T206 Cobb Wet Sheet Transfer...??

[Exhibitman]

Oh, there are definitely wet sheet transfers. When I was making prints I even made some, inadvertently, by stacking the latest print off the press onto a prior print before the prior one was completely dry. Leaf made some real beauts in its postwar baseball issue. I have a great Spahn red ink transfer and a Van Der Meer with the card back nicely transferred to the front.

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Oh, there are definitely wet sheet transfers. When I was making prints I even made some, inadvertently, by stacking the latest print off the press onto a prior print before the prior one was completely dry. Leaf made some real beauts in its postwar baseball issue. I have a great Spahn red ink transfer and a Van Der Meer with the card back nicely transferred to the front.

Having silkscreened thousands of posters, I can tell you this certainly happens when you stack wet posters together. Certainly the same goes for offset prints.

[Brian Weisner]

This one goes with Leon's....



Be well Brian


PS If ScottieB post his we'll have all 3....

[FrankWakefield]

Respectfully, what Leon and Brian have posted aren't wet sheet transfers.


If they were transfers, the wet sheet would have the image and type correct, and the card onto which the transfer occurred would have the image and type mirror-imaged. What Leon and Brian have posted shows those player names correct. Those aren't wet sheet transfers. Those are examples of where the blue process was printed onto a sheet on the blank back side, then the black ink back was printed over that.

Neat printing errors, but not wet sheet transfers.

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Respectfully, what Leon and Brian have posted aren't wet sheet transfers.


If they were transfers, the wet sheet would have the image and type correct, and the card onto which the transfer occurred would have the image and type mirror-imaged. What Leon and Brian have posted shows those player names correct. Those aren't wet sheet transfers. Those are examples of where the blue process was printed onto a sheet on the blank back side, then the black ink back was printed over that.

Neat printing errors, but not wet sheet transfers.

I don't think they were being displayed as such. Leon noted they were "non wet-sheet transfers". Just a single color (cyan) run on a random scrap for sure.

Edit: unless that was sarcasm, but I thought it was obvious they weren't since the writing is correct.

[FrankWakefield]

Now you see, I thought what Leon had written about how wet sheet transfers not existing was Texas sarcasm. And you say you didn't think that. Maybe Leon will chime in and let us know...

At least you agree, 'Couch', that what they've shown was printed twice; not printed once and then placed against a freshly printed wet sheet.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Now you see, I thought what Leon had written about how wet sheet transfers not existing was Texas sarcasm. And you say you didn't think that. Maybe Leon will chime in and let us know...

At least you agree, 'Couch', that what they've shown was printed twice; not printed once and then placed against a freshly printed wet sheet.

I did in fact think it was a wet sheet transfer (my card above) at one time, but have learned (lately) more about the printing processes so do think it is a stamp/press on the back....or maybe it's an underprint?

It's probably similar to the weird T206 I have that only has Young's outline and is also a stamp and not a wet sheet transfer....interesting stuff. BTW, I never saw the Cobby that everyone sees on the first post. It just looks like a dirty back to me...but I also have some color blindness and am sure that is the issue.

[slantycouch]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

At least you agree, 'Couch', that what they've shown was printed twice; not printed once and then placed against a freshly printed wet sheet.

Yessir - we do agree on that Frank!