63 Topps Mantle - Possible Print Variation? Unfinished Proof?

[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=

[GasHouseGang]

If someone had a Mantle that was graded a 2 or 2.5 and they found out they could put it in the sun for awhile and then get double or triple the money, I'm sure lots of people would do it. (I am not trying to imply anyone on the board is trying to do that. I'm just pointing out it's possible someone could try it)

[ALR-bishop]

I think that is exactly what happened with the 58 Aarons. Once the Blue Aaron was discovered and brought a premium others set out to create them and more showed up. It is risky to screw with an major star card but if it is a lower grade to begin with and people will pay a premium for a version that looks different, why not.

Says me who bought a blue Aaron and Mays, but not so far a Mantle

I do have a set of 82 blackless and those cards otherwise look vibrant color wise. But I have a few 68 Blackless and they have an overall washed out look

[clydepepper]

My two cents:

The back of the card looks just fine.


I'll be here all week.


.