| Domer05 |
08-31-2025 11:36 AM |
Unfortunately, we're dealing with three different mediums here: (1) there's the dye used to color the felt; (2) there's the secondary coloring that is paint; however, it's not screen printer's ink; nor is it applied via the screen printing method. It's airbrushed on top of (3) the white underbase, which is the only part of the pennant made from ink and screened on.
These dyes were never intended to last more than a year or two. By the 1950s, most makers were no longer using wool in their felt. (Most we're going with cotton felt; and others were experimenting with woven fabrics like brushed flannel.) I'm not sure whether the felt composition affected the dye's hardiness, but the point is: pennant makers were using the cheapest fabrics available. They were never intended to hold up against UV light exposure.
The paint was applied to the pennant rather hastily, post-printing. We've talked about this before, but this was probably the biggest variable in the entire manufacturing process--more so than printing, cutting, and sewing. Sometimes the paint went where it was intended. Other times, not so much.
Greg, your point about the green fields tending to fade is valid. I don't know why green would perform poorer than others.... Maybe because the green field areas were the biggest swath to be painted, and so the ink was thinnest on such spots?
Lastly, the ink. In the 1950s, the white underbase was made from lead. Lead was added to improve the opacity of the ink. As a result, the ink/underbase seems to be the most durable part of the pennant. That's good for us collectors today; but, bad or those kids that took these souvenirs home, waved them in their brothers' faces, giving lil' Johnny lead poisoning. :eek:
Great pennant, Greg. Now, make sure you display that one behind some UV-coated glass!
|
