Quote:
Originally Posted by barrysloate
To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.
Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.
|
why does have a variation HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE?
it was a mistake at the Press, i know that, they were never intended to be different....
BUT, it only shows up on specific cards, and it is not common...
if it happened only once, or it wasnt predictable, then it means nothing....
BUT ITS PREDICTABLE WHAT CARDS HAVE THIS...
PS....NO CARD, even the SHADED version, have ALL of the areas shaded...they have areas (especially the left border) that usually remains clear...
it must have been an older plate that was worn down, thus the spots that were meant NOT to have any ink, got some....BUT again, this doesnt happen in all the cards, and proves that some were created at different times (separate print run)...
we all know this set was made for a few years and nobody knows the series breakdown....
this could be the first step in deciphering a specific series print run within the set!!!
if this is predictable, no matter what you call it, why cant it be recognized?
wish Rich Klein would chime in (mr errors and variations)
Brian, your on the right track!