T206 Cobb Wet Sheet Transfer...??

[sando69]

need some help from our bevy of resident t206 gurus!
currently offered on ebay as a Ty Cobb ghost, wet sheet transfer...
even tho the obverse exhibits a different image (bradley), it does appear to be a red cobb on the reverse...
only problem is the 350 subjects front on a 150 subjects back!
if not chronologically impossible, wouldn't this wst combination be extremely unlikely?

[Jim VB]

Although we usually assume that this type of transfer is done at the time of printing, is it possible that, under the right temperature and humidity conditions, that it could have occurred during storage, years later?

[HexsHeroes]

.
.
.
but wouldn't a transferred image to the back of another card be a mirror image (the opposite orientation of the original) ?

[bijoem]

It is clearly an underprint.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by bijoem

It is clearly an underprint.

Wish I'd thought to say that!

[FrankWakefield]

From looking at that, to me, it seems that what Jim VB says about cards together that got wet is more plausible than 'wet sheet transfer'.

It seems unlikely to me that sheets would stack up so that the cards would align that well. Cut, finished cards would stack up aligned. That seems more likely. But everyone today seems to want their cards to be 'wet sheet transfers' and worth more...

[slantycouch]

Shroud of Turin Cobb variation.

[geor952]

I held this card and studied it for several minutes at the
National. It is a beautiful card and I have been watching it
on the Bay.

[Minerscoin]

Hope your just kidding!

http://cgi.ebay.com/T206-TY-COBB-Gho...07152006r38147

[Exhibitman]

I held it and studied it at the National too. It sure as hell looked genuine under a 30x loupe. The only thing that mystified me is how they got a multicolor ghost since they are normally one color wet sheet transfers. I have no theory on that one.

[FrankWakefield]

multicolor transfer plus centering, that isn't a wet sheet transfer. It is the product of cards that have been removed from a cigarette package long ago, collected, then stacked atop one another, and then getting wet.

[drc]

Per what Frank said, each color was printed at a different time, so would seem unlikely all of the inks would have been originally wet at the same time. This explains why wet transfers tend to be one color.

[Bigb13]

Remember guys he stopped the Bender ghost image a few weeks ago so I do not expect it to go the whole way. Rob

[geor952]

I was kidding about watching it to buy. I am pretty sure the seller is not the same owner who had it at the national. I was told, by the dealer who had it at the National, that it was going on ebay, starting at $0.99 on Monday Aug. 3. That is what I wanted to watch, I finally found the auction and was shocked at the price.

[Jantz]

"This explains why wet transfers tend to be one color".

According to Frank, there are no such thing as wet sheet transfers.



Jantz

[FrankWakefield]

There are, Jantz. But every time someone sees a card image on a card, there's a fair chance it is from something other than a wet sheet transfer during the printing phase. Many folks aren't objective about that, they have a card and want it to be some printing variation with an associated boost in value. That isn't what folks want to hear, but that's the reality of it.

[Rob D.]

I think I have a Page's Milk wet-sheet transfer somewhere.

[Minerscoin]

I was looking at that card last nite on a webtv and it really did not show much detail. After looking at it on a computer today, it sure looks like Cobb to me but how it got there I have no idea. Sorry for making fun but I really could not see much on the webtv. I must add that I never have been interested in this kinda thing. I guess some are and in coins errors can bring big change.
Mark

[Minerscoin]

Thanks guys for the info that these type of errors tend to be of one color. I did not know that!
Mark

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I held it and studied it at the National too. It sure as hell looked genuine under a 30x loupe. The only thing that mystified me is how they got a multicolor ghost since they are normally one color wet sheet transfers. I have no theory on that one.

That was exactly my thought. Each color transferring wet, and aligning with perfect registration would have to be a 1-in-a-million chance.

[T206Collector]

a) Whenever you see something like this and it involves Cobb or another major player, you have to be skeptical (check).
b) If you were going to fake this item, you would start on the back of a low grade common (check).
c) The alignment is too good and should be one color.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jantz

"This explains why wet transfers tend to be one color".

According to Frank, there are no such thing as wet sheet transfers.



Jantz

I am sure there is no such thing as a wet sheet transfer. They don't exist...This non-wet sheet transfer came from the Mike Berkus collection....

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am sure there is no such thing as a wet sheet transfer. They don't exist...This non-wet sheet transfer came from the Mike Berkus collection....

