Odd Rhoades T206

[Pat R]

Thanks for the reply Steve. I have a magnifying glass that has what I believe is a 40x smaller lighted section that I use on every T206 when I get them.
Under the light most T206's show different degrees and areas of a glossy layer and I could be wrong about this but I believe it's some kind of "clear coat" that was applied after printing and not a coated paper stock that was used prior to the printing.

One of the reasons I think it is on the top layer and not "glossy" paper stock is the way it seems to wear off.

Here are three T206's I just purchased the Leifield has the heaviest gloss on upper right edge, the Huggins in the middle right edge and the Raymond doesn't really show any gloss anywhere.

[IMG][/IMG]


This Beckley I have has a lot of gloss on it.

[IMG][/IMG]

[chriskim]

I think it was caused by someone used a pencil or crayon tracing the image while the card was under a black sheet of paper or cardboard.... it is more like a carbon paper effect. Nothing special IMO.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by chriskim

I think it was caused by someone used a pencil or crayon tracing the image while the card was under a black sheet of paper or cardboard.... it is more less a carbon paper effect. Nothing special IMO.

If that was the case it would be on top of the Sweet Caporal not under it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Thanks for the reply Steve. I have a magnifying glass that has what I believe is a 40x smaller lighted section that I use on every T206 when I get them.
Under the light most T206's show different degrees and areas of a glossy layer and I could be wrong about this but I believe it's some kind of "clear coat" that was applied after printing and not a coated paper stock that was used prior to the printing.

One of the reasons I think it is on the top layer and not "glossy" paper stock is the way it seems to wear off.

Here are three T206's I just purchased the Leifield has the heaviest gloss on upper right edge, the Huggins in the middle right edge and the Raymond doesn't really show any gloss anywhere.

[IMG][/IMG]


This Beckley I have has a lot of gloss on it.

[IMG][/IMG]

Now that's interesting.
I haven't looked at all of mine, but have noticed differing glossiness between some of them. Maybe it's time to have a closer look. I know some that I have looked at are on coated stock, not so much to make it glossy, but I think more to make the colors stand out. On those, the fronts uner the magnifier don't really show any fibers, but the backs show them just like all the others.

Sounds like a task for next week, I'm getting stuff ready for my stamp clubs show on Saturday. Filling prize draw envelopes with stamps (20 for 25 cents, makes it not a lottery or raffle.) doing 400 plus getting 40 prizes ready and numbered takes a while.

On the plus side, giving the bunch of T206s a much closer look is long overdue.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

Now that's interesting.
I haven't looked at all of mine, but have noticed differing glossiness between some of them. Maybe it's time to have a closer look. I know some that I have looked at are on coated stock, not so much to make it glossy, but I think more to make the colors stand out. On those, the fronts uner the magnifier don't really show any fibers, but the backs show them just like all the others.

Sounds like a task for next week, I'm getting stuff ready for my stamp clubs show on Saturday. Filling prize draw envelopes with stamps (20 for 25 cents, makes it not a lottery or raffle.) doing 400 plus getting 40 prizes ready and numbered takes a while.

On the plus side, giving the bunch of T206s a much closer look is long overdue.

Hey Steve, have fun at the stamp show.

I don't think you would see the glossy layer unless you're looking at the card under a lighted magnifier except maybe the ones like the Beckley I posted. Most of them you have to tilt just right to see the gloss.

Cards like this Rhoades that are or appear to be a factory print oddity intrigue me.
A couple of people seem to think it was traced on somehow but I'm pretty sure it's under the back printing and I can't see how that could be done by tracing it.

On the Pirate back Chris posted you can see it's on top of the back printing but the Rhoades is under the back printing unless there's a way for it to bleed through from the front without it getting through the back printing.
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]




If it is factory there would have been others like this on the sheet and maybe another example will show up like this Mitchell print mark that was printed on several sheets.

If I did a survey of people that haven't seen me post this before I think 100% would say this is a post factory mark

[IMG][/IMG]


but I have two of these in my collection and a scan of another one.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[nebboy]

It’s Pencil tracing with a piece of carbon paper and the carbon paper leaves lines on back of anything that has been traced

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by nebboy

It’s Pencil tracing with a piece of carbon paper and the carbon paper leaves lines on back of anything that has been traced

But not over the Sweet Caporal?

[atx840]

Pat, maybe it went through the to layer, cardboard but not all the way through the SC printing? Very odd and cool Mitchell, first time seeing it, is there any indentation on the back similar to the hockey stick Willett?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by atx840

Pat, maybe it went through the to layer, cardboard but not all the way through the SC printing? Very odd and cool Mitchell, first time seeing it, is there any indentation on the back similar to the hockey stick Willett?

But to do that wouldn't you have to have it directly on the carbon paper and somehow not leave any evidence on the front or back of tracing it.

I thought the card was strange viewing it online and it's just as strange in hand.

I agree with Steve that it doesn't look like something that would have been factory related but there are several things that make it appear that it is.

As I said even the marks on the front look to me like they're under the glossy layer and if you look at the area I circled on the right it looks like the exact color of the gray layer shift that I circled on the left.

[IMG][/IMG]


The Mitchell's don't have an indentation on the back like all of the Willett's do.
There's also a Ball (Cleveland) with a similar mark as Mitchell but I only have scans of those.

[IMG][/IMG]