Color "error" variations in t206 cards
 

They can be quite striking, especially in portraits, but I understand they are not generally regarded as 'errors' and just interesting phenomenon. Am I right that they rarely bring much or any premium, even for a popular mid-grade card?

I know that I have had no luck obtaining any significant premium for my orange Cobb....

The McGraw/orange portrait gets a nice boost over his red background. Seems to be 3-4x the price depending on grade.

what are you basing that off of?

kevin

WTF r u gys talking about? True...radical color differences in T206 command a large premium. Kevins "Orange" cobb is definitely "oranger" than the normal red...but is not "orange" enough to command a large premium...in my opinion.

My own sale. The price I was quoted from someone who has two of them and another previous sale I could find. They were all in line with each other

1.98lb premium

Just love this Tinker with the Lon Chaney like look to him, beat up right face and the off colors. I added a typical one(not mine) for comparison.

That's awesome!

An SGC 60 Eddie Collins--in a nice purple--just went for about $800 in last night's Leon auction--or about twice the normal....Seems about right?

Thanks Pete. I did that years ago the last time this topic came around ;)

I was wondering if anyone else has ever felt like Brown Hindu's almost look a bit "lighter" than the other ones? Maybe it is just my imagination, or I am seeing things, or am just completely insane, but in some cases I feel like I have noticed a difference.

I have not handled enough examples to really know, but I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this?

I think what I am saying might not really apply to the original purpose of the thread, and any premium is coming from the front/ back combination itself and not necessarily a difference in the colors, but maybe someone has some information?

Thank you.

Derek

Are we talking apples and oranges here?
 

Paul, I suggest you provide a red apple Cobb so we all can compare and judge for ourselves.

Brian

Anyone who has bought/sold these knows that the premiums are all over the board, and really depend on whether or not there are two interested buyers when one is offered. I've seen Willis portraits that had odd but ugly faded purple backgrounds go for 2-3X normal price, and I've seen beautiful orange backgrounds (that should have been red) go for just a small fraction above the normal-background version. Like the others, the orange Cobb is also all over the board - when I was looking for one, and forum members knew it, the premium went way up :). Now it isn't so high. Go figure.

Hi Brian, Sorry, the red apple is under copyright. But if you squint hard enough at your E90-1 Cobb I swear that the hole will disappear;)

Paul

I've noticed that cards with a red background and a Brown Hindu back frequentlly look more orange than red.

YES! I have seen Tinker, Willis, Merkle etc. with this exact same characteristic.

The Waddell card seems to have it a bit as well. The blue seems so light. I had a Sovereign 350 at one point and the blue was very dark and rich, almost like a royal blue.

So I am not crazy, per se.

Thank you Sir.

Derek

PS

But, why ? ...

Attachment 136674

Attachment 136675

Attachment 136676

I can't expain why, however.

the overpriced devlin on ebay has the same thing characteristic.

kevin

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/10/4aqadeje.jpg This Kling I got off the BST also seems to have some color variation similar to that Tinker. blueish gray on left orangeish on the right.

Finding one with a red background is the challenge, most all have the orange. I had two Fosters and I think one may have been red. I can't find the scans.

Every other red background Hindu I had was orange(Chance, Merkle, McGraw).

Velly ineresting. I currently have two Merkle portraits on my website (and ebay) - the brown Hindu is orange and the other is red (good comparison, since I used the same scanner for both).

http://www.belltownvintagecards.com/...0101032902.htm

http://www.belltownvintagecards.com/...0101032901.htm

Gotta agree, I've noticed this with my Elberfeld Hindu, definitely looks more orangey than pure red like it should be.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ps60d34aff.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ps0716535a.jpg

Perhaps Ted has a theory regarding this - could be a way to tie the non-Hindu orange-background cards, based on print runs, or to determine print runs.

Go get it, Ted.

Some T206 color printing errors......
 

Scott......you called ? :)

Currently, in my collection are following color errors. I had more, but traded them away. These I'll keep for a while.

The only brown HINDU with a front color printing flaw that I have is Bridwell. I cannot think of how we can connect front printing flaws with any particular T206 back.
Since, the fronts were printed first. The various T-brand backs were printed later, as the orders for T206's arrived to ALC from the various tobacco factory's.


