Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
I have print blocks from a few 50's/60's postcards, 2 baseball and 2 hockey. I could easily pull a decent print from them on paper. I don't have anything available to me that could produce enough pressure to do cardboard. But old art/typograph printing presses are out there and aren't too expensive
Black ink would be fairly easy to duplicate, even older ink. The mix is very simple and all the stuff is readily available. Colors are tougher, but possible if you know what went into them. Many ink companies kept that secret. The old paper or cardboard would be dificult but not impossible. Also not all modern papers react to blacklight.
The type of printing leaves traces of what process made the printed item, and most fakes are done with the wrong process. The extreme closeup pics show 2 very different processes.
A comparison with a different item - Comparing a Fro-Joy to a postcard in this case - isn't going to be valid aside from determining what process was used. It could rule something a fake if for instance the process wasn't used during the time period of the item, like a suposed 1860 print made by rotogravure, but it won't tell you much else.
Steve B
|
Steve B,
Thanks, very interesting, and that about comparing cards to postcards, etc makes sense.
If there was a Fro Joy printing plate, wouldn't there be more of them to offer? Would a printing plate be for an entire sheet (applies to my previous question, just sheets, or singles and sheets)?
Regarding the little frame/box on the reverse, my SCD catalog has a front/back picture of a Fro Joy with the solid box, no gaps at the corners. I'm getting the impression that I'm not the only one unsure of that box.
Disregard my comment about the facial features on the REA, can't tell for sure because of over exposure in the picture/scan. In my reprint, it looks like Ruth has two black eyes in addition to the shadow of his hat bill. The authentic one just has the hat bill shadow.
Here's the picture from the SCD catalog:
[IMG]
[/IMG]