t206 "wet transfers": your current view

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

I have nothing to corroborate this, but I have seen a lot of Tolstois.

The fact that there are so many Tolstoi back images on Tolstoi fronts, makes me believe that these are wet sheet transfers, and that some property of the ink used for the Tolstois causes them to be more susceptible to wet sheet transfers. The storage transfers that I have seen have also resulted in the cards sticking together. But the storage idea is yet another interesting theory based on ....

[mrvster]

All are basically right here.....your card is a "storage" transfer what i like to call it... Franks is a true wet sheet....


Definitely tols are the most common, you guys hit it on the head.....
each case needs to be reveiwed to get a "feel" or probability of pre/post factory...


You'll notice them more of course on the light back ground cards more frequently....

true wet sheets definitely add value inmo.....depends on how dramatic they are ....i think the real deep ones are super cool, and beleive it or not, pretty rare(the real pronounced ones) i have scans, and i'll try to post...


easiest to acquire- yellow background tols.....

harer...deep ink on darker backgrounds...


i think freaky wet stacked backs are real cool....i'll try to post some scans...




freaky deaky t206 are what i'm into so i'm a little biased here..

[tjb1952tjb]

What do you guys think my Owen Wilson is....a "wet sheet" transfer or a "storage" transfer. It has a fairly pronounced Old Mill transfer. It's actually much more visible in hand. Also, the card has an Old Mill back. Just wanted your opinions. Thanks.

[Exhibitman]

Please explain to me how the ink off the back of a T206 can 'storage transfer' to another card yet we can soak a T206 for hours to remove it from a scrapbook with no loss of ink. Why doesn't the water in the soak free up the ink as well?

My answer is that there is no thing as a 'storage transfer'; it is wishful thinking. The ghosts we are seeing are from the original printing process.

[mrvster]

Adam,

You are mostly right....the majority of the transfers are factory.....but a small percentage are actually damage in storage like Gregs.....

Greg, imho, yours is after factory....

Tim, yours is a perfect example of a true wet sheet transfer, nice one btw...

[tjb1952tjb]

Originally Posted by mrvster

Adam,

You are mostly right....the majority of the transfers are factory.....but a small percentage are actually damage in storage like Gregs.....

Greg, imho, yours is after factory....

Tim, yours is a perfect example of a true wet sheet transfer, nice one btw...

Thanks for the confirmation......appreciated.

[mrvster]

Anytime Tim Great example.........

Great examples ....Tony, that was a nice Mcgraw.... my fav is John's clear Schei and the Phelan, but the Schlei is one of the nicest tols i have seen, or wet stacked fronts for that matter ....sorry they went back they were sweeeet!! but your cards are fing SICk John...man to own some of your gemz nice to drea........

Chris, i think those oddball are an example of "after the factory".....I'm glad u posted.......the top row u posted are wet stacked, 100% sure, done at factory altho im led to beleive the needham is a type of scrap....i'd need it in hand to tell for sure, tuf to tell, that was in a freak mastro lot years ago i beleive....i own a few cards that were in that freak lot...doesn't jump out, but needs to be seen....

THE BOTTOM ROW....Mcquillen and weimer are "iffy".....any different back/ askewed/water/fire damage cards are suspect.......

the weimer is and "iffy" .....i have a few like that ....they look more fire/water damaged.....the ink must have been tuf after factory to transfer, but i beleive intense situuations might lift a "light" extreme "light" amount off...


i am by no means an expert, this is just what i have gathered by collecting these since 1998.......

and purely debatable...


thanx for all input and insight and posts...


my scans are too large to post, trying to figure out how to reduce and post a few.... sorry....will play with them later...


KEEP POSTING YOUR EXAMPLES

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Please explain to me how the ink off the back of a T206 can 'storage transfer' to another card yet we can soak a T206 for hours to remove it from a scrapbook with no loss of ink. Why doesn't the water in the soak free up the ink as well?

My answer is that there is no thing as a 'storage transfer'; it is wishful thinking. The ghosts we are seeing are from the original printing process.

Adam as usual you say it best...I was long winded...but my same points..

[mrvster]

Beauties!!!!!

WOW!!

[wonkaticket]

Thanks, Johnny sadly back in the day I tossed most of these back into the trading pool and way better examples. I remember getting a killer Cobb bat off that would be a 5-6 today with a deep deep black Old Mill transfer dead center so deep it hid a portion of the bat.

I remember going ughhh and getting rid of the card even funnier nobody else wanted it either took forever to trade. These cards were total trash 20+ years ago you were bummed to have them...if I could only go back and keep what I tossed..ughhh but everyobody has that story in this hobby.

Cheers,

John

[danmckee]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Please explain to me how the ink off the back of a T206 can 'storage transfer' to another card yet we can soak a T206 for hours to remove it from a scrapbook with no loss of ink. Why doesn't the water in the soak free up the ink as well?

My answer is that there is no thing as a 'storage transfer'; it is wishful thinking. The ghosts we are seeing are from the original printing process.

Correct Adam, I say no way, all are factory wet sheet.

As a known card soaker, NEVER has any of the ink been affected.

Also, having found and handled many raw collections over the years, never did a group have a bunch of transfers in it.

Factory only is my vote, I have about a half dozen of these, I will try to scan later.

[FrankWakefield]

You two ever soak a white border card in gasoline, or kerosene?