Thought you may like my ORANGE Cobb (with the "snow flake" effect for this wintry season) :)
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...d86/acobb8.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...PinlWillis.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...geYellow50.jpg



http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...BrHINDUx50.jpg

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/d...inghuggins.jpghttp://i529.photobucket.com/albums/d...nklingpink.jpg


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...lshGray25x.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...nt206walsh.jpg


And, my favorite color error card....Lundgren without BLUE ink

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...n4versions.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...n4versions.jpg



Furthermore, check-out the UZIT backs....some are deep BLUE, others are lighter BLUE....similar to the PIEDMONT 460/42 backs

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...ogUZITx50b.jpghttp://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...erUZITx50b.jpg



TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

Hi Ted. I love that Kling with the "rainbow" effect.

The Hindu is the much lighter one.

I traded the Sovereign before I got the Hindu, so I never had the chance to compare them side by the side, but the difference is very distinct as I remember it.

Thoughts?

Some of these are just the colors not being printed with enough ink, others are not.

some places, like the uzit backs, you are seeing the cardboard color come through and its affecting your eyes abilitiy to judge the color as the same shade.

some of the card board can probably even be see through the ink to some extent, much like paint on a wall, until you put the second coat on.

kevin

more orange
 

More orange.

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

I don't think the question of "should" can be answered. People can collect what they want and pay whatever price makes them happy.

Personally, I think it's crazy.

My experience is that they get a very small premium, particularly the commons.

SGC 60 Collins (Purple)
 

Greg- I paid about 2x premium for this card and I'll be honest, my max bid was higher. Having said that, I have never seen it as this color variation in over 25 years of collecting. My opinion is that red backed cards that come out orange, do not demand much of a premium. There is too much debate on just how orange is it? But when you have a normally red backed card that comes out a true purple, I think that enters into the equation greatly because of uniqueness. Another example I can think of is Brian's SGC 70 Manion (normally a vivid green background, this card is light blue). There are many red T206s that have orange varieties (Cobb, Abstein, Bush, Chance, etc...)

Several people have answered the original question. There is not a consistent answer, because the premiums have not been consistent.

Some cards posted here are either faded from the sun, or have been altered (either intentionally or unintentionally) with chemicals. they command no premium. cards with "mild" color variations command little to some premium (orange backgrounds, etc). cards which are clearly missing color passes, command big premiums.

...And cards with a second color pass are ignored completely:

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...risonsmall.jpg

...every card has some variance, but the card in the center is clearly darker. So much so that my wife can spot it from across the room (I know this because when she saw it sitting out she asked why it looked different and if it meant we could retire if I sold it :rolleyes:).

I think that this is really just an optical illusion. The blue color is identical, but you are looking at something that is over saturated. You are not seeing what is under the ink as well, and what is around the blue ink and combined that makes it appear darker, when in fact the color of the ink is almost virtually identical.


There may be slight differences, if the printer mixed multiple batches of ink, but to think they vary that much....I don't think so. There are ink weight formulas to produce specific colors and a printer would use that to make sure they are not vastly different.

Kevin

Wrong. The face is obviously more pink, not an illusion. This is a double strike of the magenta. Also the card was miscut but it doesn't look like a recent trim as the edge is worn even.


There was a thread I started about it when I first bought it. This is from that thread and shows closeups of the dot pattern:

Link to that orig thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/newrepl...reply&p=969213

Michael- I'm a bit confused. On cards with definite color variations, if they were in the presence of chemicals, wouldn't the borders of the card be off as well? Also, if the color was altered by the sun, wouldn't there be discoloration or toning on the borders?

Ted Z- Do you have any opinions on what I was commenting on? Thanks...

Kevin
 

All my cards that I have on display here in Post #26 are errors due to printing flaws at American Lithographic.

My opinion regarding any premium to be paid on such cards is a very subjective matter.

Personally, I will not pay a premium....all the T206 color errors that I have acquired, I have paid very liitle for.


TED Z

Post #40
 

Thanks Ted, What about my questions pertaining this post? Chemicals, sun fading, etc...

The inks were and are colored by a variety of pigments. Some are more stable than others.

A chemical that changes the color might only affect one of the colors. That would depend on the chemistry of the chemical and the pigment.
Other chemicals could affect the carrier, usually some sort of oil or grease with lithography inks. Some oils like linseed oil eventually harden, others don't. Modern environmentally friendly inks are often based on vegetable oil and can be smudged or removed in normal handling if your skin isn't especially dry. Sports illustrated used inks like that for a while.

