Color "error" variations in t206 cards

[GregMitch34]

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

I don't think the question of "should" can be answered. People can collect what they want and pay whatever price makes them happy.

Personally, I think it's crazy.

[Sean]

My experience is that they get a very small premium, particularly the commons.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

Greg- I paid about 2x premium for this card and I'll be honest, my max bid was higher. Having said that, I have never seen it as this color variation in over 25 years of collecting. My opinion is that red backed cards that come out orange, do not demand much of a premium. There is too much debate on just how orange is it? But when you have a normally red backed card that comes out a true purple, I think that enters into the equation greatly because of uniqueness. Another example I can think of is Brian's SGC 70 Manion (normally a vivid green background, this card is light blue). There are many red T206s that have orange varieties (Cobb, Abstein, Bush, Chance, etc...)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

Still have to return to original question: are these cards getting anything more than a tiny premium? Should they?

Several people have answered the original question. There is not a consistent answer, because the premiums have not been consistent.

[MVSNYC]

Some cards posted here are either faded from the sun, or have been altered (either intentionally or unintentionally) with chemicals. they command no premium. cards with "mild" color variations command little to some premium (orange backgrounds, etc). cards which are clearly missing color passes, command big premiums.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Some cards posted here are either faded from the sun, or have been altered (either intentionally or unintentionally) with chemicals. they command no premium. cards with "mild" color variations command little to some premium (orange backgrounds, etc). cards which are clearly missing color passes, command big premiums.

...And cards with a second color pass are ignored completely:



...every card has some variance, but the card in the center is clearly darker. So much so that my wife can spot it from across the room (I know this because when she saw it sitting out she asked why it looked different and if it meant we could retire if I sold it ).

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

...And cards with a second color pass are ignored completely:



...every card has some variance, but the card in the center is clearly darker. So much so that my wife can spot it from across the room (I know this because when she saw it sitting out she asked why it looked different and if it meant we could retire if I sold it ).

I think that this is really just an optical illusion. The blue color is identical, but you are looking at something that is over saturated. You are not seeing what is under the ink as well, and what is around the blue ink and combined that makes it appear darker, when in fact the color of the ink is almost virtually identical.


There may be slight differences, if the printer mixed multiple batches of ink, but to think they vary that much....I don't think so. There are ink weight formulas to produce specific colors and a printer would use that to make sure they are not vastly different.

Kevin

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

I think that this is really just an optical illusion. The blue color is identical, but you are looking at something that is over saturated. You are not seeing what is under the ink as well, and what is around the blue ink and combined that makes it appear darker, when in fact the color of the ink is almost virtually identical.


There may be slight differences, if the printer mixed multiple batches of ink, but to think they vary that much....I don't think so. There are ink weight formulas to produce specific colors and a printer would use that to make sure they are not vastly different.

Kevin

Wrong. The face is obviously more pink, not an illusion. This is a double strike of the magenta. Also the card was miscut but it doesn't look like a recent trim as the edge is worn even.


There was a thread I started about it when I first bought it. This is from that thread and shows closeups of the dot pattern:

Originally Posted by steve B

Looking at a high res scan it looks like it's actually two passes of the same color.

In the pic below which is a blowup of a section near the upper left corner you can see the two passes. one appears lighter and is slightly left and lower than the other. The blue lines point to the top of a kidney bean shaped part of the dot pattern that's both repeated and easy to see. The other lines and brackets point to other features of the pattern that are visible.

Since the two patterns match up it's extremely unlikely to be a different color.

I can't tell if one is actually darker than the other or if it's just that the areas where the two overlap is darker. Possibly a bit of both. And the patterns overlapping means the face and all the other areas where the pink overlaps itself have little to no white showing through.

The other thing that can cause this is running the inking rollers while adjusting the registration like on the Garvey I posted in another thread. But that usually gives a very reduced first impression and a proper second impression. On this card the two appear to be nearly the same.

I'm fairly sure it's a double printing of the pink, and the first card of any sort I've seen that I feel confident is a double pass of the same color.

Steve B

Link to that orig thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/newrepl...reply&p=969213

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Wrong. The face is obviously more pink, not an illusion. This is a double strike of the magenta. Also the card was miscut but it doesn't look like a recent trim as the edge is worn even.