I'm not saying these cards were thus soaked.


You two don't carry white border cards unsleeved in your pants pockets. But kids 100 years ago did. When I was a kid I'd have gasoline on my hands, and pants, from time to time... easy for me to envision that stuff like that would have come in contact with cards back when the ink on them was a few months to a year old, instead of 100 years old. Besides, some of the transfers illogically match up to what would be a printing wet sheet transfer. I think we'll continue to perceive these differently.

[steve B]

The inks used in lithography are oil based, so water won't affect them at all.

Soaking with something other than water might cause a transfer.
The ones with a different brand are probably from something like that.

A mixed brand transfer is possible, but it would take a pretty special set of circumstances.

Steve B

[srs1a]

My only examples. The Joss is pretty light in the scan, but you can make out the "O" in Old Mill to the right of his head. The WaJo is pretty cool, I think.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

You two ever soak a white border card in gasoline, or kerosene?

Actually, I can speak to that. Some years ago I purchased a small collection of original find T cards. One of them was a T202 w/Cobb that had been dipped in oil/gas/kerosene or whatever by the original card owner--definitely a petrochemical. The card was dark brown with oil and felt slick. The inks were not affected in the slightest.

I decided to clean the card because it was ruined anyway. I checked with a conservation expert and was told that a 90 year old oil stain would never fully release but that repeated baths in bestine [an artists' solvent used to remove oil-based materials like rubber cement or paint] would remove as much of the oil as could be removed. I bought a can of the stuff and put the card through repeated soaks in it until the fluid was clear, meaning no more oil to leach out of the card. I then dried the card.

The soaks, or perhaps the effect of the oil over the decades, turned the white cardboard grayish. It was obvious and plain to see. The inks themselves on the card were not affected at all. I've encountered other cards from the T era with similar discolorations at shows and I know that they were dipped and stripped, so to speak. Anyone who has any experience with T cards could never mistake them for anything remotely close to factory released condition. I sold the card--with full disclosure--to a budget-conscious collector who was pleased to get a T202 Cobb at a fraction of the price of a nice one.

Now, I have no doubt that a real nasty industrial solvent or bleach could remove colored printing from a card, but the damage would be profound and obvious, and would not lend itself to the sort of clean reversed images we see. What we are discussing is adding something to the card, not destroying original inks. Very different and much tougher to add something than to destroy something. I have examined thousands of white bordered T cards and many transfer-type cards--I've been actively searching for them for years--and I have never seen any transfer that appeared to be from other than an original printing. Perhaps transfers are one reason why modern printed materials like cards have a clear coat applied to the paper after the last of the inks--if you soak a modern card you will see that it curls, which is due to the coating not releasing like the uncoated card backs do.

As for the prevalence, I see lots of Tolstoi, relatively speaking, with back transfers to the card fronts. Had to be something with the original ink used. I'm still trying to figure out WTF transferred to this card:

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Please explain to me how the ink off the back of a T206 can 'storage transfer' to another card yet we can soak a T206 for hours to remove it from a scrapbook with no loss of ink. Why doesn't the water in the soak free up the ink as well?

My answer is that there is no thing as a 'storage transfer'; it is wishful thinking. The ghosts we are seeing are from the original printing process.

I tend to agree with this. Great thread, I love this subject- Tony, here's a Tolstoi I got from you awhile back (thanks again ).

Great cards everyone !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[Pat R]

...

[WillowGrove]

Just acquired it and found this thread in doing some research. Hope the pictures show it as clear as how it looks on the card.

The word Bear from Polar Bear under where his jersey says 'York'. Been staring at it closely under a light and it's cool because I can also see the letters cco from tobacco on the front to the right of his right ear.

I'm still researching the value we (you specific collectors in this thread!) put on them, but thought you'd like to see.

Wonka - your story reminded me of buying 2-3 Hindu backs around 1990 at the Philly show to fill out my want list and feeling disappointed to having to resort to adding these 'different' backs to my set. And they cost me more money!

[wonkaticket]

Tolstoi’s agree seem to be the most available, Old Mill and Sweet Cap are there too. I’ve had a few EPDG’s along with a few Piedmonts and Cycles. I’ve seen some Polar Bears too that look really cool in other folks collections.

For me I don’t think this is a storage thing. It just doesn’t make sense to me. If this ink under the right set of circumstances was so quick to bleed off onto the front of the cards. Then it would be safe to reason we would have just as many front images of players showing up on backs in rough outlines, as we do ghostly outlines of advertising brands on the fronts. Yet we don’t….

Heat, humidity etc. can do some crazy stuff to cards no doubt. However based upon personal experience I haven’t seen this storage transfer in my experience. I’ve been lucky enough over the years to find lots of t-cards including large finds of T206’s in all shapes and forms. I’ve pulled them from hot attics in the Deep South, trunks in basements, musty old barns to damp antique shops…ahhh those were the days. I spent a lot of time in my youth cherry picking cards for my collection and remember sorting through all sorts of stacks of cards. Occasionally you would find one or two like the above but for the most part it was an oddity.

If it’s happening from storage it must be a special set of just the right circumstances for this to occur. For me I’ve seen my fair share of different circumstances/conditions yet they never really yielded any large grouping of the above.

I think the more obvious is more likely the cause of these, stacked sheets fresh from printing at different stages of dampness in terms of the sheet coming off the press.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

John