I'm not really up on the exact pigments for most colors, but know a little about a few of them.

Most black ink is colored with carbon, either carbonblack or lampblack. (A fine distinction of the process used to get the carbon pigment. And usually one that doesn't matter. ) Carbon won't fade, and isn't affected by most chemicals.

Reds are sometimes done with Cochineal. And while it makes a nice bright red dye that resists fading from soap, it will fade with exposure to light.

Many other colors don't fade.
That's why I bought a small lot of cards with no bright red, but a known history of light exposure of around 40 years. Unfortunately a few other cards from the same batch have been slabbed as missing colors. The good look I've had at mine is to me inconclusive. One shows gloss where the bright red should be, the other doesn't.
On both, none of the other colors have faded much if at all.

The borders on T206 fronts won't be affected by light. Backs exposed to light might be affected a bit, but I don't have any examples. The good news is that the cardstock is probably not particularly acidic.

A lot of lithography stock is coated on one or both sides. The fronts of T206s are coated stock. Probably a clay based glaze. The coating makes the inks appear a bit brighter and helps them adhere better to the surface without getting into the paper itself. The backs are uncoated. So stock that's more porous than usual will absorb more ink. I should also make clear that the ink is very thick, and won't bleed through. The depth it penetrates porous uncoated stock is very small. Maybe a layer or two of fibers.

Many T206s under a lot of magnification will show a bit of fine cracking to the glaze coating on the front.

And, over three years the exact cardstock and inks may have changed.

As Kevin pointed out the press operators have formulas they follow. But they don't always follow them as precisely as they should. Other things during printing can also change how a color looks. The amount of ink put onto the plate can be changed, as can the amount of water. So a color can be overinked or underinked, making it darker or lghter. Or printed drier leading to small areas being filled like the drame lines on Piedmonts, or printed wet, which can prevent some areas from printing at all. Dry prints are pretty common on T206 backs, wet prints aren't common at all. I can't recall seeing one, but there's probably a few.

Steve B

Kevin- you just have to keep an eye out for cards that are not legitimate errors from the factory. they are often "psychedelic" and swirly, and have a kaleidoscope of colors. i don't want to call out any specific ones from this thread, but one or two caught my eye that seem like they were either faded, or touched with chemicals (be it glue, or something else unintentional).

Here's a link i found on the subject:

http://t206museum.com/page/periodical_43.html

my point here would be:

it also appears that what you see is really in your card's edge image is the blush color and a light magenta color, not a double strike of the same color. why would anyone print the same color down two times?

take two cards that appear different and explode out the dot patterns and colors to show what distinct colors were laid down on the card some where in the middle of the card. I say middle of the card because the edges more commonly show more staining and wear, than the middle, particularly from hand oil, dust and dirt etc.

if there is an extra dot color on one card vs the other then you are not correct. pick a plain Jane red background card. that would probably be the easiest to do.

I'm not home or I would do it.

Kevin

The same reason some cards have multiple ads on the back...
This card was not factory cut as can seen by the curved edge that is evenly worn. I have looked at this card enough to know that it has nothing to do with dot patterns not lining up. The face is way too pink for that explanation to make sense. Also that is the reason the comment points out that the dots are the same shape but offset. The dots should look different if they were from different colors. Anyways I am not really going to argue it anymore. My point is that most cards look faded, but even cards that look darker than the norm will not bring any extra money.

no one was arguing. its a discussion.

the quantities and variances of multiple ads on the back no where equates to the variances of color on the front. say for instance 5000 of one card in existence. how many variations of the color red background do you think you could distinctly see? the answer would be some where in the order of an entire color palate full of them.

its not quite the same thing as saying they were run through as test sheets for that color pass and then some how made it into a production distribution. lets also not forget the images that were posted here where there are multiple different saturations within the same ad backed card. that is a perfect example of it.

even if they did go through two times, you basically are saying I am correct. it would be the same color ink, just that you are covering more of the cardboard, possibly due to print registration being ever so slightly off as the sheet goes through the press a second time.

that is all completely different than saying, the printer laid down one red pass and in one instance it was this color red and then remixed the next batch of ink and continued to lay down just one pass of red and it was a totally different color.


kevin

There's not an abundance of tobacco cards that are "faded by the sun." Makes no sense. And red cards don't fade to orange.

