t206 "wet transfers": your current view

[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

[mrvster]

Wonks....

btw....i remember when you told me those stories!!my heart sinks about that!! i hope you can maybe re unite with some of those gemz one day back in your collection, altho ur collection is top shelf.....keep looking for my wags

[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

[3-2-count]

I to wish I had back some of the ones I let go years ago. Still have this one though similar to Johns Gandil.

[atx840]

Great examples everyone.



These ones are oddballs, different front/back transfers. Tolsoi/Piedmont & SC/Piedmont.

[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.

[Pat R]

...

[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:

[wonkaticket]

Good post Adam. No idea what that is BTW neat card.

[Abravefan11]

As I said in my initial, it’s my opinion that many of the transfers being discussed happened during the storage of the cards and not the printing process. This is based on looking at many examples of T206 transfers and the conclusions that I have drawn from doing so. I’m sure others will have a different opinion and I don’t begrudge them that. It’s all good information to consider.

The card below is a great example of what I believe to be a transfer that happened during storage.



Given how the T206 cards were printed and packed for distribution to their factories, I can’t come up with a plausible explanation for how a wet Sweet Caporal back would have transferred onto a Polar Bear card at the press. The Polar Bear and Sweet Caporal cards went to different factories and couldn’t have been printed on the same press without the stone being changed. It makes little sense to intermingle the product after printing and then to resort it for distribution after cutting. Anything is possible, I just don’t find it likely.

Next if you overlay an image of a Sweet Caporal back onto the Overall you see where the top card only covers half of the right side border of the Overall. A close look at the unaltered Overall image shows a distinct line running down the middle of the right hand border. I believe that his was where the edge of the top card stopped leaving the remainder of the Overall border exposed. The edge between the two was a place for discoloration or grim to build up and produce the visible line.



I don’t think that this transfer process can be reproduced by soaking a card for a number of hours or even weeks. I don’t profess to know the recipe but I would guess humidity, pressure, and time would all play a role. Without the right mixture it’s unlikely that we could reproduce the results. I think this process was extremely slow and the factor of time would limit most of us from being able to reproduce the results.

I’m not saying wet sheet transfers don’t exist. I just don’t believe all transfers happened at the time of printing. Again it’s just my opinion shared for the discussion.

[atx840]

I'd have to agree with Tim on a few of these. Here is one I have that looks more of an environmentally caused transfer.

Side note - I have seen a 649 SC back transferred on to a notebook sheet that was soaked off a card, likely due to the glue used.



Johnny I think you mean this one......very nice transfer.

[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!