Blackless Glavine Bonds Acker others?

[steve B]

While they aren't the blackless ones that go along with the Thomas, the first batch is interesting. Having low ink only in one area is a bit unusual, but can happen. The press operator has some control of the inking levels across the sheet. So it's possible to use very little on one area.
Think like you're doing a poster that's mostly a black and white line drawing but has red stars at the top. Inking fully all the way across wastes ink, so you can limit the red ink getting to the side without the red stars. The plate still gets inked where it needs it, and eventually the other areas, but over thousands of impressions having it be much less on one side will save enough that it's worth doing.

On the cards that wasn't the intent, but something did affect the inking on those cards.
Laying them out in the same pattern as they were on the sheet should give some clues ast to exactly what happened. in general, misprints don't get big premiums unless they're really impressive visually. Subtle ones are interesting and fun. I collect them when I get them. (I'd have been pretty happy to open that vending case)

Some of the others are interesting but stuff that gets little interest. With how many cards were produced in 1990 and how the quality control was lax that's not a surprise.
Van Slyke is from the green being printed a bit too low and not being covered up by the black border leaving that gap. (poor registration)


Bell is also from the registration being off. The black was printed just slightly left of where it should have been.

Glavine and Acker are related, not sure if it's low inking, or some other cause.

The effect you see on Bonds, Fisher, and Johnson is a cool one. But also one I'd call normal. To avoid having to be super precise with registration the black border is designed to slightly overlap the other colors (Black is with few exceptions printed last. yellow is usually first)
But on these, the black ink isn't totally opaque like it usually is. That's either more underinking, or them running an ink that has less colorant or is watered down. So it's slightly transparent and the other color layers show through as that darker outline.

Rijo and Sanders are really cool. Missing ink like that is usually a solvent spill, from cleaning the inking rollers. Sometimes they get a little dried out and have to be cleaned - especially if they're being cheap and running less ink than they should. A clue as to what caused the other inking issues.

But it's all colors over a big enough area to affect what was probably 4-5 cards. (and I'll bet you have the other 2-3 ) That's unusual.

Is the cardstock thinner where the colors are missing? That's something that can happen but it's really unusual. If it's thinner in an area for some reason the press may not have enough pressure to print, or will only print lightly.
a bit of something like grease on the surface that prevents printing but doesn't soak in can cause almost the same thing.
In the scans he Rijo looks a bit like the surface had peeled slightly? Probably just an optical illusion, but I've seen that too both with the card stock being thinned, and with a peel from a previous sheet blocking ink from a later one.

They may not be expensive stuff like the Thomas, but they can be interesting. And i sure wouldn't think of them as junk. Like, I'd probably keep the misprints and sell off the extra "normal" cards once I completed the set.