Cards that have had the color changed by a chemical are usually pretty obvious. Just use common sense if you're buying them. If they look fishy, severely stained, etc, then I'd stay away.

Certain cards (like Abstein for example) just have a wide amount of red/orange tones and are completely legit.

Rob

I totally agree with Rob's three points here. As a grown-up, I've been collecting Sportscards of all varieties since 1977.....and, T206's for the past 34 years.
I have yet to see a "faded" T206 due to sun exposure.

Furthermore, the few T206's that I have seen that appear to have been tampered with (chemically, or otherwise) are quite easy to detect.


TED Z

I think it's totally plausible these are faded due to sunlight exposure. Hung in a frame in a sunny hallway/room for years.

Cobb has some untouched red, likely hidden under a phot holder.

Auction

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Ite...a-copy_lg.jpeg

Color "error" variations in t206 cards
 

Huggins & Scott had a large framed lot where several showed signs of fading reds, including a split Cobb.

Auction

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/...rd_collage.jpg

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/...rd_collage.jpg

And here's the window.

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/...rd_collage.jpg

Such a waste of cards

If this Lord or Crandall hit the market they could be listed as missing red.

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/pl/...rd_collage.jpg

Chris- thanks for illustrating my point. UV rays are killer, and can easily fade colors...so can excess exposure to indoor bulbs.

Chris,

That piece has faded everything and cards that are heavily glued down, stained, etc. Yes, I see there's a window in the photo, but I don't think it's the culprit.

It faded certain parts of each card more extremely? The Schmidt and Cobb (for example) had much heavier sun exposure on the bottom half of the card?


Rob

they do it on everything from the siding on your house, to the paint on your car the baseball cards you hang in a sunny place.

kevin

That's why nice things should be framed behind uv blocking glass.

Interesting thread, I've been following this and will add some thoughts.

I've always felt the way Rob and Ted have, that sun exposure wouldn't remove all of the red in a card-and, I still pretty much feel that way. I may be wrong, but usually some cards missing red , where you can still see a touch of red (like that Cobb, for instance) can have another explanation.

As you can see in the corner of the Cobb, Chris is right- that corner shows it was tucked in a photo holder, commonly seen in old photo albums where you have one on the upper right, and one on the lower left.

So, I wonder about this- most pages in old photo albums are black. Could whatever they use to dye the pages black react to the red ink over time? That could explain why it did not affect the corner that was tucked, but the bottom of the top page laying flat on the card, over time, reacted with the red ink? Not sure, but something to think about?

The other cards on the montage- can't help but wonder about glue reaction (chemical reaction) on those cards....they all look heavily glued on....

Some people in the past have likened the sun exposure thing to a can that has sit in the sun, and over time the image faded......but, that's an image on aluminum or tin- the sun heats it up a lot hotter than the sun heating up paper? It seems like the sun would heat up a metal more than it would paper? So, I don't think that is conclusive (apples to oranges?).

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Keep in mind, these cards can be soaked and not lose any of the red. It's hard to imaging sun could remove it but water can't.

Again, I may be wrong. These are just my thoughts on this, and I am not a scientist. The Willis portrait is mostly found in red, but you also have many found in this burgundy type of color. Was this deliberate? The Abstein, mostly found in red, but many are found in orange-was this deliberate? Or, did that many Absteins get exposed to sunlight for too long? Sort of seems deliberate to me, because of how many examples have this color of orange. And, this Donie Bush card....look how red it is. Does anyone have an orange Donie Bush card? If so, are there any signs of glue residue on the back?

Sincerely, Clayton

Hey guys......are you dismissing the long-term affects of GLUE ?
 

Chris and Mike

What makes you so sure the discoloration of some of the cards mounted on this poster was caused by "sun exposure" fading ?

As Rob A. pointed out.......the red backgrounds of Cobb (red portrait) and Boss Schmidt (portrait) are not uniformly discolored.
Yet, cards below & above them, and cards to the left & right of them are discolored.

I suspect that the discoloration on some of these cards is due to the long-term affects of GLUE seeping thru into the fronts of
the cards and chemically altering their colors. Especially, the Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards......as, the pattern of their RED
discoloration is indicative of this effect. If you recall, we have previously discussed this "glue effect" on Net54 in prior threads.


