Blue Old Mill T206 Walsh at Chantilly Show - My Opinion Has Changed

[E93]

The nearly universal opinion of many T206 experts and veteran hobbyists who saw the card in person at the National was that it was real, unaltered, and blue (not faded black). To my knowledge Jason was the first person who has actually seen the card in person to suggest otherwise and he mentioned that lighting may have been the cause. One can see from the photos that it is a different color than the black Old Mills. He did not question the authenticity or unaltered status of the card.
JimB

[prewarsports]

OK

So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?

[CW]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

OK

So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it may actually be true... back collectors are, simply put, crazy. They are an entirely different breed. Have you seen some of their collages? They're obsessed with the backs of cards, of all things!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by CW

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it may actually be true... back collectors are, simply put, crazy. They are an entirely different breed. Have you seen some of their collages? They're obsessed with the backs of cards, of all things!

Good point.

If anyone wants to pay exorbitantly for a print flaw please buy one of mine; I can use the cash

[steve B]

The typical black ink used in printing is some form of carbon -usually either lampblack or carbonblack - mixed with a hardening oil like linseed oil.
Being carbon IT DOES NOT FADE Not to blue, not to any other color. Not over time- carbon remains black essentially forever unless you've got enough heat and pressure to change it to its diamond form. And even then it may still be black.

It can be printed lightly and appear gray. Only because it does not have 100% coverage of the underlying material.

Steve B

[E93]

Originally Posted by steve B

The typical black ink used in printing is some form of carbon -usually either lampblack or carbonblack - mixed with a hardening oil like linseed oil.
Being carbon IT DOES NOT FADE Not to blue, not to any other color. Not over time- carbon remains black essentially forever unless you've got enough heat and pressure to change it to its diamond form. And even then it may still be black.

It can be printed lightly and appear gray. Only because it does not have 100% coverage of the underlying material.

Steve B

Good point.

Also, if it were simply a matter of some type of natural fading or light exposure, we would have seen many of these before fading from black old mill, black lenox, black tolstoi, etc.
JimB

[ctownboy]

"A $200-$300 card being worth 100X the value because the black ink may have faded into a bluish color on the back is (in my opinion) the absolute dumbest thing I have seen in 25 years of prewar card collecting."

I prefer to collect rare cards (Star Player Candy, Curtis Ireland, etc) and things that are off the beaten track BUT after having read so much about this card, if I owned it and someone had offered me $30,000 in cash for it, I wouldn't have been able to get my hand out fast enough to say "done deal".

This card might be real and it might have come from the printer 100 years ago just as it is, however, for 30 large, I would let someone else be on the hook for that gamble and let them worry about it not being real. That way, if for some reason it isn't what it is reported to be, THEY can get the lawyers involved and fight with the TPG over reimbursement.....

David

[Rob D.]

I guess this means the person who buys it should not post it in a Net54 pickups thread.

[calvindog]

I'm already planning on reading that the card is undergraded by two full grades and if I want to see it I'll need to send an email for scans.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I'm already planning on reading that the card is undergraded by two full grades and if I want to see it I'll need to send an email for scans.

Don't forget, "Listening to Offers!"

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

OK

So why are there no differences between front color variances? We know that ALL T206 cards can have color variations where the blue is darker on some cards than others or the red is orange on some cards etc. Why is this considered normal color variations on the card fronts but a slight color variance (so slight that people who see it in person cant even agree) but on the back it is 100X more valuable?

Once again Rhys has nailed it. There are endless front color variations that garner several hundred dollars. But when the ink on the back reveals a slightly bluish tint, why is it worth well into five figures? Many of us are baffled by it.

I've never seen the card in person, but I've never questioned the expertise of those who did. I do believe it is original and unaltered and that the ink is at minimum a bluish black color. But nobody has a clue how it got that way- it's possible it was due to some chemical reaction to the black ink long after printing. And I realize some feel that is impossible but there still are variables that we don't even know about.

I think the card is nothing more than an interesting anomaly. That said, I expect a few guys with a lot of extra cash to run the bidding up into the tens of thousands of dollars. More power to them.

[Leon]

"Lighting" definitely makes a difference on how the color looks. At least it did to me.

[Pat R]

..

[glynparson]

I love both Jeff and Barry's posts. I agree with Barry's and Jeff's really made me laugh. Not that Jeff's probably isnt correct as well. I love cards always have but I wouldn't pay 15k for the card if I had Bill Gates's money but to each his own.