Color "error" variations in t206 cards

[teetwoohsix]

Interesting thread, I've been following this and will add some thoughts.

I've always felt the way Rob and Ted have, that sun exposure wouldn't remove all of the red in a card-and, I still pretty much feel that way. I may be wrong, but usually some cards missing red , where you can still see a touch of red (like that Cobb, for instance) can have another explanation.

As you can see in the corner of the Cobb, Chris is right- that corner shows it was tucked in a photo holder, commonly seen in old photo albums where you have one on the upper right, and one on the lower left.

So, I wonder about this- most pages in old photo albums are black. Could whatever they use to dye the pages black react to the red ink over time? That could explain why it did not affect the corner that was tucked, but the bottom of the top page laying flat on the card, over time, reacted with the red ink? Not sure, but something to think about?

The other cards on the montage- can't help but wonder about glue reaction (chemical reaction) on those cards....they all look heavily glued on....

Some people in the past have likened the sun exposure thing to a can that has sit in the sun, and over time the image faded......but, that's an image on aluminum or tin- the sun heats it up a lot hotter than the sun heating up paper? It seems like the sun would heat up a metal more than it would paper? So, I don't think that is conclusive (apples to oranges?).

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Keep in mind, these cards can be soaked and not lose any of the red. It's hard to imaging sun could remove it but water can't.

Again, I may be wrong. These are just my thoughts on this, and I am not a scientist. The Willis portrait is mostly found in red, but you also have many found in this burgundy type of color. Was this deliberate? The Abstein, mostly found in red, but many are found in orange-was this deliberate? Or, did that many Absteins get exposed to sunlight for too long? Sort of seems deliberate to me, because of how many examples have this color of orange. And, this Donie Bush card....look how red it is. Does anyone have an orange Donie Bush card? If so, are there any signs of glue residue on the back?

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Interesting thread, I've been following this and will add some thoughts.

I've always felt the way Rob and Ted have, that sun exposure wouldn't remove all of the red in a card-and, I still pretty much feel that way. I may be wrong, but usually some cards missing red , where you can still see a touch of red (like that Cobb, for instance) can have another explanation.

As you can see in the corner of the Cobb, Chris is right- that corner shows it was tucked in a photo holder, commonly seen in old photo albums where you have one on the upper right, and one on the lower left.

So, I wonder about this- most pages in old photo albums are black. Could whatever they use to dye the pages black react to the red ink over time? That could explain why it did not affect the corner that was tucked, but the bottom of the top page laying flat on the card, over time, reacted with the red ink? Not sure, but something to think about?

The other cards on the montage- can't help but wonder about glue reaction (chemical reaction) on those cards....they all look heavily glued on....

Some people in the past have likened the sun exposure thing to a can that has sit in the sun, and over time the image faded......but, that's an image on aluminum or tin- the sun heats it up a lot hotter than the sun heating up paper? It seems like the sun would heat up a metal more than it would paper? So, I don't think that is conclusive (apples to oranges?).

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Keep in mind, these cards can be soaked and not lose any of the red. It's hard to imaging sun could remove it but water can't.

Again, I may be wrong. These are just my thoughts on this, and I am not a scientist. The Willis portrait is mostly found in red, but you also have many found in this burgundy type of color. Was this deliberate? The Abstein, mostly found in red, but many are found in orange-was this deliberate? Or, did that many Absteins get exposed to sunlight for too long? Sort of seems deliberate to me, because of how many examples have this color of orange. And, this Donie Bush card....look how red it is. Does anyone have an orange Donie Bush card? If so, are there any signs of glue residue on the back?

Sincerely, Clayton

Sun exposure will fade many red pigments, especially ones derived from natural sources.

Cochineal produces the brightest reds, and sets better than most protein based fibers. In other words It won't easily wash out of wool. It was widely used before cheaper stuff came along, and has made a comeback in food and cosmetics since many of the synthetics are suspected or proven carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal

The main points
"In artists' paints, it has been replaced by synthetic reds and is largely unavailable for purchase due to poor lightfastness."

"Cochineal is one of the few water-soluble colourants that resist degradation with time. It is one of the most light- and heat-stable and oxidation-resistant of all the natural organic colourants and is even more stable than many synthetic food colours."

One of the replacements for it, Alizarin or Rose Madder, is also not particularly lightfast. But it could be made from coal tar rather than the labor intensive insect harvesting for Cochineal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_madder

"As all madder-based pigments are notoriously fugitive, artists have long sought a more permanent and lightfast replacement for Rose Madder and Alizarin"

Those were the two main sources of red in the 1910 era. Both are fine in water, but not great in sunlight. (Sunlight stable reds didn't come along until after 1958)

One of the big surprises in the lot with sun exposure was that the pink which I'd believed to be simply a red mixed with white appears entirely unaffected.


It's possible some chemical put off by the glue or by the cardboard could affect the bright red and other colors. I simply don't know enough chemistry to be sure.
I do know the common red pigments that made up probably around 90% of the red dye/pigment market at the time were probe to fading from light.
So going with the simple explanation seems to work.

I'd be happy to have a real chemist give an explanation either way.

