T206 Cobb (Red) Polar Bear back inking question
 

We recently purchased another fresh collection of T206's out of Maryland and while reviewing them, I noticed that one of the Cobb cardss had a unique characteristic to the reverse.

I've added some images of the T206 Cobb Red Portrait with a Polar Bear ad back. It appears that the external ornate portion of the blue ink border is minimal to lacking, almost an outline, around the perimeter of the card (I've also added a blown up image) and also appears a bit darker than the standard PB back. Have others seen this sort of anomaly before, and if so, how common is it?

http://1948leaffootball.webs.com/Ima...age/ss0001.jpghttp://1948leaffootball.webs.com/Ima...age/ss0002.jpghttp://1948leaffootball.webs.com/Ima...age/ss0003.jpg

Is this something that would be considered a detriment or something that would garner a premium? Not trying to offer it to the board, but just trying to gather a bit of information from those far more informed than I.

I would love to hear everyone's opinion on the card.

See question #2 and then post #16 here:http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=219243

Is that what you have?

It is sort of like that, but as you can see above, the internal is complete and the missing ink is the entirety of the border, not just a section.

From what I've seen they're not super, super common. But they do pop up for sale and I've seen them on eBay on occasion - some from sellers who pointed it out and some that didn't.

While I've seen people asking a premium for them, I am unaware of any sales for significantly bigger amounts. Maybe someone has a record of one selling for big money but I've never seen it.

From the thread referenced it looks like a mfg situation. Otherwise it looks like someone tried to erase that black border. Had I not been aware of the other thread, or collected PBs, I wouldn't have known they came that way. Neat thread referenced too.

I have seen PBs like this before. I usually attribute it to a poorly-inked and/or worn out blanket (used to print the cards) though I am not an expert so that might not be correct. Perhaps Steve B will weigh in.

I see these pretty often, but this Cobb is the most pronounced. I don't recall seeing any sales where anyone successfully sold a card for a premium because of the back in a case like this.

Most likely it's caused by a worn plate. A worn blanket gives a totally different look, one I'm pretty sure I haven't seen on a card.

The plate for T206s was probably a limestone block. The surface will hold a fair amount of water, enough to repel ink. Depending on the exact process the area that you want to print gets coated with a substance that will retain ink. So when the plate is inked only what should print gets ink. That coating has a slight thickness. Over time some of it will wear off, thinner lines being the first to go.

Too much water can also cause this, but usually affects the rest of the design too.

The opposite problem is seen sometimes on Piedmont backs, if the plate is too dry, small areas that shouldn't retain ink and print causing areas between some of the fine lines to get filled in.

Steve B

I should clarify that I use "probably" in this case as more of a specific term. As far as what can be proven, it's maybe more than 90% certain. There's proof that some T206s were printed from stones. (A card where there's a recurring inked nail impression that can only have come from a nail embedded in one of the rollers of the right sort of press.)

BUT ALC worked closely with RS Hoe the press manufacturer and the years around 1910 saw a number of changes and developments including offset lithography from metal plates becoming more common, as were presses that printed multiple colors and ones that printed from a roll of stock rather than sheets. So it's not impossible that some were done by those other methods.

Steve B

Thanks Steve - I am glad I added the "(I) might not be correct". :D

Going by the OP's scan, it appears to have a slight WST along the bottom just above Cobb. These lines are common in the borders of Polar Bears, but this is interesting since the back line is so faint.

No problem, even an idea that's fairly close is pretty good.

In my other hobby I learn stuff all the time. I found a stamp I thought might be a really good one, printed on both sides. It happens, but rarely and almost never on modern ones. I showed it to a guy in our club who also knows printing, and he agreed that the alternate explanation was probably the right one. A double offset - Or, double WST. So a printed sheet, probably setup waste caused a WST on some other object, maybe a sheet put on whatever would hold the stack of sheets to protect them. Then the scrap was removed, and the first sheet in the stack got a WST from the inked protecting layer.

An interesting freak, but not an "error" which in this case probably is a difference of a bit over $1000 :eek: (The one I have is probably unique, but worth much less)

Just be glad that most cards were done by one general method of printing stamps are at least 5-6 different. :)

Steve B

I guess that would mean six times more freaks for Johnny to collect. :D

I now own that Seymour.

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...pskgmbld2m.jpg