Revisiting 1963 Topps Mantle Potential Color Variant

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

First, it was naturally occurring display damage. Now, it can be done by doing XYZ to it.

If it is natural wear and the sun will turn the box blue on any 63 Topps card, I'm just looking for another example. Please post if you have one.

This is really not difficult or a contradiction. It's how the green ink responds to light. It will happen naturally if a card gets direct sunlight for long enough. You can also easily accelerate this process to make them in less than 48 hours with the right light setup. How is this difficult to understand?

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, it's America. You have a special snowflake if that makes you happy. If you want I'll pull out my half blue 1977 Topps Star Wars I created as my test subjects on Friday when I get home from a trip. You can find examples online easily, including previous threads here.

[packs]

I understand the sun and what sunlight does but what I question is whether this would be the outcome. I thought it was a good explanation for the one card I had. Then I found two more like it. But I’m having hard time finding other cards with similar wear outside of Mantle. If you have an example please share it.

[mikemb]

Hope this link works from 5 years ago. There is an image of a "Blue" Kaline.


Mike

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ighlight=faded

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I understand the sun and what sunlight does but what I question is whether this would be the outcome. I thought it was a good explanation for the one card I had. Then I found two more like it. But I’m having hard time finding other cards with similar wear outside of Mantle. If you have an example please share it.

You obviously really don't and that is the problem because those Mantle cards are exactly the outcome.

To make this even simpler if possible. Thake a 1963 Topps card you own with the green bottom. Put it in a card saver and put it outside in the sun. After some time(a few weeks since it is fall) you will have a card with the same exact wear/color whatever you want to call it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I understand the sun and what sunlight does but what I question is whether this would be the outcome. I thought it was a good explanation for the one card I had. Then I found two more like it. But I’m having hard time finding other cards with similar wear outside of Mantle. If you have an example please share it.

Al and Ben have already both posted examples of cards with the same damage, 1 likely from 'natural' light means and 1 from artificial. I can show an example of a 77 I made myself designed to appear 'natural' I have kept in my altered card bin on Friday. You can find more examples online easily if you want too. Look up 58 Aaron's and you will find several. I don't know why you keep pretending there are none and you aren't seeing any. Here's 2 I pulled in 5 seconds - neither left the factory this way.

[packs]

I said I would like to see other 1963 Topps cards with green boxes that are blue instead. That is not what you posted.

The Kaline card is what I'm looking for. That card is interesting because it's supposed to be green but is blue. Unlike Mantle, the Kaline has a yellow background around the inset image of him above the box. The Mantle has blue. Does that mean all cards with green bottoms are entirely blue underneath because it's part of the printing process and color has been stripped, or does the sunlight turn the green into blue?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I said I would like to see other 1963 Topps cards with green boxes that are blue instead. That is not what you posted.

The Kaline card is what I'm looking for. That card is interesting because it's supposed to be green but is blue. Unlike Mantle, the Kaline has a yellow background around the inset image of him above the box. The Mantle has blue. Does that mean all cards with green bottoms are entirely blue underneath because it's part of the printing process and color has been stripped, or does the sunlight turn the green into blue?

I'm sorry, is your argument now that in 1963, Topps uniquely used inks and stocks that respond to light completely differently from every other year invalidating these other examples? I'm not following why 1963 is unique and these examples are invalid.

Green is created primarily from yellow and blue ink. So the answer is both, removing the yellow via sunlight reveals the blue, turning it from green to blue, although that blue usually gets toned by the light a bit too as affected areas fade a bit overall.

I'm not a fan of teaching people to doctor cards but how to do this is available online and has been posted here before. With a quick search and a light you can just go make 1963s of any green subject into a blue in a day or two.

[packs]

When you compare things, it's common to compare like things. In this example, two 1963 Topps cards. The reason I was curious about seeing another like example, is because I'd only previously seen the Mantles.

It seems like I explain a lot of seemingly obvious things too but I guess I don't get the same thrill.

[ALR-bishop]

Still interested in why my Mays backs differ

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

When you compare things, it's common to compare like things. In this example, two 1963 Topps cards. The reason I was curious about seeing another like example, is because I'd only previously seen the Mantles.

It seems like I explain a lot of seemingly obvious things too but I guess I don't get the same thrill.

Seems you get your fun from denying the obvious and pretending you have a snowflake. Numerous people have told you the obvious truth and explained it. Good luck with your faded card.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by packs

I said I would like to see other 1963 Topps cards with green boxes that are blue instead. That is not what you posted.

The Kaline card is what I'm looking for. That card is interesting because it's supposed to be green but is blue. Unlike Mantle, the Kaline has a yellow background around the inset image of him above the box. The Mantle has blue. Does that mean all cards with green bottoms are entirely blue underneath because it's part of the printing process and color has been stripped, or does the sunlight turn the green into blue?

Yes, for nearly every card with a fairly true green it will be yellow printed along with blue. They use a few "tricks" to get effects that are needed. Like making the whole panel green so they don't have to worry about the yellow name having a green rim around it if the blue isn't opaque enough. So you get easy registration and can run lighter thinner blue.

Some cards I think may have had custom mixed colors, but I haven't studied modern ones enough. Nearly all are just cmyk overlays. Or in usual order ymck. A subtractive order has yellow being printed last, which would expose it more to fading

Im not sure it applies, but we've also just seen that yellow can be water soluble, at least on some 1972s, so that's a possibility as well now.


The process for expertizing and authenticating most things is to start assuming nothing then prove what it is. For example, I'd look for other green box 63s that had poor registration so I could see the different layers.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is really not difficult or a contradiction. It's how the green ink responds to light. It will happen naturally if a card gets direct sunlight for long enough. You can also easily accelerate this process to make them in less than 48 hours with the right light setup. How is this difficult to understand?

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, it's America. You have a special snowflake if that makes you happy. If you want I'll pull out my half blue 1977 Topps Star Wars I created as my test subjects on Friday when I get home from a trip. You can find examples online easily, including previous threads here.

Here is my half faded Ron Jackson. I threw most of the stuff I experimented on away and also like a dumb a$$ never kept notes.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Here is my half faded Ron Jackson. I threw most of the stuff I experimented on away and also like a dumb a$$ never kept notes.

I keep my experimental subjects to low grade cheap commons of cards with huge populations, and most get destroyed. I usually only keep one type for future reference, that goes into a separate container marked as intentionally altered. I usually make a note in pen on the back too. My notes are complete, but that's the only thing I have organized in my card mess.

The desire to believe is vast, a majority of color 'variations' on the market are sadly not genuine but continue to bring money from people who want to believe a whole lot more than they are willing to question things.