T206 Paper Stock

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

It depends on the difference. A stock variation, printed on two distinctly different types, is a variation. A card that has 'printing issues' is generally considered damage. OC, MC, PD etc., they are held against the grade. A card that is miscut is not a variation by any standard I have ever heard.

Again, a difference does not a variation make. Age-related toning, as you grouped in with actual stock variations in post 12, is not a variation. It simply is not.

I am well aware that many sets were printed on multiple stocks; I post regularly on the post-war board about many of the 'unrecognized' ones. 53 Bowman Color definitely has 2 stocks, 52/54/60 all have long recognized blatant stock differences. I would need to see any actual evidence that 1961 Topps has a thicker stock type variant to believe the claim (as should always be the case to believe any claim about anything).

Your claim wasn't that some sets have stock variations, a claim everyone would agree with as the evidence is clear that this is so. Your claim you chose to make was that every single set ever made has stock variations. This is an absurd claim that is blatantly false. It's an easier narrative, but it is untrue.

Then what do you call it when the stocks are obviously different? I'm getting really sick of your know it all, smug "absurd" and "blatantly false" statements. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Good luck with your search for whatever you are trying to accomplish here, which would appear to be to somehow make rocket science out of cheap, disposable cardboard. I am done trying to get through to you.

[jingram058]

G1911, please cease and desist in any further replies that include me, or any further discussion with anything I have stated. I am done with this thread.

[steve B]

Well ok, one day I had my digital calipers out so I randomly checked maybe 20 T206s.
What I found was that they were remarkably consistent. Which is a little unusual for paper produced around 1909-1911. especially with samples made two -three years apart.

I haven't checked stiffness, for a couple reasons. First it's a little bit risky. Second, so many of my T206s are beaters that will obviously not be as stiff.

That stiffness is related to fiber length and what and how much sizing was used in making the cardstock.

I have noticed gloss differences, some related to the inks themselves, others probably related to the cardstock being coated or not (actually more likely not coated much) The less coated stock will absorb the ink better giving a matte appearance and usually more muted colors. A coated stock forces the ink to sit on the surface and since the colors are semi transparent they appaear brighter.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Sterling Sports Auctions

I ask because in my experiences I have found that there seems to be T206s that have firmer paper stock and some that seem to have a bit smoother finish than other that have been fine.

Lee

Originally Posted by steve B

Well ok, one day I had my digital calipers out so I randomly checked maybe 20 T206s.
What I found was that they were remarkably consistent. Which is a little unusual for paper produced around 1909-1911. especially with samples made two -three years apart.

I haven't checked stiffness, for a couple reasons. First it's a little bit risky. Second, so many of my T206s are beaters that will obviously not be as stiff.

That stiffness is related to fiber length and what and how much sizing was used in making the cardstock.

I have noticed gloss differences, some related to the inks themselves, others probably related to the cardstock being coated or not (actually more likely not coated much) The less coated stock will absorb the ink better giving a matte appearance and usually more muted colors. A coated stock forces the ink to sit on the surface and since the colors are semi transparent they appaear brighter.

I think I know what Lee is talking about especially regarding the firmer paper stock. I've had a few lower condition T206's that feel firmer. I purchased one a couple of months ago that as soon as I removed it from the card saver I noticed that it felt firmer/stiffer than most T206's in the same condition (sometimes cards that have been soaked in the past feel similar but not quite the same).

I also have a Beckley that I purchased recently that at first I thought someone had applied some kind of clear substance to make it shine but
when I examined it closer it didn't look or feel like it was something that was done post production and maybe it's what you're referring to about the gloss differences.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

I can't remember the recent firmer T206 but I'll see if I can find it in my recent purchases.

[BRoberts]

Ted Z., can you please check in on this? Probably no one in the hobby has handled more T206s than you.

[ullmandds]

I would have to think how a card was stored over 100 years could affect the finish and stiffness factoring in moisture among other things.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I think I know what Lee is talking about especially regarding the firmer paper stock. I've had a few lower condition T206's that feel firmer. I purchased one a couple of months ago that as soon as I removed it from the card saver I noticed that it felt firmer/stiffer than most T206's in the same condition (sometimes cards that have been soaked in the past feel similar but not quite the same).

I also have a Beckley that I purchased recently that at first I thought someone had applied some kind of clear substance to make it shine but
when I examined it closer it didn't look or feel like it was something that was done post production and maybe it's what you're referring to about the gloss differences.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

I can't remember the recent firmer T206 but I'll see if I can find it in my recent purchases.

Yes, that's glossy ink on coated stock. My Konetchy is similar but hard to show since it's slabbed.

I have a feeling that the glossiness somewhat follows brands and series. But the only ones I have that are consistent are tougher backs and I only have a couple cards so not much of a sample size.

[obcmac]

I was convinced for a while that Sweet Cap 350's are lighter (weight) than other cards. If you really pay attention, you can identify them with your eyes closed. Obviously a subtle difference, but if you had 100 raw, unaltered, mixed back cards and you had to pick the 3 lightest with your eyes closed...you would pick sweet cap 350 backs. I always wondered if anyone else thought the same or if the craziness was mine alone.

[FrankWakefield]

I have occasionally encountered a white border card that I'm fairly sure was soaked. And some that I'm certain have not been soaked, at least not soaked any time in the past few years.

Why do I think this? Among white border cards that I acquired in the past couple of months was one that had a few tiny dirt (maybe tobacco) spots on there, and a bit of staining in places on the back. I soaked it for an afternoon, the front specks fell to the bottom of the glass, thew stains were water soluble and dissolved away. A (slightly) better looking card was the result. Same thing with a recent white border card that had remnants of flower paste on the back, that in places slightly obscured the Sweet Caporal design. All of that paste dissolved and the card looks better.

On cards that I'm quite sure someone else soaked, I sometimes notice they seem a bit thinner. And over the past few years of seeing that I've decided that some guys who soak cards feel compelled to physically press the card with great force to mash the water out. I'm serious in saying that those cards feel slightly thinner. I think sometimes the 'thinner' feel is due to that, soaking then over-blotting / mashing. I think enough force is necessary to have the card drying flat... but I think the goal is to have the card dry flat, not for it to be mashed flat. I haven't done this in a few years, but I recall soaking a few cards that seemed previously soaked and smashed, so that I could let them dry in a less smashed condition, and the results were successful.

So, for some of these thin cards, look at them and consider that someone super-pressed them after they soaked them.