Net54baseball.com Forums - Sunburned Groom... A question for the t206 experts here

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Sunburned Groom... A question for the t206 experts here (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=147861)

Sunburned Groom... A question for the t206 experts here

I recently ran across this Bob Groom T206. Though I already had a few Piedmont 350s and don't have the goal of collecting the set, I had to buy it because the color was off from any other Bob Groom I had seen and this intrigued me.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/T206-Piedmont...THJ!!~~0_3.JPG

The scans aren't mine, but are from the seller. I do now have the card in my possession and the colors are really that saturated. My question is what causes the "sunburn" (over saturated) appearance? I have been able to find plenty of info on missing colors. This, though, seems to have an abundance of red, but not lacking anything. There even seems to be some extra red bleed on the back (it doesn't cause a "ghost" or anything else discernible).

Here is the way other the other Groom fronts look:
http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pic...198/213929.jpg
image from VCP

Maybe if I bump your thread, Steve will see it :)

My thought is that the printer ran it twice with the same colors.

I was wondering that myself Scott, but it seemed to me if it was ran through twice on one color the registration would be off (more than it is). I was wondering though if the magenta plate did come down twice though. If that is true wouldn't that mean the others on the sheet should be out there also somewhere?

I have been PMed a possible idea:
"Most of these cards went through different prints and adjustments. Throughout the "lifespan" of a card you can see several different variations, primarily with the colouring. They did add pinks (buffs) and purplish (reds) to cards that you can't find on earlier versions. This might just be the case, or this was a first run with extra ink or a different pigment hue to the ink used on that one run."

This scenario also makes me think there should be others out there with this print variation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz (Post 968811)

This scenario also makes me think there should be others out there with this print variation.

Andy, I have seen these before - I'll dig through my old card pics and see what I can find.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 968812)

Andy, I have seen these before - I'll dig through my old card pics and see what I can find.

Cool. I figured there had to be other oversaturated t206 cards, yet I haven't been able to find any. As mentioned above, I only seemed to be able to find missing color variations, not added color variations.

I also just haven't been able to find info on what caused it. I had my own guess about it being double printed, but I couldn't think of why the printer would have felt the need to do that (and again how the register stayed fairly clean).

The ink colors were hand mixed, and were at least into the 1980's. So a certain red would be a basic red plus a bit of some other colors to alter it just a bit. So if the press operator mixed a dark batch that day or had some leftover from whatever he did before that he decided to use up that would do it. That's the most likely explanation.

Sloppy cleanup between colors would also do that.

Or if they ran red ink on the tan plate.

Registration once adjusted will stay in place accurately, even from one sheet to the next. A double printing of one color is possible, but unusual.

There's a few other odd things that could cause that, but they usually leave other signs that I'm not seeing.

Have you got a high res scan 800-1200dpi? That will show enough detail to get a better idea of which thing happened.

And if someone has a high res scan of a regular one that would help too. I don't have Groom yet.

Steve B

Here are some I've owned in the past - best res I have:

http://runscott.homestead.com/206Groomx3.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 968842)

Have you got a high res scan 800-1200dpi? That will show enough detail to get a better idea of which thing happened.

Steve B

Right now the highest I have is 600dpi. I don't have a typical Groom. I have been wanting to add one to my collection now to compare, but I am not going to pay the prices I am seeing just for a comparison card.

Looking at the top of the hat it looks like the pink might be overinked. The presses have controls for how much ink is supplied to the rollers, and if there's too much or if the ink is too thin it can overcome the wetness of the plate and show as a smeared print. Usually it shows as blurriness at all the edges and can make screened areas seem solid.

I finally scanned the one overinked T206 I have. Not a really serious overinking, it makes most of the hat red. The black is also out of register to the left. So you can see the right side of the red and it's a bit fuzzy from the overinking especially at the top right.

The Groom scan doesn't show a lot of bluriness, but the pink wouldn't show that as well especially if they're screened.

The system resizes scans, so it's not easy to tell. You can always Email a scan to me.

Steve B

PS If you're into the printing it's worth scanning at 1200. There's so much detail and you can usually see each color. The Bush for example has alignment marks at the top for black red pink and yellow. and Black pink yellow and blue at the bottom as well as a few other layout marks.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=6276

My home scanner had a default of 600dpi. I looked at the close up scans (I suggest people never do this if they are under the delusion that their cards don't have flaws or are "undergraded") and enjoyed trying to figure it out.

I was going to scan it at a higher resolution on my office scanner, but forgot to bring it will me to the office today. I will email them to you when I do scan them in. You can send me your email. Thanks.

As a clergyman who has done over 550 weddings, I've seen a lot of sunburned grooms.;)

Looking at a high res scan it looks like it's actually two passes of the same color.

In the pic below which is a blowup of a section near the upper left corner you can see the two passes. one appears lighter and is slightly left and lower than the other. The blue lines point to the top of a kidney bean shaped part of the dot pattern that's both repeated and easy to see. The other lines and brackets point to other features of the pattern that are visible.

Since the two patterns match up it's extremely unlikely to be a different color.

I can't tell if one is actually darker than the other or if it's just that the areas where the two overlap is darker. Possibly a bit of both. And the patterns overlapping means the face and all the other areas where the pink overlaps itself have little to no white showing through.

The other thing that can cause this is running the inking rollers while adjusting the registration like on the Garvey I posted in another thread. But that usually gives a very reduced first impression and a proper second impression. On this card the two appear to be nearly the same.

