Not T206 but I figured you guys would like these. Rob Attachment 60093

Here's two more on the back. Rob Attachment 60162

Attachment 60163

Very cool,

I think Leon picked up an uncut sheet or two of 52 overprint errors.

Keep them coming!

I picked up a couple 5-6 overprint card sheets at the last Oaks show. The dealer said he plucked them out of the garbage.

Any more ghosts hiding out there?

Time Machine
 

Some people would go back and play the lotto if they had a time machine. Me. I'd go back and hang out at the dumpster behind American Litho. from 1909-11 . . .

slight ghost.

http://i.imgur.com/nA5nz.jpg

Not the kind of ghost you are looking for, but to avoid the wrath of the non-T206 crowd, I'll post it here. I haven't seen a 'negative' back image like this before:

http://www.scpauctions.com/LotImages/14/14004a_lg.jpeg

Seriously, these are common?

Please post more examples of inverse back ghosts on the fronts of cards.

First time I've seen one Scott, I have a PB OP which due to its natural inverted print looks neat....nothing like your example though.

Thanks, Chris. I wish it were mine - it's an image from an old Memory Lanes auction. It really makes no sense to me. Maybe Steve will read this and have some ideas.

Maybe the ink was absorbed or lightened by the Piedmont ad ink from a stacked group, like a dry sheet transfer. Maybe the dry stone hit it in some print press error. Very neat to see one though.

Very cool card, Scott. I wonder why that received the OC qualifier, unless the reverse is badly OC.

negative....
 

all my years....never seen one:eek:

I must admit I'm a bit lost on that one. I've never seen that, even on modern cards or other printed stuff.

I have a few theories , but nothing I'd feel confident enough about to put out there.

Maybe after I've given it some more thought.

Steve B

Hey, if you are confident enough to send these theories to me in an email, please do....most of what we have regarding the printing process is theory anyway.

Scott <=== feeling relief after escaping inexplicable urge to post in the memorabilia forum.

I actually found a great resource, a book about plate lithography originally published in 1917, and having a 1922 version online.

It was made for lithographers to help them transition to the then new technology. It's a bit dry reading (Read anyone but me will be bored into a coma) And very technical, including recepies for some of the chemical processes.

And it's got an entire chapter on making transfers to use in laying out plates, one of the areas I wasn't familiar with.

Not so much theory as just learning the old ways.

There's a link to the book in the T205 thread.

Steve B

I don't believe that the reverse Piedmont impression on the Nicholls card posted above was a result of the printing process. It most likely happened during the storage of the card.

Many different examples of cards have been shown with storage transfers that are mistakenly called wet sheet transfers or thought to have occurred at the time the cards were printed. In most cases the ink from one of two cards stored together will transfer to the other. The exact variables that cause this are not known.

The Nicholls card above has a similar effect but slightly different. Instead of the ink from one card transferring to the other, the ink from the Piedmont back protected the blue sky of the Nicholls card. Where the heaviest portions of the Piedmont's blue ink pressed against the Nicholls the sky did not discolor. The areas of the Piedmont back that had little to no ink did not protect the sky from discoloring.

If it was a result of printing more of the Piedmont back would be visible in other areas of the Nicholls card.

Wouldn't all of the colors transfer if the migration occurred post-printing?

Most storage transfers occur when the back of one card bleeds onto the other. The backs were printed in a single color. Here's an example posted in another thread.

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1311694394

Nice, Tim!