Posted By:
E, Daniel1. The Brown hair is not the same in both examples, in fact it is awfully plain to see the difference in tone and richness from the mostly missing red in that area. Notice the extra 'golden' effect in the highlights and his sides that are bare-ish without the extra filling that the thick red provides.
2. Again very obvious to note is the missing 'chip' area in the middle of his moustache that shows light blue ink instead (not merely card stock color), and similarly on his bottom lip and tie. I think this plainly shows that cyan was laid down first (or at least before the magenta), and the magenta over the top gave the darker rose tones required for those areas. There is no proof at all that colors were universally laid down in the same order across all printing presses over all the lands. For blue to somehow be out of register that far to magically fill in the red areas that are mysteriously missing is plain silly. Very very clearly the red has been removed from these areas.
3. Finally and mostly unobjectionably, take a quick peek at the borders. Though I'm going to guess that Ted will insist merely dirt, the blue staining of runoff ink into the sections of the border point absolutely at those inks being released and settling into other areas as it was drying.
It wouldn't take long Ted, just ask any printer who knows older inks and they will humbly inform you that because different pigments were used to make the dyes, they react differently under chemical penetration and/or sunlight, and fade or release in totally unique ways. Puting a solvent on a turn of the century card does not result in an instant confluence and ooze of colors all mixed together, but will in fact cause different inks to disolve at different rates, sometimes some will not disolve at all.
What is altogether laughable is your attitude through this discussion, your wish to simply crown all you know to be all that can be known, and your less than stellar references to other hobbyists is weak at very best.
I used to think there was much to learn from you, but why talk to someone who wouldn't deem me worthy of participating in the debate. Even when clearly you were the one not availed of ALL the facts.
This is an area you have little to offer.
Perhaps you should allow others who do and can - to partake, and you can sit back and save up all your barbs for another witty slab quip.
Daniel