Well let me say I was intrigued by these in the beginning when first posted. The seller had very good communication with me when I asked questions or requested more scans. Based on that alone I decided to grab a few and see what the pros had to say. All I had graded came back as missing red ink. Specifically the Niles, Spencer and Lindaman. I took the shot because I paid via PayPal and could always of filed a claim should they of been deemed altered. There were also the Cincy players missing the name coloring as well as some St Louis players. Just too many for me to of thought they were chemically altered.

Anyway I am glad I got them and would take the shot again if it came up.

[thehoodedcoder]

hi,

Well that answers whether or not someone would slab them. I can only assume it was SGC because PSA is impossible to get to do that. Is that correct?

As long as you are happy with what you got, cool.

kevin

[wonkaticket]

[Gradedcardman]

q

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by steve B

There's a group of 350's that come with odd shading or lack of it. I haven't really kept track of which ones yet, but they do turn up often enough that I think it's a particular run that was eventually corrected.

Steve B

It's interesting that you said this Steve because for awhile now I've contemplated starting a thread about the Bill Abstein T206. The majority of them (fronts) that I've seen have a red background, but quite a few, like this one I have, are clearly orange. I don't have a red background Abstein, but will post another card with a red background for comparison purposes.

This Abstein with the orange background is a Piedmont 350 Factory 25. My question is- was this orange background intended to be orange? If it's just missing the red pass, could this possibly be placed on a sheet of other cards from the Piedmont 350 series that are legitimately missing the red pass? Also, since red is a primary color, would they lay down orange just to put red over it? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. I posted the back to show there was no glue residue-clean back.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Why doesn't glue leach out the red ink on the backs of T206s with Sweet Caporal ads?



Jantz

C'mon Jantz, you're being too logical now

Sincerely, Clayton

[Jantz]

Now Wonka

If you are going to crop your scans and not show us what it says on the flips, then you cannot play.


Jantz

[caramelcard]

These are raw, but my graded examples are not designated as color errors.

[caramelcard]

[Pete Pyro]

I'm far from an expert or even a studied novice on the subject, but the orange backgrounds look like faded red. My uneducated guess is that a printing error would show as a distinct yellow in these cases. After all, was red not used in the process to create orange?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Pete Pyro

After all, was red not used in the process to create orange?

Good question Pete. There was an old thread about the color process, I'll try to search for it. Steve or Chris would probably know- but the thing I wonder about is- was orange created by laying down red over yellow? That doesn't sound right. I think from the yellow/brown scraps, those (along with black) must've been first. I think the color red may have been laid down last? Anyhow, hopefully our printing experts will chime in. I would think orange would be a color mixed prior to being laid down- but I'm also below novice status on this

Sincerely, Clayton

[Pete Pyro]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Good question Pete. There was an old thread about the color process, I'll try to search for it. Steve or Chris would probably know- but the thing I wonder about is- was orange created by laying down red over yellow? That doesn't sound right. I think from the yellow/brown scraps, those (along with black) must've been first. I think the color red may have been laid down last? Anyhow, hopefully our printing experts will chime in. I would think orange would be a color mixed prior to being laid down- but I'm also below novice status on this



Sincerely, Clayton

Also good questions. I do know that dropping red on top of yellow is a common practice to make a beautifully bright red. I've seen it done with auto painting anyway.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Pete Pyro

Also good questions. I do know that dropping red on top of yellow is a common practice to make a beautifully bright red. I've seen it done with auto painting anyway.

Interesting! Here's one with an orange background, and red letters in the uniform:

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. I can't find the old thread I'm looking for.

[atx840]

Looks like a variant of red/dark orange was added over yellow to make the Maddox orange background (first card is not mine).

[t206blogcom]

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

I see no missing color on 1/2 of these?

[Pete Pyro]

Cards in very poor condition have a loss of color. Meaning the colors were once brighter. I'm convinced that this error/print variation craze is costful to some collectors

[steve B]

I bought mine to study.

I don't often see a supposed missing color where a big chunk of it's history is known. The recent ones from Ebay supposedly had around 40 years of light exposure. So I assume fading. I did pay a bit extra.

It's interesting to hear some passed grading.

Some of what's interesting is the differences. For example, One of the ones I got was Downey. And it looks just like the one above. No Bright red team name but a pink team name and belt.

The Oakes shown above Shows no pink where the team is, but does have it in the face and background. (Most of the backgrounds intended to be orange are done as pink over yellow.)

Both are normal as far as the pink layer goes.

That's interesting because the pink under the red makes a brighter red. And from these two subjects appears to be something changed to partway between 350 and 350-460. I'll have to look at others to see if that's consistent, as it's a fairly major change that added quality but was also a bit more expensive. That tiny bit of ink over a lot of sheets adds up.

Steve B