T206 Tris Speaker "Missing Red Ink"

[Tripp Trapp]

I'm curious if anybody has any thoughts are on this Speaker. The research I've done seems to suggest that it may not be an actual "missing red ink" variant but a printing anomaly. This Speaker seemingly is missing the red ink identifying Boston on the uniform, while the red ink on Speaker's cap is clearly there. Could there have been two separate red color passes and/or printing plates for this particular card? Seems odd but plausible I guess.

[Sean]

Hi Eric, I saw your post in the T206 missing color thread, but I didn't post because I'm not sure about this card. I'm leaning toward it being faded rather than never having the red applied at all. I doubt that there were two red passes, but Steve B. or Ron K. could speak to that more coherently than I could.

Could you please post a scan of the back of the card?

[CW]

I can still see a faint trace of the BOSTON, so it appear sot be faded to me rather than completely missing that ink.

[Ronnie73]

There's only a single red ink pass. If there was a chance of a pink ink pass under the red ink pass, we would of seen ink registration errors showing two different ink passes on other cards which we don't. It's either faded, under inked, or chemical related fade. Still a neat card and falls into a list of many red ink variations. I'm personally not a fan of faded, lightly inked, or different color shaded cards. To me, the color is either there or it isn't. Anyways, it's still a Tris Speaker and you can't go wrong with Tris.

[steve B]

There are two of these on ebay right now, which gives a good opportunity to have a fairly close look.

Both have the bright red on the hat, but not on the uniform. I've seen a few of these and they're usually like that.
And there isn't an indication on any others that there is pink under the red on the uniform. But it is under the red on the hat.
That's a bit unususal, as there's usually pink under the bright red.

What I think it might be, and I'd have to see a bunch more Speakers to be sure, is that at one point they ran the pink as bright red and bright red as pink.
So not a missing color, but a switched color.

Now the "proof" would be a group of maybe 10-12 cards with a similar thing going on. But it could be a lot more subtle.

Steve B

[Ronnie73]

Originally Posted by steve B

There are two of these on ebay right now, which gives a good opportunity to have a fairly close look.

Both have the bright red on the hat, but not on the uniform. I've seen a few of these and they're usually like that.
And there isn't an indication on any others that there is pink under the red on the uniform. But it is under the red on the hat.
That's a bit unususal, as there's usually pink under the bright red.

What I think it might be, and I'd have to see a bunch more Speakers to be sure, is that at one point they ran the pink as bright red and bright red as pink.
So not a missing color, but a switched color.

Now the "proof" would be a group of maybe 10-12 cards with a similar thing going on. But it could be a lot more subtle.

Steve B

I never really thought about a possible ink color swap. I guess the next step would be to search other cards from the same print group/sheet to see if a pattern exists.

[obcmac]

If the back is stained, then the ink was once there. Not a printing anomaly, but an after-print defect that people seem to love. My opinion on it ;-)

[Edwolf1963]

My initial thought was if soaking or a chemical based cleaner caused/contributed .. especially on red fading.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by obcmac

If the back is stained, then the ink was once there. Not a printing anomaly, but an after-print defect that people seem to love. My opinion on it ;-)

I agree with this ^

Glued into an album or scrapbook (that's why the card looks so nice) and the glue makes the red ink fade.

[Pat R]

Personally I think all of the examples that look faded or under inked are
not missing a color pass. I would say around 95% of the ones you see
have back damage and/or staining and the other 5% are the result of
exposure to light or a very successful soak.

Here's a good example. I recently picked up this Dubuc at a regular price.
It has a pretty clean back but as soon as I had it in hand I knew it had been soaked.

It has very light pink on the hat and light pink on the uniform and belt.
img279 - Copy.jpgimg281.jpg

And here you can see it's warped from being soaked.
img283.jpgimg284.jpg

[drcy]

Red printing ink tends to fade faster/the most in sunlight compared to other colors.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Personally I think all of the examples that look faded or under inked are
not missing a color pass. I would say around 95% of the ones you see
have back damage and/or staining and the other 5% are the result of
exposure to light or a very successful soak.

Pat, I agree. I have a bunch of cards that are missing the red ink. Most of them have back damage, probably from glue.

I do have this one card, however, that has back damage from glue and is also missing a color pass on the front; and yet I think that it was printed missing the color on the front. Here it is:


scan0039.jpg

scan0038.jpg

I don't think that this one was caused by glue or sunlight.

[Pat R]

Sean, that's why I used faded or under inked. Some cards leave no doubt that there is color missing.
clark.jpgdowney.jpg

I kind of think the Brown Old Mill theory might fit the missing color question. if you have to ask if it's missing color it probably isn't.

[Sean]

I've never seen that Clark before. That's a nice one.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Sean, that's why I used faded or under inked. Some cards leave no doubt that there is color missing.
Attachment 279657Attachment 279658

I kind of think the Brown Old Mill theory might fit the missing color question. if you have to ask if it's missing color it probably isn't.

And the majority of actual color missing cards are missing at least two colors.

There are exceptions though, as there are some 350's with missing red that appears to be an intentional design change.

Steve B