T206 Bates Variation?
 

Hi y'all. Can anyone give me some info on this card? It seems to have no red in it whatsoever. Im not sure if that has anything to do with the Hindu back. Any help would be great. Thanks.

The adhesive that was used on the back of the Hindu made the red fade. You see it a lot with t206 that have back damage and glue redsidue. The red fades first.

Thanks man. I have had it forever and gave never before gotten a straight answer on it.

Looks like the red was never there in the first place. But I'm no expert.

It's also possible that Wazoo is right. I've just seen so many cards missing the red that also have glue residue on the back, that I assume the glue removed it.

Another thing that I didn't think of initially is that red backgrounds came out looking differently on Hindus than the other 150 series print runs. A lot of the red background cards like Chance and Elberfeld came out looking orange. So, actually your red was probably pretty faint on the Bates to begin with.

I'm including my Chance Hindu to show what I'm talking about.

+1

No way that's just normal fading.

Also, I have minimal knowledge of the t206 set, but how much of a variation is there in the space between the player's name and bottom black border? There is a large difference between the two.

No Red
 

It looks like the card is missing the Red Color Pass. Does not look like the ones that The Glue Faded the Red. No signs of Red anywhere. Look at the Collar on his Shirt.

John P

There can be differences in where the name is to the point I've seen it inside the photo on a couple occasions. I'll try to find the scan I have of three Carrigan cards, all Polar Bear backs and all three have the name in different places

Here are the Carrigan cards. As you can see, the caption is in three different spots

I could definitely be wrong. Ultimately perception will be reality and people would bid on this according to their theory of what happened to the red. Here is another Bates Hindu for comparison. The red is pretty faint, and could fade rather easily in my opinion.

The red ink was the last printed in the 6 color process.

That Bates card never got the final inking (red) pass. And, this is not unusual for brown HINDU cards.

Any given day on Ebay, check out the HINDU listing, and you will see quite a number of normally
red background cards (with brown HINDU backs) that are more or less Orange (due to lack of red ink).


TED Z
.

A lot of cards with back damage are missing the red ink due to the adhesive as mentioned before. This one is tough to call for me but most peoples consensus is to stay away from a high price if there is back damage and I'm not sure SGC would label it missing red ink but if you ever sell it would be worth a shot. As Ted mentioned Hindu's are known for this issue so it very well could be missing the ink.

Although the glue/adhesive on back can definitely affect the ink on front, on this particular card it's 100% missing red. Guaranteed.

The Bates is a known card for missing red ink. There are numerous other "Bates" also missing the red ink....

Thanks y'all. Great info. My pre-war knowledge is shite. I'll post some other things I have questions on.

Master Bates never got his red color pass.

Great card.

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

I am gonna be the contrarian, I believe the card was glued in a display that was exposed to sunlight and faded the entire red pass. Years ago I would have said missing Red color, but after examining many T205's and T206's that are missing the Red, the vast majority have glue damage. I am not of the school that the glue did the damage, it's the fact they were most likely in a frame and hung where the sunlight/UV rays did their work. As others have stated Red is the least colorfast.

Looks uniformly faded to me. Not just missing red.

Rob

Beat me to it! :rolleyes:

... fade to glue ...
 

+1 - I find it hard to believe that glue in a spot on the back caused the red on the front to fade uniformly over the whole front of the card. Simpler explanations like this make a ton more sense.

+1

I don't think a smidge of glue at the center of the card (on the back) would completely remove all red from the uniform, bat, sky, etc.

Look at the hat, there is no way that was done by fading.

The glue is only the telling evidence that it was once glued onto a backing and probably displayed in a frame which was subject to years of sunlight.

Normal water soluble glue won't alter the colors on the front, some later "rubber cement" or model glue's will alter the colors.

What do you see in the hat that makes you think it was not fading?

I am far from an expert on T206 fading but it looks like it was faded from being displayed for several years to me. I say that because of the slight color changes on the entire card that match fading in more modern cards that I am somewhat a expert(LOL) on.

I like the arguments on both sides. I think I'm going to try and settle it. I've only used PSA as a TPG. Is there any company that could confirm or deny if the red pass ever existed?

Send me a 1200dpi or higher resolution scan of both cards beside each other and I can more than likely tell you.

Will pm you my email.

There are several great threads about how the reds can fade on the T206s, this display likely had adhesive on the cards but from the b/w pictures looks like they were prominently displayed across from a window. I bet several of these could be slabbed as missing red.

http://mar12.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=43886

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...itemid%3D43886

I will get on it as soon as I can. I'm not very techie but I'll figure it out.

So glue removes red ink off of the front of a card, but not the back?

Disclaimer: Not an expert.

Clearly looks like it missed the red ink application.

Value: Whatever someone deems appropriate. For me, not much. For some, maybe a lot?

That's right, if there's any glue on the back of a card it will evaporate all the red ink from only the front of the card.

Missing colors can be a hard thing to pin down. Especially red since red is very prone to fading. Red was also often done with two layers, one pink, the other the bright red.

Here's a few examples of different missing color issues.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=18319

The top two cards are "missing red" -----except that they were bought on Ebay from a seller who said the cards had been framed and hung in a barbershop for about 40 years. They have back damage, and with that much light exposure the lack of color is almost surely fading. Other cards from that group have been graded and labeled as missing color. One of these two shows less gloss where the red should have been, the other doesn't. So one might actually be missing red. But I wouldn't feel comfortable calling it that even if it passed grading.

The Huggins is an example of an oddity I haven't quite figured out. Obviously the red is there, but with the washed out look something else is either missing or wrong, probably the pink. But the background has some red/pink shading which is a bit unusual. It's probably not fading since the red appears to be just fine. The back has a small stain, so maybe it was mounted somewhere and whatever was used to remove it wiped out the pink. I need to pick up another Huggins to compare the background.

The Beck is a missing color for sure. No back damage or stains. And it's actually missing two colors pink and gray. Most of the missing colors I see that don't have any other issues are missing another color as well as the obvious one.


Steve B

I should also mention that there's a group of cards in the 350series that commonly come with bright red missing. It's usually subtle, Dygert comes with or without. One looks normal, the other looks like he's got lipstick. There are a few more that have stuff like that.

Steve B

Cool stuff. Great info. I've said before my pre-war knowledge is poor. My realm is the 50's and 60's. As soon as I can get to my scanner I'll put up the best pics I can. My scanner is ancient. I might just go get another one if I can't get the quality right.

Thanks
Matt

I think that I was the underbidder on that Chance. I'm glad you got it. You need it for your Hindu HOF set, much more than I need it.
Here's another example of a Hindu missing the red pass:


Attachment 189181

Attachment 189182

I can't be sure about the Bates card, but I don't think it got the red pass.

I am not sure if it got the red pass or not but that card is definitely faded.

Thanks for the help, Ben. I agree that it is faded. I still believe that it didn't get the red pass to begin with. I am going to get it slabbed Authentic and keep it. It does none the less look cool. Thanks for everyone's input.