E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[bijoem]

Scott....

This is an interesting thread - - and I could sense excitement from you about these "shaded" cards.... but looking at the examples provided by you (especially your post at 7:49pm) - I am pretty confident that this is just poorly printed sheets.

Looking at the White Letter Mantle on eBay....
that is a variation. It is NOT a print defect at all. It was a purposeful removal of the yellow in the name / while leaving yellow elsewhere.

Personally - I wouldn't give this a new designation at all.

I don't mean to quell any enthusiasm.....
But to give an honest reply to Bob Lemke's original post - I don't think this is a legitimate variation.

[ScottFandango]

but what if it only happened in 9 cards?

then what ?

and what if the 9 cards had VERY low Pop reports (sgc and psa) compared to the rest of the set?

would that tell you anything?

thanks for your response

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by bijoem

Scott....

This is an interesting thread - - and I could sense excitement from you about these "shaded" cards.... but looking at the examples provided by you (especially your post at 7:49pm) - I am pretty confident that this is just poorly printed sheets.

Looking at the White Letter Mantle on eBay....
that is a variation. It is NOT a print defect at all. It was a purposeful removal of the yellow in the name / while leaving yellow elsewhere.

Personally - I wouldn't give this a new designation at all.

I don't mean to quell any enthusiasm.....
But to give an honest reply to Bob Lemke's original post - I don't think this is a legitimate variation.

Not a back guy but for what it is worth, I agree with this point. I checked my Boston AL team set and this one is kind of the only one I see with some shade.

[ScottFandango]

you would call this a poorly printed sheet?>

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by sox1903wschamp

Not a back guy but for what it is worth, I agree with this point. I checked my Boston AL team set and this one is kind of the only one I see with some shade.

thanks for posting

[ScottFandango]

just out of curiosity, i went through every Ebay E90-1 listing that had a good scan of the back and i couldnt find ONE shaded version....

what happened to those who said they would check their own cards?

whatever you want to call this , the fact is they dont show up often, and they predictably show up on certain cards only....

this isnt over.

[brianp-beme]

I have 16 different cards that have varying degrees of shading. I decided to concentrate my investigation on this by strictly looking at the parallel border lines that surround the card. I have four that are near fully shaded, five that are partly shaded, and seven that are just shaded in spots.

I think the key is that there are varying degrees of shading that are out there. It was mentioned that the only one of the cards that Robert showed in a previous post was the shaded variation...however those other two cards have areas in the border where there is some shading.

I think this spotty nature in the amount of shading dovetails nicely with the idea mentioned earlier about gunk not being cleaned out from the plates...Iggy the hunchback was always getting delayed with sweeping the larvae and dead insects from the printroom floor and neglected to clean off the plates, so runs of cards became progressively 'shaded'. So it is my belief that it is just a lack of quality control, just like cards that are seen with bad registration.

Just to throw out the cards with this 'issue' that I have:

Lots of border shading

Phelps
Overall
Miller
Fromme

Cards with more than half border shading

Marquard
Groom
Gray
Demmitt
Camnitz

Cards with just 'spot' of border shading

G.Davis
Davis
Leach
Keeler Pink
Brown
Bransfield Pink
Willis



Brian

[barrysloate]

To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.

Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.

[ubiqty]

I just looked at 16 new e90-1 cards I recently acquired and only the Phelps has the shading you are looking for. I'll check my others and respond back over the weekend.
Thanks,
Scott (ubiqty)

[caramelcard]

"It was mentioned that the only one of the cards that Robert showed in a previous post was the shaded variation...however those other two cards have areas in the border where there is some shading. "

Thanks Brian. That's what I tried to highlight with my post.

I have a few dozen that have no shading at all or maybe a touch here and there and then those three.

This is a neat printing gaffe and we might be able to pin it down to only several, specific cards that have the problem. I'm not sure it needs to be recognized in the SCD, but I'm glad that Scott pointed it out and that we were able to discuss it.

Rob

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.

Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.

why does have a variation HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE?

it was a mistake at the Press, i know that, they were never intended to be different....

BUT, it only shows up on specific cards, and it is not common...

if it happened only once, or it wasnt predictable, then it means nothing....

BUT ITS PREDICTABLE WHAT CARDS HAVE THIS...


PS....NO CARD, even the SHADED version, have ALL of the areas shaded...they have areas (especially the left border) that usually remains clear...


it must have been an older plate that was worn down, thus the spots that were meant NOT to have any ink, got some....BUT again, this doesnt happen in all the cards, and proves that some were created at different times (separate print run)...

we all know this set was made for a few years and nobody knows the series breakdown....

this could be the first step in deciphering a specific series print run within the set!!!

if this is predictable, no matter what you call it, why cant it be recognized?

wish Rich Klein would chime in (mr errors and variations)

Brian, your on the right track!

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by sox1903wschamp

Not a back guy but for what it is worth, I agree with this point. I checked my Boston AL team set and this one is kind of the only one I see with some shade.

is that the back of Schlitzer?