Print Error or Fading 1933 Goudey?

[CK]

Originally Posted by chadeast

I think your Cissell is just dirty, or 'toned', like so many yellow background '33s that I've owned. I overpaid for a number of my yellow backgrounds just to get them clean, many of my last cards that I needed to finish the set were of the yellow variety. I probably treasure my clean yellow background commons above all other commons, and probably some star cards too. I still don't have a nice looking Bartell.

To be fair Chad, the Cissell is a bit dirty from handling over the years but in hand absolutely has the similar dots. The same goes for my 29 Foxx and many others.
See pic, Both Foxx are dirty, the one on the left is dirty and has dots.

Also, a few examples of less dirty yellow cards.

[steve B]

It's a bit hard to tell much from the small pictures, but there are a few explanations that make sense.

First, the lighter card could be faded. But the red is very similar, and red usually fades first.

The next two are related, and may even be combined. I checked a few Goudeys, and the blue is done in two passes, a light one and a dark one.

Second, and this is common, the inks were mixed by hand and can vary some depending on how the press operator interpreted the recepie for the exact shade desired. Both blues are lighter than usual.

Third, the dark blue may be underinked. The operator can control the amount of ink applied to the plate, and for some reason may have run it light that day.
(The water wetting the plate can also be adjusted, with similar results if a bit too much is used. )

[Keith H. Thompson]

about the reprint sets that Ed Brooks (think I have the name right) put out I believe in the sixties? These were advertised as "so good you can't tell the difference" and they sold very, very well. Dealers like Lew Lipset were infuriated as were others. If I can find them, I have copies of the original advertising to confirm.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by Keith H. Thompson

about the reprint sets that Ed Brooks (think I have the name right) put out I believe in the sixties? These were advertised as "so good you can't tell the difference" and they sold very, very well. Dealers like Lew Lipset were infuriated as were others. If I can find them, I have copies of the original advertising to confirm.

It was Charlie Brooks in the 70's according to a few sources. They have black printing on the back instead of green so are less of a concern, as I understand it. The Galassos from the 80's are more popular with scammers, with the Ruth "novelty" cards among the most popular with these scum since there are no reprint markings on those. Pretty easy to spot when you know what to look for, and once you have the card in hand a 10x loupe (if that) is all you really need to identify the real deal vs. anything else.

[CK]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's a bit hard to tell much from the small pictures, but there are a few explanations that make sense.

First, the lighter card could be faded. But the red is very similar, and red usually fades first.

The next two are related, and may even be combined. I checked a few Goudeys, and the blue is done in two passes, a light one and a dark one.

Second, and this is common, the inks were mixed by hand and can vary some depending on how the press operator interpreted the recepie for the exact shade desired. Both blues are lighter than usual.

Third, the dark blue may be underinked. The operator can control the amount of ink applied to the plate, and for some reason may have run it light that day.
(The water wetting the plate can also be adjusted, with similar results if a bit too much is used. )

Not sure if this photo will render larger but here’s a shot.

My line of thinking is similar to what you describe, the red would fade first and I assume the blue would fade more evenly. Also, the outline of his figure is more narrow than usual, possibly due to less ink or a missed pass.