There was a thread I started about it when I first bought it. This is from that thread and shows closeups of the dot pattern:



Link to that orig thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/newrepl...reply&p=969213

my point here would be:

it also appears that what you see is really in your card's edge image is the blush color and a light magenta color, not a double strike of the same color. why would anyone print the same color down two times?

take two cards that appear different and explode out the dot patterns and colors to show what distinct colors were laid down on the card some where in the middle of the card. I say middle of the card because the edges more commonly show more staining and wear, than the middle, particularly from hand oil, dust and dirt etc.

if there is an extra dot color on one card vs the other then you are not correct. pick a plain Jane red background card. that would probably be the easiest to do.

I'm not home or I would do it.

Kevin

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Some cards posted here are either faded from the sun, or have been altered (either intentionally or unintentionally) with chemicals. they command no premium. cards with "mild" color variations command little to some premium (orange backgrounds, etc). cards which are clearly missing color passes, command big premiums.

Michael- I'm a bit confused. On cards with definite color variations, if they were in the presence of chemicals, wouldn't the borders of the card be off as well? Also, if the color was altered by the sun, wouldn't there be discoloration or toning on the borders?

[CMIZ5290]

Ted Z- Do you have any opinions on what I was commenting on? Thanks...

[tedzan]

All my cards that I have on display here in Post #26 are errors due to printing flaws at American Lithographic.

My opinion regarding any premium to be paid on such cards is a very subjective matter.

Personally, I will not pay a premium....all the T206 color errors that I have acquired, I have paid very liitle for.


TED Z

[CMIZ5290]

Thanks Ted, What about my questions pertaining this post? Chemicals, sun fading, etc...

[steve B]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Michael- I'm a bit confused. On cards with definite color variations, if they were in the presence of chemicals, wouldn't the borders of the card be off as well? Also, if the color was altered by the sun, wouldn't there be discoloration or toning on the borders?

The inks were and are colored by a variety of pigments. Some are more stable than others.

A chemical that changes the color might only affect one of the colors. That would depend on the chemistry of the chemical and the pigment.
Other chemicals could affect the carrier, usually some sort of oil or grease with lithography inks. Some oils like linseed oil eventually harden, others don't. Modern environmentally friendly inks are often based on vegetable oil and can be smudged or removed in normal handling if your skin isn't especially dry. Sports illustrated used inks like that for a while.

I'm not really up on the exact pigments for most colors, but know a little about a few of them.

Most black ink is colored with carbon, either carbonblack or lampblack. (A fine distinction of the process used to get the carbon pigment. And usually one that doesn't matter. ) Carbon won't fade, and isn't affected by most chemicals.

Reds are sometimes done with Cochineal. And while it makes a nice bright red dye that resists fading from soap, it will fade with exposure to light.

Many other colors don't fade.
That's why I bought a small lot of cards with no bright red, but a known history of light exposure of around 40 years. Unfortunately a few other cards from the same batch have been slabbed as missing colors. The good look I've had at mine is to me inconclusive. One shows gloss where the bright red should be, the other doesn't.
On both, none of the other colors have faded much if at all.

The borders on T206 fronts won't be affected by light. Backs exposed to light might be affected a bit, but I don't have any examples. The good news is that the cardstock is probably not particularly acidic.

A lot of lithography stock is coated on one or both sides. The fronts of T206s are coated stock. Probably a clay based glaze. The coating makes the inks appear a bit brighter and helps them adhere better to the surface without getting into the paper itself. The backs are uncoated. So stock that's more porous than usual will absorb more ink. I should also make clear that the ink is very thick, and won't bleed through. The depth it penetrates porous uncoated stock is very small. Maybe a layer or two of fibers.

Many T206s under a lot of magnification will show a bit of fine cracking to the glaze coating on the front.

And, over three years the exact cardstock and inks may have changed.

As Kevin pointed out the press operators have formulas they follow. But they don't always follow them as precisely as they should. Other things during printing can also change how a color looks. The amount of ink put onto the plate can be changed, as can the amount of water. So a color can be overinked or underinked, making it darker or lghter. Or printed drier leading to small areas being filled like the drame lines on Piedmonts, or printed wet, which can prevent some areas from printing at all. Dry prints are pretty common on T206 backs, wet prints aren't common at all. I can't recall seeing one, but there's probably a few.

Steve B