rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>&lt;do you think I bleached, soaked, applied solvents, or otherwise altered these cards, as....<br />the usual skeptical suspects....on this Forum are alluding to ? ?&gt;<br /><br /><br />Not at all <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. No one is accusing you of any wrong doing, just trying to make you a more informed collector. There is always something to learn.<br /><br />Those are great looking variations...congrats!<br /><br /><br />Kevin<br /><br />

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>You can't begin to apply ink in such sporadic, limited, lightly worn and faded effect - consistently via the printing process....no matter which inks are applied or left out. And all 4 colors appear plainly on the card, unless you've photoshopped the piece and autocorrected in some of the color that is in fact absent.<br /><br />Clearly the card has had the inks faded/removed by some process, and it looks entirely chemical by appearance.<br /><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Edited to remove the moniker "the fool" after my name.<br /><br /><br /><br />

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Many lightness/color variation printing errors are caused when either a single color<br />is missing (everything else is fine) or a single color is light (less ink). Usually, <br />the missing or light ink is consistent throughout the card. With the Dunlap, all<br />the colors appear to be there, but many of the colors vary in intensity and often <br />in the same area. As each color was printed separately with its own printing plate,<br />it's unlikely for different colors to be light in the same areas and darker in same areas.<br />This would suggest the light/missing areas are due to something after printing.<br /><br />I agree that many of the others are printing errors, caused by different application<br />of a single color.

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I wasn't going to respond any more to the absurd statements of certain "pseudo-experts" that have posted<br /> here. But, your comments are quite reasonable; therefore, I will reply to some of your points.<br /><br />1st....We can discard the fading factor, simply because all colors would have equally been affected. Look<br /> again at the colors of both Dunlap cards. The BROWN (his hair, mustache, etc.) is a rich solid color, in the<br /> error card.... exactly as seen on the normal card.<br /><br />2nd....The RED on his lips and tie are a rich solid color. And, the YELLOW in the background is the correct<br /> base color to create the Green affect when the final CYAN (blue) ink would have been applied.<br /><br />My understanding of the 4-color process employed in printing these cards (and subsequently the T206's),<br />is this sequence......YELLOW - BROWN - RED - CYAN. The other day, I did some color copies at Staples,<br /> and their machine had these Ink cartridges.....YELLOW - BROWN - MAGENTA - CYAN. I tell you this, in<br />order to make the point that essentially the same technique for color printing has been used for over a<br /> century.<br /><br />Can you now understand my argument for why this error card is not the result of being subjected to<br />excessive sunlight......or subjected to some kind of human tampering with whatever solvent. Again, I<br /> repeat....if this were so, you would not have the rich looking YELLOW-BROWN-RED colors on it. It is<br /> impossible that these colors would not have also been been affected.<br /><br />Indeed, this card is the result of an incomplete printing process....as are all the other color error cards<br />that I have displayed here.<br /><br />Thank you for your reasonable post.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br /><br />

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>1. The Brown hair is not the same in both examples, in fact it is awfully plain to see the difference in tone and richness from the mostly missing red in that area. Notice the extra 'golden' effect in the highlights and his sides that are bare-ish without the extra filling that the thick red provides.<br /><br />2. Again very obvious to note is the missing 'chip' area in the middle of his moustache that shows light blue ink instead (not merely card stock color), and similarly on his bottom lip and tie. I think this plainly shows that cyan was laid down first (or at least before the magenta), and the magenta over the top gave the darker rose tones required for those areas. There is no proof at all that colors were universally laid down in the same order across all printing presses over all the lands. For blue to somehow be out of register that far to magically fill in the red areas that are mysteriously missing is plain silly. Very very clearly the red has been removed from these areas.<br /><br />3. Finally and mostly unobjectionably, take a quick peek at the borders. Though I'm going to guess that Ted will insist merely dirt, the blue staining of runoff ink into the sections of the border point absolutely at those inks being released and settling into other areas as it was drying. <br /><br /><br />It wouldn't take long Ted, just ask any printer who knows older inks and they will humbly inform you that because different pigments were used to make the dyes, they react differently under chemical penetration and/or sunlight, and fade or release in totally unique ways. Puting a solvent on a turn of the century card does not result in an instant confluence and ooze of colors all mixed together, but will in fact cause different inks to disolve at different rates, sometimes some will not disolve at all.<br /><br /><br />What is altogether laughable is your attitude through this discussion, your wish to simply crown all you know to be all that can be known, and your less than stellar references to other hobbyists is weak at very best.<br />I used to think there was much to learn from you, but why talk to someone who wouldn't deem me worthy of participating in the debate. Even when clearly you were the one not availed of ALL the facts.<br /><br />This is an area you have little to offer.<br />Perhaps you should allow others who do and can - to partake, and you can sit back and save up all your barbs for another witty slab quip.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>grrr can we talk about my goudey now!!!?!?!? waaaahhhhh!

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Ted....<br /><br />Please find some really old dog piece of a T card or E card, that still has multicolor print on it... and mix up some Oxyclean, then dip that card in there for too long... and maybe you'll rethink what can happen.<br /><br />Sean, back to your post, did you ever use black light?<br /><br />Frank.

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>As far as the Goudey goes, the initial image isn't very clear but perhaps it's missing the red ink. That would account both for the missing bottom bar and the overall lightness. Looking at the picture part, I don't see any red or red combinations (purple, orange, etc), which might mean it's missing the red printing. If so and the card is genuine, this would qualify as a printing error. If you buy a few Goudey commons you should be able to tell if the card is genuine by comparing the stock.<br /><br />As as been already been mentioned once or twice, the red ink seems to fade faster than the other colors-- though it would be rare for the red bar to disappear completely via fading.

rare goudey or piece of crap
 

Posted By: <b>sean</b><p>I havent tried a blacklight. What will that do? REALLY hoping I have soemthing other than a peice of crap <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>