TED Z

Clayton
 

I was typing my post while you posted and did not see your post. Pardon me for repeating what you stated. Anyhow, it appears that we (along with Rob A.)
are considering an alternative explanation for the discoloration of many of these cards mounted on this poster.

TED Z

No problem Ted :) thanks.

Yes, there's a window in the picture of the homemade poster on the wall-but, there's also blinds on it. I think that one can easily be explained by the glue as you pointed out Ted. Long term exposure to chemicals.

Sincerely, Clayton

The color differences could be UV or something in the ink. Either way, it seems like a much ado about nothing to me.

Oh, ok thanks.

You're welcome.

The Mitchell has the same sort of fading that the small lot I bought had.
NO bright red left, and about 40 years of light exposure.
Lobert and Downey would pass for missing colors, and someone posted that a couple cards from the same batch have been slabbed that way.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-190...vip=true&rt=nc

Yes, It could also be the glue or the cardboard/paper they were glued to. But most likely it was the light exposure.

Steve B

Sun exposure will fade many red pigments, especially ones derived from natural sources.

Cochineal produces the brightest reds, and sets better than most protein based fibers. In other words It won't easily wash out of wool. It was widely used before cheaper stuff came along, and has made a comeback in food and cosmetics since many of the synthetics are suspected or proven carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal

The main points
"In artists' paints, it has been replaced by synthetic reds and is largely unavailable for purchase due to poor lightfastness."

"Cochineal is one of the few water-soluble colourants that resist degradation with time. It is one of the most light- and heat-stable and oxidation-resistant of all the natural organic colourants and is even more stable than many synthetic food colours."

One of the replacements for it, Alizarin or Rose Madder, is also not particularly lightfast. But it could be made from coal tar rather than the labor intensive insect harvesting for Cochineal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_madder

"As all madder-based pigments are notoriously fugitive, artists have long sought a more permanent and lightfast replacement for Rose Madder and Alizarin"

Those were the two main sources of red in the 1910 era. Both are fine in water, but not great in sunlight. (Sunlight stable reds didn't come along until after 1958)

One of the big surprises in the lot with sun exposure was that the pink which I'd believed to be simply a red mixed with white appears entirely unaffected.


It's possible some chemical put off by the glue or by the cardboard could affect the bright red and other colors. I simply don't know enough chemistry to be sure.
I do know the common red pigments that made up probably around 90% of the red dye/pigment market at the time were probe to fading from light.
So going with the simple explanation seems to work.

I'd be happy to have a real chemist give an explanation either way.

Steve B

Hi Ted- there is no question in my mind that many years of sun/light exposure faded the cards in that montage. no question. everything is pretty much evenly faded (yes, some more than others, but overall, almost every card looks to have been effected by UV exposure). for example, not sure if you were ever out in Los Angeles, but many many buildings, billboards, posters, murals, etc, etc, are very "sunbleached" due to years of sun exposure. almost everything out there has a washed-out look. furthermore, i've owned several framed posters (this was when i was younger before i spent the money to use UV glass on everything i frame) that were certainly faded over time from being on a wall that was washed with sunlight. in fact, some of the items didn't have direct sunlight, but simply light from the room, be it ambient sunlight or fluorescents.

Really Ted? I have and seen plenty of them. Glad someone posted the above from Huggins & Scott because it was one of the more recent examples of UV damage from sunlight or artificial light IMO.

Here’s another example no doubt this was exposed to quite a bit of UV overtime from the original framing and old glass it was behind. Hence why my copy on the left is more pink than red.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...tate-flags.jpg

Ok. Sun can cause some fading. So can other variables after the printing process. In my opinion, a very small percentage of the color errors that are out there are caused by sunlight.

Hey guys....you're ganging up on me :)

This is what I stated in Post #50 here......

Note that I was referring to individual T206 cards. Not posters of cards.

However, speaking about "posters"....the discoloration of the Red Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards on the poster that Chris has displayed is the result of something
more than just "sun exposure" fading. There is no way that those two cards got to look the way they do, due to fading.


TED Z

Ted, you may want to re-read this thread. Those are not posters of cards they are cards made into a folk art display that were in Huggins & Scott. So those are T206 cards with faded colors FWIW.

