Time to stir things up a bit!

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I submit for argument, one proof and one production card. My argument is that the proof has light brown dots in the cap and shirt, the printer obviously decided it didn't work and needed to be changed, and in the final production version you see light blue dots in the cap and shirt:

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Looks like Ruelbach sneezed on a window.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I'm sure Mr. Calderon will have some worthwhile things to say about your card. It is apparent that your card is unusual for a variety of reasons, and I, for one, think its super cool (technical printer's term). I don't collect trading cards, but would enjoy owning it.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Did you know there is no such thing as a card. Just proofs. EVERYTHING is a proof. Just kidding.

What you have is a finished card and an unfinished card that was also used to set up the press for part of another color/card - scrap, in short.

A proof is used to get final approval and gets the client to write a check. If you were shown the card on the right - would you pay for it? C'mon.

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug Allen

Looking at the shadow image it is clear to me that it is another image printed upside down. I see it as very similar to the T206 printing irregularities where the printing process was less than precise. Definitely not a proof.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

The print shop I worked for did both commercial and fine art projects. I've presonally worked on prints/posters in both screen and off-set processes. I am aware of the various types of proofs and their uses and those don't apply to T205 cards.

What other functions of proofs were you talking about? "Artist's proofs"? I hope not, I have seen first hand what those are.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

But Pete, if the printer was making the decision himself about the final color adjustments, perhaps the "scrap" card was printed to get a good look at what the printer THOUGHT would be the final colors (a proof, by definition?). Perhaps he then decided that it didn't quite work - the brown needed to be replaced by blue, and so then had no further use for the Reulbach sheet and used it to set the presses for the Bugs Raymond printing (superimposed upside-down). I also found it curious (probably a coincidence) that Raymond is alphabetically the card previous to Reulbach in the t205 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony

Does anybody know if they had 4 color presses when T205's were printed? It looks like this could've been printed on a 2 color press, then the sheet refed into the press for the last 2 colors. As this particular sheet was fed in upside down the last 2 colors didn't print in register, and were probably from another card. This would account for the gold border not being gold, as it didn't have enough color blending (from the 4 colors) to make the gold border. Just a theory, but its consistant with a few printing mistakes I've seen on jobs I've run.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Pete, while agreeing with your and Doug's final verdict on Mr. Ruelbach and his magical sneeze guard, I think your definition of proof is too exclusive to be entirely accurate. While the so-called scraps or printer's waste is excluded, the definition of proof encompasses a wider and wilder variety of purposes and prints than you might accept. I suspect that our potential difference in opinion is because you were in commercial printing, while my background was in fine art. Naturally, you may bring up that the T205s were commercial printing, and that is an accurate and worthwile point.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Peter, I know from experience that you know a lot about printing and have a lot of great things to say, but I thought your definition of proof was too exclusive (My definition didn't include Artist's Proofs, PPs, etc).

We apparently share an opinion on Artist's Proofs, which are marketing gimmicks ("Biggest scam since One-Hour-Martinizing").

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Ther's one in every bunch.

The printer (pressmen) doesn't choose the colors. That's not his job. Proofs are approved for (final)color BEFORE going into mass production. The pressmen would never make the decision to take the brown plate and use blue ink unless he hates his job. That makes no sense.

The extra printing done on the right image is from a different card and they had unfinished sheets sitting around and used item to adjustmnets for the next card. Quite a common thing for a pressman to use, using fresh stock would be a waste.

You even killed your proof claim even farther by noting the over printing is the next card in the alphabetical line. What would you most likely have sitting around when you are preparing to set up card #10 - scrap sheets from card #9 - right?

BTY - When I say the pressmen "adjusts" the color on press that doesn't refer to the ink color itself, just the registration and ink thickness. The ink color is dertermined long before the pressman gets the plate(s).

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Actually, I'm trying to learn all I can about how these cards were created - I suspected the word "proof" would stir up some healthy exchange. Can you give a theory as to why the ink color is different from one card to the other, while the rest of the front seems to be otherwise complete as far as printing? (of course, the gold wasn't added).

Also, "Raymond" comes before "Reulbach".

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

<<Also, "Raymond" comes before "Reulbach".>>

Hey, I went to art school. If I went to a REAL college , I'd have to get a REAL job.

About your color question: It's hard to see what you are saying - I'm not saying you're wrong - I just can't see everything I want to from the scans to agree with you.

Would you be willing to send me the cards so I could inspect them up close?

E-mail me directly.