Cool! I definitely prefer an inadvertent color run or "monoprint" type example over a wet sheet transfer.

[Exhibitman]

Oh, there are definitely wet sheet transfers. When I was making prints I even made some, inadvertently, by stacking the latest print off the press onto a prior print before the prior one was completely dry. Leaf made some real beauts in its postwar baseball issue. I have a great Spahn red ink transfer and a Van Der Meer with the card back nicely transferred to the front.

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Oh, there are definitely wet sheet transfers. When I was making prints I even made some, inadvertently, by stacking the latest print off the press onto a prior print before the prior one was completely dry. Leaf made some real beauts in its postwar baseball issue. I have a great Spahn red ink transfer and a Van Der Meer with the card back nicely transferred to the front.

Having silkscreened thousands of posters, I can tell you this certainly happens when you stack wet posters together. Certainly the same goes for offset prints.

[Brian Weisner]

This one goes with Leon's....



Be well Brian


PS If ScottieB post his we'll have all 3....

[FrankWakefield]

Respectfully, what Leon and Brian have posted aren't wet sheet transfers.


If they were transfers, the wet sheet would have the image and type correct, and the card onto which the transfer occurred would have the image and type mirror-imaged. What Leon and Brian have posted shows those player names correct. Those aren't wet sheet transfers. Those are examples of where the blue process was printed onto a sheet on the blank back side, then the black ink back was printed over that.

Neat printing errors, but not wet sheet transfers.

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Respectfully, what Leon and Brian have posted aren't wet sheet transfers.


If they were transfers, the wet sheet would have the image and type correct, and the card onto which the transfer occurred would have the image and type mirror-imaged. What Leon and Brian have posted shows those player names correct. Those aren't wet sheet transfers. Those are examples of where the blue process was printed onto a sheet on the blank back side, then the black ink back was printed over that.

Neat printing errors, but not wet sheet transfers.

I don't think they were being displayed as such. Leon noted they were "non wet-sheet transfers". Just a single color (cyan) run on a random scrap for sure.

Edit: unless that was sarcasm, but I thought it was obvious they weren't since the writing is correct.

[FrankWakefield]

Now you see, I thought what Leon had written about how wet sheet transfers not existing was Texas sarcasm. And you say you didn't think that. Maybe Leon will chime in and let us know...

At least you agree, 'Couch', that what they've shown was printed twice; not printed once and then placed against a freshly printed wet sheet.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Now you see, I thought what Leon had written about how wet sheet transfers not existing was Texas sarcasm. And you say you didn't think that. Maybe Leon will chime in and let us know...

At least you agree, 'Couch', that what they've shown was printed twice; not printed once and then placed against a freshly printed wet sheet.

I did in fact think it was a wet sheet transfer (my card above) at one time, but have learned (lately) more about the printing processes so do think it is a stamp/press on the back....or maybe it's an underprint?

It's probably similar to the weird T206 I have that only has Young's outline and is also a stamp and not a wet sheet transfer....interesting stuff. BTW, I never saw the Cobby that everyone sees on the first post. It just looks like a dirty back to me...but I also have some color blindness and am sure that is the issue.

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

At least you agree, 'Couch', that what they've shown was printed twice; not printed once and then placed against a freshly printed wet sheet.

Yessir - we do agree on that Frank!

[tedzan]

This 1949 Leaf Johnny Hopp card is a clear example of a "wet sheet transfer" (WST). Many similar WST are found with 1933
Goudey's (most are not as clear as this Leaf card).




These three Bowman cards are examples of "printer's prep", prior to an actual press run. Scrap sheets are overprinted with
subsequent series (or issues) in order to proof the image or clean the ink off the plates.

The two 1948 Bowman Basketball cards have 3 images on their backs......

1....the front player's bio
2....the bio of a 1948 Bowman Football player
3....Front image from the 1948 Bowman Movie star set

The 1st Series 1949 Bowman BB of Carl Scheib has an overprinted image of Bill Salkeld (who is pictured in the 3rd Series of
this set).





TED Z

[Leon]

Those are great looking cards. Thanks again for sharing.....I love those transfers (WST) on the backs.

[slantycouch]

As you alluded Ted, that Hopp seems to be a pretty extraordinary example! It's almost as if sheet one was printed, sheet two laid on top immediately and pressed to create that kind of detail.

edited for poor grammar.