Sweet Carporal variation?

[xplainer]

Got in some new cards today, and I noted the SC looked different from my other two (yeah only two, just started this venture).

Anyway, the one I already had seems to be missing the "shadow" behind the letters and the inside border.

If this has been discussed before, I apologize. Just direct me to that thread.

Looking for information from the veteran collectors.

Here are the two cards:

[swarmee]

The shadow effect is there, just very faint. Look at the ETTE of Cigarettes. But yes, most of the red ink is missing. It was not intentional, since they would have erased all of it or if it was before the shadow effect, none would be visible. Nice catch.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by xplainer

Got in some new cards today, and I noted the SC looked different from my other two (yeah only two, just started this venture).

Anyway, the one I already had seems to be missing the "shadow" behind the letters and the inside border.

If this has been discussed before, I apologize. Just direct me to that thread.

Looking for information from the veteran collectors.

Here are the two cards:

Please show the fronts of the two cards, if you would be so kind.

Best regards,

Eric

[swarmee]

I think the fronts were withheld intentionally to allow time for the OP to find more, if it is actually a print variation. I would more side with lack of ink on the printing plate, or bad soaking that erased some of the lighter red portions. Does the front of the right one have color loss on the front?

[xplainer]

No, not intentional. I didn't think about posting the fronts, as the backs were in question. I'll post them again, front and back, in the morning, as I have some life issues to deal with tonight. Stay tuned.

-Jimmy

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The shadow effect is there, just very faint. Look at the ETTE of Cigarettes. But yes, most of the red ink is missing. It was not intentional, since they would have erased all of it or if it was before the shadow effect, none would be visible. Nice catch.

Yeah, I see that now. Around the "r" it is more clear. But the inside borders are still missing the red. As requested, I'll post front and backs in the early morning.
Got to go tonight.
-Jimmy

[xplainer]

Here is a scan of the fronts.
Delehanty is the one in question.

[sreader3]

Hi Jimmy,

Cool card and great observation. Wish I had something to add, but without more study I tend to agree that it is probably a matter of degree (less ink) rather than kind (no ink) and is a print error (akin to the "filled leaf" card in my earlier thread).

Scot

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Hi Jimmy,

Cool card and great observation. Wish I had something to add, but without more study I tend to agree that it is probably a matter of degree (less ink) rather than kind (no ink) and is a print error (akin to the "filled leaf" card in my earlier thread).

Scot

Thanks for the input everyone. Just another wrinkle in the Monster. Man, I am so glad I ran into this set. After years of "collecting" baseball cards, I now am truly collecting baseball cards.

So much can be learned on this site. And I have learned a lot in the time here.

Yeah Scot, I read your thread about "filled leaf" cards. I just saw this and thought I'd throw it out on the forum for discussion.

Thanks folks.

-Jimmy