Print Error or Fading 1933 Goudey?

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by CK

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this, I have two 1933 #45 Larry Benton cards. I was comparing them and noticed a few differences, at first glance I assumed the raw card had simply faded over time.

Looking closer, I’m curious if this was a printers error, maybe a color pass or two was missed on this sheet, if that’s possible? The raw copy has a similar shade of red, but other colors look more dull and out of focus.

The biggest head scratcher I have regarding fading is found just under Larry’s left elbow. If this card had simply faded, why is the blue outline still visible under the arm, but the blue fill is completely gone?

Larry’s glove is similar, outline present, infill missing.

For the boxes in the upper right corner of the raw card some spots of blue are visible while the majority is not present?

The shadow under Larry is much more significantly faded than the green just behind on the infield.

There are also tiny dots on the face and reverse of the card which I’ve seen on other Goudey cards. I am not sure what to attribute those to.

Thanks for your input.

Hi Chris. I've been working on this set, as you have, for the better part of the last 9 months, and bought almost 300 cards in that time. I can't answer all of your questions, but I'll add my 2 cents.

The "spots" that you mention are prominent in many '33 Goudeys for sure. It's something that bothers me, and that I have had to keep an eye out for, since I've seen some cards grade VG and above with these spots present to varying degree. I assumed that they were mold of some type. IMHO, what you are seeing on this card is ageing/fading. But I can't explain the variation in fading of the same color. Maybe there was some printing issue. The Benton in particular was a very tough card for me to find in nice shape, so there could be something specific to this card. Many of them seem to have problems. In fact, I finally paid more than I should have for a couple of nice ungraded cards, still waiting for SGC to lower their prices so I can grade them. Good looking graded versions of this card in VG-VG/EX range aren't offered for sale in the last year often.

Something just occurred to me, #219 Mule Haas is also very tough to find in nice shape. I had equally hard time with it, and nice copies of that card go for big bucks. It has a similar color palette to the Benton in the upper third, purple/pink hues. Some correlation perhaps?

[CK]

Originally Posted by chadeast

Hi Chris. I've been working on this set, as you have, for the better part of the last 9 months, and bought almost 300 cards in that time. I can't answer all of your questions, but I'll add my 2 cents.

The "spots" that you mention are prominent in many '33 Goudeys for sure. It's something that bothers me, and that I have had to keep an eye out for, since I've seen some cards grade VG and above with these spots present to varying degree. I assumed that they were mold of some type. IMHO, what you are seeing on this card is ageing/fading. But I can't explain the variation in fading of the same color. Maybe there was some printing issue. The Benton in particular was a very tough card for me to find in nice shape, so there could be something specific to this card. Many of them seem to have problems. In fact, I finally paid more than I should have for a couple of nice ungraded cards, still waiting for SGC to lower their prices so I can grade them. Good looking graded versions of this card in VG-VG/EX range aren't offered for sale in the last year often.

Something just occurred to me, #219 Mule Haas is also very tough to find in nice shape. I had equally hard time with it, and nice copies of that card go for big bucks. It has a similar color palette to the Benton in the upper third, purple/pink hues. Some correlation perhaps?

Hey Chad -

I have seen plenty of random brown dots on the several hundred cards I’ve owned too. I’ve had several yellow cards like the #26 Cissell that almost look dirty due to the number and spacing. The #222 Gehringer is often poorly printed with white streaks or that same “dirty” look.

Funny that you mention the Haas card which in itself is an actual error. “Hass” is on the front and “Haas” is on the back. I actually have a copy of that one in much better condition than the PSA grade applies, imho.

Here’s the Cissell for posterity, somehow these dots grade higher than the cleaner Haas. That’s another discussion though.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by CK

Hey Chad -

I have seen plenty of random brown dots on the several hundred cards I’ve owned too. I’ve had several yellow cards like the #26 Cissell that almost look dirty due to the number and spacing. The #222 Gehringer is often poorly printed with white streaks or that same “dirty” look.

Funny that you mention the Haas card which in itself is an actual error. “Hass” is on the front and “Haas” is on the back. I actually have a copy of that one in much better condition that the PSA grade applies, imho.

Here’s the Cissell for posterity, somehow these dots grade higher than the cleaner Haas. That’s another discussion though.

I think your Cissell is just dirty, or 'toned', like so many yellow background '33s that I've owned. I overpaid for a number of my yellow backgrounds just to get them clean, many of my last cards that I needed to finish the set were of the yellow variety. I probably treasure my clean yellow background commons above all other commons, and probably some star cards too. I still don't have a nice looking Bartell.

[CK]

Originally Posted by chadeast

I think your Cissell is just dirty, or 'toned', like so many yellow background '33s that I've owned. I overpaid for a number of my yellow backgrounds just to get them clean, many of my last cards that I needed to finish the set were of the yellow variety. I probably treasure my clean yellow background commons above all other commons, and probably some star cards too. I still don't have a nice looking Bartell.

To be fair Chad, the Cissell is a bit dirty from handling over the years but in hand absolutely has the similar dots. The same goes for my 29 Foxx and many others.
See pic, Both Foxx are dirty, the one on the left is dirty and has dots.

Also, a few examples of less dirty yellow cards.

[steve B]

It's a bit hard to tell much from the small pictures, but there are a few explanations that make sense.

First, the lighter card could be faded. But the red is very similar, and red usually fades first.

The next two are related, and may even be combined. I checked a few Goudeys, and the blue is done in two passes, a light one and a dark one.

Second, and this is common, the inks were mixed by hand and can vary some depending on how the press operator interpreted the recepie for the exact shade desired. Both blues are lighter than usual.

Third, the dark blue may be underinked. The operator can control the amount of ink applied to the plate, and for some reason may have run it light that day.
(The water wetting the plate can also be adjusted, with similar results if a bit too much is used. )

[Keith H. Thompson]

about the reprint sets that Ed Brooks (think I have the name right) put out I believe in the sixties? These were advertised as "so good you can't tell the difference" and they sold very, very well. Dealers like Lew Lipset were infuriated as were others. If I can find them, I have copies of the original advertising to confirm.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by Keith H. Thompson

about the reprint sets that Ed Brooks (think I have the name right) put out I believe in the sixties? These were advertised as "so good you can't tell the difference" and they sold very, very well. Dealers like Lew Lipset were infuriated as were others. If I can find them, I have copies of the original advertising to confirm.

It was Charlie Brooks in the 70's according to a few sources. They have black printing on the back instead of green so are less of a concern, as I understand it. The Galassos from the 80's are more popular with scammers, with the Ruth "novelty" cards among the most popular with these scum since there are no reprint markings on those. Pretty easy to spot when you know what to look for, and once you have the card in hand a 10x loupe (if that) is all you really need to identify the real deal vs. anything else.

[CK]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's a bit hard to tell much from the small pictures, but there are a few explanations that make sense.

First, the lighter card could be faded. But the red is very similar, and red usually fades first.

The next two are related, and may even be combined. I checked a few Goudeys, and the blue is done in two passes, a light one and a dark one.

Second, and this is common, the inks were mixed by hand and can vary some depending on how the press operator interpreted the recepie for the exact shade desired. Both blues are lighter than usual.

Third, the dark blue may be underinked. The operator can control the amount of ink applied to the plate, and for some reason may have run it light that day.
(The water wetting the plate can also be adjusted, with similar results if a bit too much is used. )

Not sure if this photo will render larger but here’s a shot.

My line of thinking is similar to what you describe, the red would fade first and I assume the blue would fade more evenly. Also, the outline of his figure is more narrow than usual, possibly due to less ink or a missed pass.