My image was just showing that Red is the first color to go on many printed or even painted surfaces. This is common knowledge and nothing to out there in terms of and idea.

Cheers,

John

John
 

I'm not referring to the kind of posters you displayed....I dig the fading of those type of things.

My contention is.....that Rob A. first made the point of the red Cobb and the Boss Schmidt cards having non-uniform discoloration. I observed this also; and,
added that fading due to "sun exposure" does not result in this kind of effect. We attributed this type of discoloration in these two T206's as possibly having
been caused by the chemical reaction of the glue used to mount these cards on that poster.

So, I am not sure of what your point is ?

Anyhow, since no one here has yet to address the Cobb and Schmidt cards' discoloration, perhaps we can get your take on these two cards on that poster
exhibiting a different effect than the others ?


TED Z

I am tempted to sun bleach a card just to prove that this happens.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I quoted myself ^^ because I understand that the UV rays can dull the red-I just have a hard time thinking that it would completely remove the whole color. And, I know that the major TPG's use a UV protective plastic in their slabs for this reason.

But, will it remove all traces of red? In John's poster (thanks for posting that by the way), you can see the UV rays degraded the color red, but you can still tell it was red. It didn't remove the whole color.

Back to the cards.....if those cards weren't glued on to that poster, it would be a little easier to conclude that all of the fading was because of prolonged sunlight-but the fact that they are glued on, makes me wonder if it was the glue-or-a combination of both.

Now, here's why this topic is important (IMO)- if, as some of you are saying- the red can disappear completely due to prolonged exposure to sun/UV rays- how can one tell a legitimate card that is missing a red pass to one that has been exposed to the sun? I mean, in theory couldn't someone take their cards to a tanning salon, put them under one of those tanning beds for a few sessions, and *POOF* create a "missing red pass" card?

Great discussion, very interesting....

Sincerely, Clayton

Hi Ted,

I think the discoloration of the Cobb and Schmidt cards (in my opinion) have a lot to do with glue/chemical reaction. I think all of those cards discoloration/fading have something to do with the glue/chemical reaction. I've been wrong before, and may be wrong now, but so far this is what I think-regarding this card montage.

Sincerely, Clayton

What I did with the ones from the lot I bought was to look for signs that the ink was still there. My theory was that the ink has a different glossiness than the cardboard, so a card showing the white of the cardboard where bright red should be would be glossy for a faded card and not glossy for a missing color. (Glossy being relative here)

What I saw was one card that was glossy where the red should have been and one that wasn't. So either I was wrong - the most likely answer. Or I'd gotten one faded card and one legit missing color.

One thing I've noticed is that many of the actual missing colors are missing more than one color.
And that color variations can be caused by the level of inking. The colors that usually show up with heavier inking making the card look different are Gray, pink, and blue.
Most of the 350s come with two different bright red layers. Something I think is a legitimate variety I haven't really studied them in detail, but I think it may be a difference between 350 only runs and the later ones carried over to 350/460. And they probably all got redone again for the 460 series.

The farther I get into this stuff the more questions I find. And the answers are increasingly difficult.

Steve B

Ted, my point was very simple. You made a comment above that you now are avoiding or twisting. You said that in all your years of collecting you have yet to see a T206 that showed signs of missing color due to exposure to sun or artificial light.

This is nothing new to any collector especially one with years of collecting. Exposure damage is real, known and and seen quite often.....not only in our world but many other collecting worlds.

Sometimes I think you almost take the polar opposite side just to debate. If someone said tobacco cards were issued with tobacco you would announce that you had a theory that they were put out with pudding. :)

John

John,

I'm not Ted, but I had the same stance in this case.

It's funny that you mention taking the polar opposite side just to debate because that's what I feel you guys are doing in this case.

Most of the T206 color errors are not due to sunlight. There's not a ton of T206 collections bathing in the sun. Would you agree?

Rob

The majority of color error cards are legit, and are missing color passes and/or were printer's scraps with a variety of (cool) issues...I think what John & I were responding to, was whether or not sun can fade colors on cards, posters, etc...which I think several people have now confirmed it can do lots of damage...I'm at a resort right now, and they have a lounge with a library of books next to the fireplace (sunlight hits the bookshelf)...on most of the older books, the exposed edge is totally faded. See attached.