Print Flaws... It's Not Just About the $$$
Print flaws are important in the research of the printing process and they can also help spot fakes. I have been doing some limited research on a group of
T206 print flaws and I want to share what I think could/might be important
(to some people). These print flaws show that the front plates were shared
with some backs but likely not all backs within the same print groups and series, and the backs
seem to be grouped together, for instance the "murr'y flaw is found on four
different backs Lenox, Old Mill, Tolstoi, and SC 350-460 fact 30 and I have
found a couple of other flaws that are shared by Tolstoi's and Lenox.
Now the most interesting back in this research is Polar Bear, I have yet to
find any of these flaws on a PB back or a flaw on a PB (Dopner as far as I know
is only found on PB backs) has not been found on any other back.
I have stated before (and this is just my opinion) that I think the T206
printing was spread out among the several printing facility's that the American
Lithograph co. owned at the time. It just seems to make sense that a pretty
large project spread out over a fairly long period would have been done at
more than one place.
To me it is the best explanation for several things such as....
Sheet layout changes within the same series and some subjects that are more
difficult in common backs could be explained by slightly different layouts
at different facility's.
Why Demmitt and O'Hara ST Louis and the Dopner flaw are only found on PB backs and unless I'm wrong no printing flaw found on a different back is found
on a PB back. This could be explained if the Polar bears were printed by
themselves at one of the facility's and at the time they were making the
plates for that facility Demmitt and O'Hara were with ST Louis.
Now of course I know this is all speculation but I think it could be a good discussion.
|