Printing experts and oddity lovers check out this 1933 Goudey

[brianp-beme]

I have this 1933 Goudey of Luque that has the print of the back of a Billy Urbanski card visible on the front. If it were a wet sheet transfer, the lettering would instead be mirror image.

After checking into it further, both Luque and Urbanski were printed on the same sheet (sheet #8), Luque second from left on the bottom row of the sheet, and Urbanski second from right on the bottom row as well. So my mind has figured out that the printers accidentally printed the reverse backs on top of the fronts on this sheet during production.

Does this sound correct, and has anyone else seen any other 1933 Goudey cards with this similar printing mishap?

Brian

[NiceDocter]

Haven’t ever seen this before . I do agree it’s not a wet transfer with the mirror image but I think more likely it was a sheet or sheets that went through the back printing process and they ran out of ink , then reused what they thought were blank sheets to print other cards. Im sure they had minimal quality control reviews back in those days! Cool card!

[NiceDocter]

My theory above would include them maybe printing the backs BEFORE the fronts which is possible but I have no evidence that this was ever a routine

[steve B]

It's probably a cylinder transfer.

The plate puts the ink on a rubber roller, the paper goes between the rubber roller and a steel roller.
If the sheet doesn't feed, the ink is printed to the steel roller instead of the paper, and the next sheet of paper gets printed by both the rubber roller and the steel roller.

They're usually more detailed than a wst (Offset transfer) But depending on the ink, the steel roller, and how much pressure is applied it can be a bit less than perfect.

[brianp-beme]

Interesting theories. Definitely seems like Steve may have the potential answer, and sounds like a fairly in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of printing machinery. Thanks for sharing.

I am trying to remember if I have seen cards from this or other sets that had this type of happy mishap. I don't recall any. Anyone out there have some to share?

Brian

[NiceDocter]

Im not saying Steve is wrong but wouldnt his theory mean that 2 consecutive prints were from the back and the next the front? Doesnt seem very likely...his theory would result in double printed fronts or double printed backs of the same card, not a faded back on a front.... or am I wrong? Fun to try and analyze what the heck happened 90 years ago!