1910 COUPON Rossman....with EPDG wet-ink-transfer....and it's significance

[sb1]

Unfortunately, T206's and other cards of the era, often show what appears to be wet sheet transfer, but is really ink transfer when getting damp and stacked together. The Coupon card shows all the signs of being in a humid environment and sticking to the card stacked on top of it, which was obviously a EPDG. The small spot of adhered paper is part of the back of the EPDG card.

[tedzan]

Hi Scott

Pardon me, but I have disagree with you regarding this card. This EPDG "transfer" is not the result of long term "stacking" under humid conditions.

If it was due to such stacking, then the back of this card would show damage. However, as is obvious, the back is very clean.

I have gotten several opinions from other guys, who have looked at this card under magnification. And, I have yet to get an opinion that the EPDG
impression is not wet-ink-transfer.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Casey2296]

Is it just me or does Rossmans haunting look of stern expectation shout "y'all better get this right" once and for all.

[Tom S.]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Scott

Pardon me, but I have disagree with you regarding this card. This EPDG "transfer" is not the result of long term "stacking" under humid conditions.

If it was due to such stacking, then the back of this card would show damage. However, as is obvious, the back is very clean.

I have gotten several opinions from other guys, who have looked at this card under magnification. And, I have yet to get an opinion that the EPDG
impression is not wet-ink-transfer.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

The back does show damage. There is paper loss in the scroll design on the right edge.

[Luke]

Amazing card! It's definitely a post-factory transfer as Scott pointed out.

[RCMcKenzie]

At the very least, it shows that some collector in the past thought to group EPDG with COUPON. I have them in separate boxes today, but I understand why folks would group Coupons and Polar Bears with the other brands.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Luke

Amazing card! It's definitely a post-factory transfer as Scott pointed out.

What makes you think so, Luke? How can the factory wet ink transfer theory be totally ruled out?

[G1911]

+1 for after-production wet transfer.

In addition to the points already made about the damage clues, it doesn't make sense to me that Coupon and EPDG sheets would be stacked on each other in any scenario. I think Polar Bear is obviously T206, and T213-1 was produced alongside T206 in the same time frame (agnostic on if it should be rebranded from Burdick's numbering), but this doesn't fit. Sheets for different brands would go to different factories, and I doubt a press was running a sheet of EDPG, then a sheet of Coupon, etc. to be stacked on top of each other and mixed like this. That Coupon used an entirely different stock would also make this much less likely; it is far more likely that Coupon was its own production run as the evidence suggests was standard for the ALC/ATC partnership sets. Most cards with a wet sheet transfer of a different brand are probably after-the-fact in all of these issues.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1 for after-production wet transfer.

In addition to the points already made about the damage clues, it doesn't make sense to me that Coupon and EPDG sheets would be stacked on each other in any scenario. I think Polar Bear is obviously T206, and T213-1 was produced alongside T206 in the same time frame (agnostic on if it should be rebranded from Burdick's numbering), but this doesn't fit. Sheets for different brands would go to different factories, and I doubt a press was running a sheet of EDPG, then a sheet of Coupon, etc. to be stacked on top of each other and mixed like this. That Coupon used an entirely different stock would also make this much less likely; it is far more likely that Coupon was its own production run as the evidence suggests was standard for the ALC/ATC partnership sets. Most cards with a wet sheet transfer of a different brand are probably after-the-fact in all of these issues.

Although I differ with some of you, I appreciate everyone's opinion posted here.

G1911
American Lithographic printed all the white-bordered and gold-bordered cards (fronts and backs). These sheets were hung up to dry, then cut-up into cards and shipped
to the various Tobacco Factories.
Sheets of cards were NOT shipped to the Factories. Where do you get that from ?

Furthermore, many presses were operating in the process of producing Millions of these Tobacco cards. Stacking sheets of various brands of T206's is a well-known fact,
as we have seen quite a number of "wet-ink-transfers". Simply due to the rush to get these cards cut-down and shipped.

The EPDG impression is very faint, and perhaps my scan isn't sufficient to provide an accurate judgement without closely examining this card. If I come to the National,
I will bring this Rossman card with me for further discussions with you guys.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[nineunder71]

I have a few of these. And while I have also always been of the understanding that they are post-factory transfers, I struggle to say Definitely.

Here is a Tolstoi back with a Polar Bear transfer on the front.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by sb1

Unfortunately, T206's and other cards of the era, often show what appears to be wet sheet transfer, but is really ink transfer when getting damp and stacked together. The Coupon card shows all the signs of being in a humid environment and sticking to the card stacked on top of it, which was obviously a EPDG. The small spot of adhered paper is part of the back of the EPDG card.

Totally agree. Great point, Scott.