Odd Rhoades T206

[Pat R]

I picked up this Rhoades recently and I purchased it because of the transfer on the back. It doesn't look like any WST transfer I've seen but it also doesn't look like any impression cylinder transfer I've seen.

[IMG][/IMG] [IMG][/IMG]

I think the marks on the front that look like pencil are factory too, in hand when looking at it under a loop and tilting it in the light you can see the marks are under the glossy layer that you see on some T206's you can sort off see what I'm referring to in this larger scan.

[IMG][/IMG]

[53toppscollector]

My first instinct when I looked at it, and the wavy pencil lines, is that someone tried to trace it and it left an imprint on the card.

What do you make of the blue fragments at the bottom of the card?

Very cool card

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

My first instinct when I looked at it, and the wavy pencil lines, is that someone tried to trace it and it left an imprint on the card.

What do you make of the blue fragments at the bottom of the card?

Very cool card

If you're talking about the blue on the lower left of the border James it's a shift in the blue layer from his belt.

[swarmee]

The black lines may be a really bad bleed from a card left in the rain soon after being collected, before the ink was mostly dry?

[atx840]

Pat I have a non-sport Pirate back where someone traced the figure on the front and it either bled through the back or the indentation created a ghost like outline on the reverse and then they coloured it in. Not really sure what was going on, like your T206 very odd.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The black lines may be a really bad bleed from a card left in the rain soon after being collected, before the ink was mostly dry?

I don't think it was anything like that but it could have been something to do with some kind of moisture at the factory maybe Steve B has an idea.

Originally Posted by atx840

Pat I have a non-sport Pirate back where someone traced the figure on the front and it either bled through the back or the indentation created a ghost like outline on the reverse and then they coloured it in. Not really sure what was going on, like your T206 very odd.

Hey Chris, yeah I'm not sure what caused it but you can see in the large scan that it definitely wasn't traced and both the front and back are smooth.. Do you have a scan of your non-sport Pirate card?

[RCFire82]

I was bidding w you on this one Pat. I decided to bow out thinking it was pencil tracing rather than a transfer... nonetheless a need addition to the card 👍

[atx840]

Dug it out and scanned it, def different than what your Rhoades has going on. Maybe someone traced Rhoades with ink that bled through but it didnt indent?

Not sure what is going on with this one, just found it odd.

[steve B]

So much wtf going on with both of those.

I had a couple probable explanations for the Rhodes, but also found reasons to reject those ideas.

I'm uncertain about there being a gloss layer, but Pat knows his stuff so I'll just go with that. Sort of.

Assuming it's a "normal" T206, its on coated stock which will absorb inks over time and still be glossy. Inks, especially more fluid ones tend to puddle on those and say wet longer than usual.
My first instinct is that someone outlined it with a felt pen.
BUT....
The ink in certain spots doesn't look like felt pen or faded old felt pen. There should be uneven puddling on coated stock, and it's not there.
AND
The card obviously can't transfer to itself. And the chances of someone being able to exactly duplicate what they did on one card on another is small, especilally given how sloppy it is.

Water shouldn't cause a transfer.
Other chemicals should affect more than just one color, and even if it did a transfer should be much neater than what's there.

Inks generally don't bleed through coated stock. If it's not coated, maybe? But that's some pretty thick stuff to bleed through and what can get through that much is usually too thin to do it cleanly.

If there is a gloss layer and it's under it, that pretty much precludes anything post-factory.


It looks gray? Maybe a bit reddish along with it?

If it's multiple colors that also goes against it being post factory unless it's an ink that had both black and a bit of red to make a particular shade of gray. Which would be strange. It could also just be the way my monitor shows the color.

I'm also hard pressed to think of it as factory. The printing was imperfect, but the sloppiness of the border seems just too far different from what ALC did.

The only thing I can think of would be a real long shot.
If the gray plate was worn, and just had to be "fixed" immediately for some reason it is possible to draw in something you want printed with what's essentially a crayon. But it won't last long. But I'm not seeing a reason for them to draw in a detail that wasn't there before, like a band of gray around the border. And do that sloppily, when they got other details like the C on the hat done very well.


None of it makes any sense.

[Pat R]

Thanks for the reply Steve. I have a magnifying glass that has what I believe is a 40x smaller lighted section that I use on every T206 when I get them.
Under the light most T206's show different degrees and areas of a glossy layer and I could be wrong about this but I believe it's some kind of "clear coat" that was applied after printing and not a coated paper stock that was used prior to the printing.

One of the reasons I think it is on the top layer and not "glossy" paper stock is the way it seems to wear off.

Here are three T206's I just purchased the Leifield has the heaviest gloss on upper right edge, the Huggins in the middle right edge and the Raymond doesn't really show any gloss anywhere.

