Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
What I'm saying is that something - tape, a paper scrap, whatever that was opaque got into the machine that exposes the plate. and prevented the areas that got missed from being exposed.
Could it be that the person making the plate missed an area that big while using the developer? Possibly. Large shops, which would have been Topps or whoever they used might have had an automatic plate developer.
|
Very informative video in your last post. I often wondered how plates were shipped and packaged. I see the plates in that video are stacked in a package of 100 or so with opaque tissue paper between them that prevents light exposure from damaging the light sensitive coating on the plates.
I've always felt that the existence of the smaller partial blackless errors holds the key to understanding the cause of the larger blackless errors. For instance, there are up to 4 variations on the Marcus Lawton error:
Tapani:
The NNOF plate blackless images of Tapani and Lawton I got from the web. I don't have copies of these cards but all the other cards pictured came from packs that also produced cards from the NNOF print run - partial blackless Frank Thomas, a blackless John Hart and Jim Acker, Nolan Ryan and Kenny Rogers blue line card, etc. Also, when Rookiewax on the CU boards first found NNOF in a case in 2009, that case also produced partial blackless variations of the Tapani and Lawto, so we know they are related. Not only that, but two of the Tapanis also bear the blue line (plate scratch) that is a signifier of the NNOF run. All cards have varying degrees of blackless. And if you look at the last couple Tapanis and Lawtons, you can see they have blackless areas that are similar but shifted down 1/2". The last images are cards I found that at first appeared normal (the error had been found, a repair had been made, new plates ordered up, and printing resumed). But on second look I found the most minute areas of missing black ink (see arrows)
So, would this evidence point more to a negative (mask) being damaged or the plate? I feel it is more likely that a series of plates were damaged or exposed. Is it possible that a series of plates that were stacked on top of each other were exposed or damaged in the same general area, with the top plate being the NNOF plate, the next plate down the partial blackless variations that I have pictured, and additional plates affected to smaller degrees. Also, we know that most printers printed all black ink one day, then a different color the next. I have found green sheet blackless errors that reside in the exact same location on the uncut sheet as orange sheet NNOF errors:
Curious what some of our printing experts think of these variations.