I'm fairly sure it's a double printing of the pink, and the first card of any sort I've seen that I feel confident is a double pass of the same color.

Steve B
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=6285

Thanks for your insight Steve. I really would like to get my hands on a cheap Groom without the extra pink so I can compare the two.

I am glad I picked this card up because it has been fun to try and figure out the mystery. I really wonder if there are other ones that came off this sheet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 969305)

lol

Looking back I guess my wanting a "cheap Groom without the extra pink" was posted to the wrong board. haha:p

While reading the "T206 upside down backs "should they be on the back run?"" thread I found this post in there by mrvster:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvster (Post 973410)

...please play around / add/ delete move ect...

rarity ranking....i say rarity because they are ALL rare....

THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE AND I'm GOING TO TAKE A STABBER and half asleep

note: these errors are GENERAL classifications...

I HAVE A SNOW FLAKE THEORY....each printer scrap is unique unto itself..and can vary greatly in value....they are so rare that price cannot be determined and rarity is a relative term...some just can not be classified such as my kruger scraps, and multiple problem / one of a kind scraps, they are just un classifiable, too many issues with the card...these cards are in a catagory by themself...IMPOSSIBLE:p

MAYBE MULTI - WHAMMYS?????????????????:confused:

HERE we GO:

1) brown om or cobb(both same rarity)

2)blank backed proof with design change(leon's matty)

3)blank back proof w no design change

4) ghost image front different player/overprint /multi stamp / print ect(CAN BE SCRAP OR FACT ISSUED)*****not "wet stacked" and ACTUALLY PRINTED

example: downey overprint front/ my bender/ my chance cycle over print front ect....

5) ghost image back overprint/multi print( CAN BE SCRAP OR FACT ISSUED) ****not wet stacked....WEIMER, CHANCE, GILBERT, anything directly PRINTED at factory

6) top to bottom front miscut showing a different player(like jamie hull's example) can be scrap or factory cut, they are just impossible

7) full caption jump(del howard/randall) totally outside border and in picture

8)front player miscut side to side showing another player being able to destinguish the player(either fact cut or scrap, they are near impossible)

9) severe front miscut top to bottom (jordan/knight)

10) all missing color scrap- ghost faces/ sever color missing

11)yellow browns / depeds on back/amount of color missing

12) blank back problems on front

13) blank back no problems on front

14)upside down printer scraps/ 4 or 2 backs ect(have to be PRINT SCRAP since we have to include a fact cut example on the mainsteam list( 4 backs are tufer than 2

the top 14 listed are near impossible cards and i'm sure i'm missing some / tired right now....here are the "less " dramatic sub set
15) missing magentas

16) fact back stamp

17) front miscut showing different player name

18) severe back miscuts 25% or more (top to bottom tufer than side to side)

19) double exposure front ghosts w next player negative present on either side or top to bottom, they are tufer

20)double exposure ghost front same player

21) missing color (magentas) fact cut- sweeney no b boston players ect

22) font/plate problems- hemphill, nodgrass, ect

23) printers crop marks, the bigger the better

24) missing color pass one or more cards are fact cut

25) side to side miscut front small portion/top to bottom front not as tuf as side to side

26) color variations orange back grounds quality control/color shifts/ drunken registers

27) wet stacked fronts/backs(the more dramatic the better)

28) same player name top to bottom front(full name at top and bottom scarcer)

remember, this is just a rough draft slapped together, please add delete move or help

PEACE

JOHNNY v

So would this Groom card be under the "26) color variations orange back grounds quality control/color shifts/ drunken registers" category? Or does this get it's own category for a double strike of a certain ink? Any opinions on this at all?

I didn't want to start a side tangent in that thread for a subject that I already had started a thread on.

I finally acquired a comparison groom at a decent price with the same back.

I thought I would scan them together so that you can see it from the same scanner and color management system.

I have these scanned in at 1200 dpi for those who may want to have higher resolution.

I went and bought a few more Grooms for comparison. I have also looked for other cards that appeared to have extra ink. Yet everytime I bought another card that seemed more vibrant or darker it turned out to just be a scan/monitor thing.

So does anyone else have cards with extra ink that changes the tone of the card this drastically? I assume there should have been at least a sheet of cards with this same anomaly. With as much attention as cards with missing ink gets I am surprised that extra ink cards get overlooked. At least with the "extra" pass cards (I assume there are more) I know this couldn't have been caused by glue (as is common with missing color cards).

Maybe it is something that seems more obvious in person than it does on each person's monitor.

Anyways here is a new scan with 4 more Grooms, with the middle card being the extra pass of magenta card. These were scanned at the same time with the only thing tweaked was adding the reverse of the cards to the scan.
http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...risonsmall.jpg

I've seen several 'extra pink face' Grooms since you started this thread...and before.

I've seen a lot of cards with extra ink..... Here's one:

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...ps81069273.jpg

Be well Brian

Ahh, the 'Dove of Peace' Ritchey variation!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1089034)

I've seen several 'extra pink face' Grooms since you started this thread...and before.

Great. I would love to see them. I am not being sarcastic or cynical. I really would. I have tried searching for them and went ahead and bought a few Grooms (as pictured above) and can't seem to find them.

I am genuinely curious about this.

Edited to add: I don't have a large pool of photos and cards personally owned to go through. I dabble around from set to set, more like a type collector. So I don't have a lot to compare to. I just know that since picking up the card and saw how extremely different it looked from any other one I have seen I thought I would have been able to see more by now. I just haven't though.