[IMG][/IMG]


This Beckley I have has a lot of gloss on it.

[IMG][/IMG]

[chriskim]

I think it was caused by someone used a pencil or crayon tracing the image while the card was under a black sheet of paper or cardboard.... it is more like a carbon paper effect. Nothing special IMO.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by chriskim

I think it was caused by someone used a pencil or crayon tracing the image while the card was under a black sheet of paper or cardboard.... it is more less a carbon paper effect. Nothing special IMO.

If that was the case it would be on top of the Sweet Caporal not under it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Thanks for the reply Steve. I have a magnifying glass that has what I believe is a 40x smaller lighted section that I use on every T206 when I get them.
Under the light most T206's show different degrees and areas of a glossy layer and I could be wrong about this but I believe it's some kind of "clear coat" that was applied after printing and not a coated paper stock that was used prior to the printing.

One of the reasons I think it is on the top layer and not "glossy" paper stock is the way it seems to wear off.

Here are three T206's I just purchased the Leifield has the heaviest gloss on upper right edge, the Huggins in the middle right edge and the Raymond doesn't really show any gloss anywhere.

[IMG][/IMG]


This Beckley I have has a lot of gloss on it.

[IMG][/IMG]

Now that's interesting.
I haven't looked at all of mine, but have noticed differing glossiness between some of them. Maybe it's time to have a closer look. I know some that I have looked at are on coated stock, not so much to make it glossy, but I think more to make the colors stand out. On those, the fronts uner the magnifier don't really show any fibers, but the backs show them just like all the others.

Sounds like a task for next week, I'm getting stuff ready for my stamp clubs show on Saturday. Filling prize draw envelopes with stamps (20 for 25 cents, makes it not a lottery or raffle.) doing 400 plus getting 40 prizes ready and numbered takes a while.

On the plus side, giving the bunch of T206s a much closer look is long overdue.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

Now that's interesting.
I haven't looked at all of mine, but have noticed differing glossiness between some of them. Maybe it's time to have a closer look. I know some that I have looked at are on coated stock, not so much to make it glossy, but I think more to make the colors stand out. On those, the fronts uner the magnifier don't really show any fibers, but the backs show them just like all the others.

Sounds like a task for next week, I'm getting stuff ready for my stamp clubs show on Saturday. Filling prize draw envelopes with stamps (20 for 25 cents, makes it not a lottery or raffle.) doing 400 plus getting 40 prizes ready and numbered takes a while.

On the plus side, giving the bunch of T206s a much closer look is long overdue.

Hey Steve, have fun at the stamp show.

I don't think you would see the glossy layer unless you're looking at the card under a lighted magnifier except maybe the ones like the Beckley I posted. Most of them you have to tilt just right to see the gloss.

Cards like this Rhoades that are or appear to be a factory print oddity intrigue me.
A couple of people seem to think it was traced on somehow but I'm pretty sure it's under the back printing and I can't see how that could be done by tracing it.

On the Pirate back Chris posted you can see it's on top of the back printing but the Rhoades is under the back printing unless there's a way for it to bleed through from the front without it getting through the back printing.
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]




If it is factory there would have been others like this on the sheet and maybe another example will show up like this Mitchell print mark that was printed on several sheets.

If I did a survey of people that haven't seen me post this before I think 100% would say this is a post factory mark

[IMG][/IMG]


but I have two of these in my collection and a scan of another one.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[nebboy]

It’s Pencil tracing with a piece of carbon paper and the carbon paper leaves lines on back of anything that has been traced

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by nebboy

It’s Pencil tracing with a piece of carbon paper and the carbon paper leaves lines on back of anything that has been traced

But not over the Sweet Caporal?

[atx840]

Pat, maybe it went through the to layer, cardboard but not all the way through the SC printing? Very odd and cool Mitchell, first time seeing it, is there any indentation on the back similar to the hockey stick Willett?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by atx840

Pat, maybe it went through the to layer, cardboard but not all the way through the SC printing? Very odd and cool Mitchell, first time seeing it, is there any indentation on the back similar to the hockey stick Willett?

But to do that wouldn't you have to have it directly on the carbon paper and somehow not leave any evidence on the front or back of tracing it.

I thought the card was strange viewing it online and it's just as strange in hand.

I agree with Steve that it doesn't look like something that would have been factory related but there are several things that make it appear that it is.

As I said even the marks on the front look to me like they're under the glossy layer and if you look at the area I circled on the right it looks like the exact color of the gray layer shift that I circled on the left.

[IMG][/IMG]


The Mitchell's don't have an indentation on the back like all of the Willett's do.
There's also a Ball (Cleveland) with a similar mark as Mitchell but I only have scans of those.

[IMG][/IMG]

[RCFire82]

Still makes it more intriguing than the standard sc350 30. And for the price of a common, why not.