Steve B

[MVSNYC]

Hi Ted- there is no question in my mind that many years of sun/light exposure faded the cards in that montage. no question. everything is pretty much evenly faded (yes, some more than others, but overall, almost every card looks to have been effected by UV exposure). for example, not sure if you were ever out in Los Angeles, but many many buildings, billboards, posters, murals, etc, etc, are very "sunbleached" due to years of sun exposure. almost everything out there has a washed-out look. furthermore, i've owned several framed posters (this was when i was younger before i spent the money to use UV glass on everything i frame) that were certainly faded over time from being on a wall that was washed with sunlight. in fact, some of the items didn't have direct sunlight, but simply light from the room, be it ambient sunlight or fluorescents.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I think it's possible that the red could dull a little over time due to prolonged sun exposure, but it's hard to imagine it would make the red completely disappear-I would think you would be able to clearly see some of the red still.

Sincerely, Clayton

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I quoted myself ^^ because I understand that the UV rays can dull the red-I just have a hard time thinking that it would completely remove the whole color. And, I know that the major TPG's use a UV protective plastic in their slabs for this reason.

But, will it remove all traces of red? In John's poster (thanks for posting that by the way), you can see the UV rays degraded the color red, but you can still tell it was red. It didn't remove the whole color.

Back to the cards.....if those cards weren't glued on to that poster, it would be a little easier to conclude that all of the fading was because of prolonged sunlight-but the fact that they are glued on, makes me wonder if it was the glue-or-a combination of both.

Now, here's why this topic is important (IMO)- if, as some of you are saying- the red can disappear completely due to prolonged exposure to sun/UV rays- how can one tell a legitimate card that is missing a red pass to one that has been exposed to the sun? I mean, in theory couldn't someone take their cards to a tanning salon, put them under one of those tanning beds for a few sessions, and *POOF* create a "missing red pass" card?

Great discussion, very interesting....

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. I quoted myself ^^ because I understand that the UV rays can dull the red-I just have a hard time thinking that it would completely remove the whole color. And, I know that the major TPG's use a UV protective plastic in their slabs for this reason.

But, will it remove all traces of red? In John's poster (thanks for posting that by the way), you can see the UV rays degraded the color red, but you can still tell it was red. It didn't remove the whole color.

Back to the cards.....if those cards weren't glued on to that poster, it would be a little easier to conclude that all of the fading was because of prolonged sunlight-but the fact that they are glued on, makes me wonder if it was the glue-or-a combination of both.

Now, here's why this topic is important (IMO)- if, as some of you are saying- the red can disappear completely due to prolonged exposure to sun/UV rays- how can one tell a legitimate card that is missing a red pass to one that has been exposed to the sun? I mean, in theory couldn't someone take their cards to a tanning salon, put them under one of those tanning beds for a few sessions, and *POOF* create a "missing red pass" card?

Great discussion, very interesting....

Sincerely, Clayton

What I did with the ones from the lot I bought was to look for signs that the ink was still there. My theory was that the ink has a different glossiness than the cardboard, so a card showing the white of the cardboard where bright red should be would be glossy for a faded card and not glossy for a missing color. (Glossy being relative here)

What I saw was one card that was glossy where the red should have been and one that wasn't. So either I was wrong - the most likely answer. Or I'd gotten one faded card and one legit missing color.

One thing I've noticed is that many of the actual missing colors are missing more than one color.
And that color variations can be caused by the level of inking. The colors that usually show up with heavier inking making the card look different are Gray, pink, and blue.
Most of the 350s come with two different bright red layers. Something I think is a legitimate variety I haven't really studied them in detail, but I think it may be a difference between 350 only runs and the later ones carried over to 350/460. And they probably all got redone again for the 460 series.

The farther I get into this stuff the more questions I find. And the answers are increasingly difficult.

Steve B

[wonkaticket]

Ted, my point was very simple. You made a comment above that you now are avoiding or twisting. You said that in all your years of collecting you have yet to see a T206 that showed signs of missing color due to exposure to sun or artificial light.

This is nothing new to any collector especially one with years of collecting. Exposure damage is real, known and and seen quite often.....not only in our world but many other collecting worlds.

Sometimes I think you almost take the polar opposite side just to debate. If someone said tobacco cards were issued with tobacco you would announce that you had a theory that they were put out with pudding.

John

[caramelcard]

John,

I'm not Ted, but I had the same stance in this case.

It's funny that you mention taking the polar opposite side just to debate because that's what I feel you guys are doing in this case.

Most of the T206 color errors are not due to sunlight. There's not a ton of T206 collections bathing in the sun. Would you agree?

Rob

[wonkaticket]

Robert, where did I say most or mention any percentage of cards with color variations are due to just UV damage?

I'm simply pointing out That UV can be a cause and is not something that is never seen or some odd occurrence that is hardly seen as announced so boldly by Ted and his statement.

I would also disagree with you that T206s aren't sitting in the sun, folk art and displaying cards either glued, pinned or stuck up was common use for these premiums upon issue. Cards don't have sit in the sun for 100 years to be affected.

Cheers,

John

[caramelcard]

Fair enough. But I believe it is an odd occurrence and it's rarely seen. I've handled a ton of them and I know you have too. How many have you had that struck you as altered by the sun?

[MVSNYC]

The majority of color error cards are legit, and are missing color passes and/or were printer's scraps with a variety of (cool) issues...I think what John & I were responding to, was whether or not sun can fade colors on cards, posters, etc...which I think several people have now confirmed it can do lots of damage...I'm at a resort right now, and they have a lounge with a library of books next to the fireplace (sunlight hits the bookshelf)...on most of the older books, the exposed edge is totally faded. See attached.