![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Compare this to a "normal" PB back -- notice how much thicker the type is on this one? http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-Geor...-/141390534999
Is this a common thing? It's the first time I've noticed it. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Slight, but I see it. I can't think of any reason for it - obviously less dark ink, as evidenced by the border line, but the letters are all still well-defined.
Steve?
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Probably underinked, maybe too much water on the plate.
Just like if the plate is too dry the space between the lines on Piedmonts fills up, too damp and fine lines might not hold ink. Especially if they were inking lightly just then. Plate wear is also a possibility, eventually the bits that won't retain water become worn and won't print. Steve B |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Steve, I compared this backscan very carefully, to one I have that has 'normal' inking. The one in this thread has printing that is just as clear as a 'normal' one, so it doesn't make sense to me that it was simply under inked - if that were the case, I would expect to see fuzzier borders on the letters.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
are missing"part frame lines" as they have been called....I own one....I was assuming plate wear??
![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Where it shows is on the small areas that don't get much ink anyway. Like the fine lines. Too much water can have the same effect. And plate wear is also likely, especially with this one. I went and looked at a normal back, and everything is a bit thicker not just the type. The plate making process actually partly etches the surface, then coats the surface with different materials one of which repels water. That substance ends up standing a bit above the surface, and as it wears the look of the finished product will change. We didn't have much issue with plate wear, most of our runs were far less than what the modern plates could handle. Usually a few thousand impressions. So I'm not as up on that as I am on other faults. (Like the enlarged and slightly blurry captions also seem to be plate wear but are the exact opposite effect from what's on the backs. So it might be something else. ![]() Steve B |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: t206 Fromme hoblitzell polar bear back | g_vezina_c55 | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 08-12-2012 05:31 PM |
Polar bear underrated t206 back? | CMIZ5290 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 06-12-2012 07:45 PM |
FS: T206 Willetts w/ Polar Bear Back | jtschantz | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 9 | 12-01-2010 02:11 PM |
T206 Polar Bear back observation | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-10-2010 09:49 PM |
WTB T206 Polar Bear Back SGC 30/40 or PSA 2/3 (Cubs) | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 3 | 07-18-2008 11:29 AM |