![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Got in some new cards today, and I noted the SC looked different from my other two (yeah only two, just started this venture).
Anyway, the one I already had seems to be missing the "shadow" behind the letters and the inside border. If this has been discussed before, I apologize. Just direct me to that thread. Looking for information from the veteran collectors. Here are the two cards: ![]() |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The shadow effect is there, just very faint. Look at the ETTE of Cigarettes. But yes, most of the red ink is missing. It was not intentional, since they would have erased all of it or if it was before the shadow effect, none would be visible. Nice catch.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Got to go tonight. -Jimmy |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Jimmy,
Cool card and great observation. Wish I had something to add, but without more study I tend to agree that it is probably a matter of degree (less ink) rather than kind (no ink) and is a print error (akin to the "filled leaf" card in my earlier thread). Scot Last edited by sreader3; 06-04-2015 at 05:58 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() So much can be learned on this site. And I have learned a lot in the time here. Yeah Scot, I read your thread about "filled leaf" cards. I just saw this and thought I'd throw it out on the forum for discussion. Thanks folks. -Jimmy |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Best regards, Eric
__________________
Eric Perry Currently collecting: T206 (135/524) 1956 Topps Baseball (195/342) "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think the fronts were withheld intentionally to allow time for the OP to find more, if it is actually a print variation. I would more side with lack of ink on the printing plate, or bad soaking that erased some of the lighter red portions. Does the front of the right one have color loss on the front?
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
No, not intentional. I didn't think about posting the fronts, as the backs were in question. I'll post them again, front and back, in the morning, as I have some life issues to deal with tonight. Stay tuned.
-Jimmy Last edited by xplainer; 06-03-2015 at 07:14 PM. Reason: Answer above post. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB - Moran Sweet Cap & Pfeister (Seated) Sweet Cap | Rascal1010 | T206 cards B/S/T | 0 | 12-25-2014 02:28 PM |
1911 sweet caporal t206 red murray portrait, "murr'y" variation! Extremely rare! | Zone91 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 215 | 04-24-2013 01:28 PM |
T206 Sweet Cap MISSING RED INK VARIATION 1/1 | Archive | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 04-09-2008 10:01 AM |
Sweet caporal or rather sweet reprint | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 10-23-2007 10:38 PM |
Variation | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 09-30-2005 09:54 PM |