63 Topps Mantle - Possible Print Variation? Unfinished Proof?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Even though the colors aren't laid individually on modern cards if a less than observant pressman let the yellow ink run out it can happen.

Really modern stuff is probably on a multi color press, but I believe most cards up to 92 at least the colors were done individually. Even on a multi color press, they sort of are. I'm not aware of any litho presses that can do multiple colors from the same plate. (Intaglio yes, but those aren't used for cards, and maybe aren't even used for stamps anymore.)

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by steve B

Really modern stuff is probably on a multi color press, but I believe most cards up to 92 at least the colors were done individually. Even on a multi color press, they sort of are. I'm not aware of any litho presses that can do multiple colors from the same plate. (Intaglio yes, but those aren't used for cards, and maybe aren't even used for stamps anymore.)

I don't disagree but unlike T206's they weren't removed from a press and fed through another press to apply the separate color where a color could just be "missed". Maybe I'm early on the multicolor press I assumed they were in use by the 1950's. My problem with the fading theory is the black, especially in the head shot in the blue field is very strong.

Ben, the Spahn is an eye-opener for sure. I would have agreed even before I saw your card that green absolutely can fade to blue, as colors fade at different rates, but on the card in question I just keep coming back to the ONLY color I see missing is yellow. I see Cyan, Magenta and Black that don't appear faded to me.

[packs]

The reason I think this card goes beyond a simple sun soaking is that the coloring of the blue is so uniform.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't disagree but unlike T206's they weren't removed from a press and fed through another press to apply the separate color where a color could just be "missed". Maybe I'm early on the multicolor press I assumed they were in use by the 1950's. My problem with the fading theory is the black, especially in the head shot in the blue field is very strong.

Ben, the Spahn is an eye-opener for sure. I would have agreed even before I saw your card that green absolutely can fade to blue, as colors fade at different rates, but on the card in question I just keep coming back to the ONLY color I see missing is yellow. I see Cyan, Magenta and Black that don't appear faded to me.

Put that card beside a normal one and you will see a big difference in the black under magnification. I have faded a 63 in the sun before. One big misconception is all faded cards look alike. That is far far from the truth, different years and different brands fade differently. I got tired of getting ripped off so I done a ton of experimenting on so called "print errors".

[ALR-bishop]

Sun or light impacted but still kind of neat

[packs]

Would sun be the explanation for the Mays turning the colors it did? That back change is pretty interesting.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't disagree but unlike T206's they weren't removed from a press and fed through another press to apply the separate color where a color could just be "missed". Maybe I'm early on the multicolor press I assumed they were in use by the 1950's. My problem with the fading theory is the black, especially in the head shot in the blue field is very strong.

Ben, the Spahn is an eye-opener for sure. I would have agreed even before I saw your card that green absolutely can fade to blue, as colors fade at different rates, but on the card in question I just keep coming back to the ONLY color I see missing is yellow. I see Cyan, Magenta and Black that don't appear faded to me.

Originally Posted by bnorth

Put that card beside a normal one and you will see a big difference in the black under magnification. I have faded a 63 in the sun before. One big misconception is all faded cards look alike. That is far far from the truth, different years and different brands fade differently. I got tired of getting ripped off so I done a ton of experimenting on so called "print errors".

A lot of black ink uses carbon black or lamp black as the colorant, and will not fade. That Ben has gotten a change in the black means that at least for 63 (Maybe just a portion of 63) They used ink with a chemical colorant.
Most chemical colorants for black are quite resistant to fading.

[steve B]

As an entirely separate aside, I've seen a few things that make me think some portion of T206 production was done on a 2 color press. Nothing I'd hold out as certain proof, but I think a strong case can be made for it.

I'm not sure when Topps would have switched to multi-color presses. Even on some of those it's possible to run sheets with only one color, usually during setup.

I feel very confident that 1982 Topps were done on 2 color presses. This card shows evidence of a massive adjustment to the registration over at least 4 revolutions on both black and magenta.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve B

A lot of black ink uses carbon black or lamp black as the colorant, and will not fade. That Ben has gotten a change in the black means that at least for 63 (Maybe just a portion of 63) They used ink with a chemical colorant.
Most chemical colorants for black are quite resistant to fading.

I have found with black it turns from a deep dark shiny black to a dull greyish black.

[ALR-bishop]

Agreed on the black. Have several variants with that defect

[packs]

Updating an old thread of mine. Saw this similar Mantle in the current Hunt auction. Guess it's possible both cards faded the same way, but wondering again if it's a repeated defect. Here they are side by side:

https://huntauctions.com/live/imagev...=213&lot_qual=

[JollyElm]

I obviously could be wrong, but to me there is no question it is sun faded. Here's a random 1963 Mantle from ebay...

s-l1600-3.jpg49227112593_9754d9404c_c.jpg

Like your scan, the blue circle is still blue, but yours is a very faded blue (which shouldn't/wouldn't have been affected by a dearth of yellow), and the rectangle 'text box' is a different shade of blue than the circle, and you can 'see' some green (depends on how good someone's vision is, I guess) there. It's subtle, but it is a lighter, bleached out green (same with the under side of his hat). Plus, as was implied earlier, the entire card is lighter all over and across the entire color spectrum, telling me it either spent a lot of time in the sunlight or was held by some bikini babe in a tanning bed (wanted to sex up this post a bit).

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I obviously could be wrong, but to me there is no question it is sun faded. Here's a random 1963 Mantle from ebay...

Attachment 377055Attachment 377062

Like your scan, the blue circle is still blue, but yours is a very faded blue (which shouldn't/wouldn't have been affected by a dearth of yellow), and the rectangle 'text box' is a different shade of blue than the circle, and you can 'see' some green (depends on how good someone's vision is, I guess) there. It's subtle, but it is a lighter, bleached out green (same with the under side of his hat). Plus, as was implied earlier, the entire card is lighter all over and across the entire color spectrum, telling me it either spent a lot of time in the sunlight or was held by some bikini babe in a tanning bed (wanted to sex up this post a bit).

I will tell you, Darren(if that is your real name), any woman that spent that much time in a tanning bed would not be a babe.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will tell you, Darren(if that is your real name), any woman that spent that much time in a tanning bed would not be a babe.

Well, you have to understand that when she first laid down, she was a bikini babe. If she continually overdid it, then she moved herself into the beef jerky section of the human supermarket.