1910 COUPON Rossman....with EPDG wet-ink-transfer....and it's significance

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Although I differ with some of you, I appreciate everyone's opinion posted here.

G1911
American Lithographic printed all the white-bordered and gold-bordered cards (fronts and backs). These sheets were hung up to dry, then cut-up into cards and shipped
to the various Tobacco Factories.
Sheets of cards were NOT shipped to the Factories. Where do you get that from ?

Furthermore, many presses were operating in the process of producing Millions of these Tobacco cards. Stacking sheets of various brands of T206's is a well-known fact,
as we have seen quite a number of "wet-ink-transfers". Simply due to the rush to get these cards cut-down and shipped.

The EPDG impression is very faint, and perhaps my scan isn't sufficient to provide an accurate judgement without closely examining this card. If I come to the National,
I will bring this Rossman card with me for further discussions with you guys.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I just can't see this being caused during production.

Sheets being hung up to dry would be very unusual. That may be done at a small art printer producing a handful of sheets a day, but not at a commercial printer. The press automatically stacks the sheets on an outfeed platform, and some air remains in between (It's called "windage", or was where I worked. And it's necessary for drying and handling. ) The ink layer is often thin enough to mostly dry with only minimal air exposure.

Obviously stacking of sheets was done, since that's how the sheets come off the press. But from things like the existence of blank backs, we can be fairly sure the fronts were printed then the backs.
The press would typically print only one color.
The cards printed with EPDG backs would be part of one individual job, to meet a particular order. So they would be stacked together. Too little windage, pressure on the stack (Like from an employee leaning on it - Heard about that one for 2 years ) Or the ink being too "wet", or conditions that didn't lead to appropriate drying would lead to WST or more properly "Offset transfers" - Either term is ok, the latter is just more technical.

Stacking one order on top of another smaller order, especially one done on a different paper stock isn't something that makes sense. (I'm assuming the overall order for Coupon was much smaller than that for EPDG. I think that's a safe assumption)
It's also entirely possible that a large outfit like ALC would leave presses set up for different stock thicknesses, so the press printing EPDG and the one doing Coupon wouldn't be the same press, and may have been in an entirely different location.
And those presses may have even been printing sheets of an entirely different size. Printing say 100,000 of something vs 20,000 would be very different. Too much setup time for too small of a run would be inefficient and wasteful, and no printer could get to the size of ALC without being efficient.

Ink formulas then were essentially trade secrets for the larger companies.
Some formulations were better than others, but most were a colorant in a fluid medium that dried or hardened.
Linseed oil was a common base for some types of ink, but probably not used by ALC, while it gets "dry" fairly quickly, it may not truly dry for years. I have a printed item that caused a post production offset transfer in shipping - well over 100 years after it was printed!.

Conversely, since lithography requires the rejection of oil based inks by a damp stone or plate, water alone shouldn't cause a transfer. I tried with a T206 a few years ago, and at normal temperatures I couldn't force a transfer using just water. Embossing wood grain onto the card yes, any sort of transfer no.
Heat and or some chemical involvement would be required, eventually I suppose I could duplicate what would cause it, but haven't the time, budget or inclination. (It would also vary depending on the exact ink, and there may be different carriers for the colorant... )