E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[barrysloate]

The way you spelled it was closer to "some antics."

[ScottFandango]

same player, 2 different backs....

[ScottFandango]

same beater, different backs

[steve B]

Seeing those last two, I'd have to think Joe D is right. The shaded ones have the look of a dirty plate if they were typography for the backs, and a dry or improperly wiped stone if lithographed. The shading is right where "gunk" would collect on the plate, especially the areas of the s and e of series in the top pair. The lower pair shows the same thing in different ways on both cards.

I'm going with a wild guess, and guess that they're either all early series cards where they cut corners to get more made quickly, or last series cards where the wipers were worn, the plates dirty and they didn't bother cleaning the plate or getting a better wiper because they were almost done with the print run and knew there wouldn't be more from the same plate/stone. And I'm leaning way in the directon of the latter.

Steve B

[caramelcard]

It looks to me that they have a random amount (depending on the card) of shading around the borders. Here are three of mine.

Rob


sc0075513402.jpg

sc0075513401.jpg

sc00755134.jpg

[ScottFandango]

looks like the last one (of the 3) is the only one that is a shaded variation

[bijoem]

Scott....

This is an interesting thread - - and I could sense excitement from you about these "shaded" cards.... but looking at the examples provided by you (especially your post at 7:49pm) - I am pretty confident that this is just poorly printed sheets.

Looking at the White Letter Mantle on eBay....
that is a variation. It is NOT a print defect at all. It was a purposeful removal of the yellow in the name / while leaving yellow elsewhere.

Personally - I wouldn't give this a new designation at all.

I don't mean to quell any enthusiasm.....
But to give an honest reply to Bob Lemke's original post - I don't think this is a legitimate variation.

[ScottFandango]

but what if it only happened in 9 cards?

then what ?

and what if the 9 cards had VERY low Pop reports (sgc and psa) compared to the rest of the set?

would that tell you anything?

thanks for your response

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by bijoem

Scott....

This is an interesting thread - - and I could sense excitement from you about these "shaded" cards.... but looking at the examples provided by you (especially your post at 7:49pm) - I am pretty confident that this is just poorly printed sheets.

Looking at the White Letter Mantle on eBay....
that is a variation. It is NOT a print defect at all. It was a purposeful removal of the yellow in the name / while leaving yellow elsewhere.

Personally - I wouldn't give this a new designation at all.

I don't mean to quell any enthusiasm.....
But to give an honest reply to Bob Lemke's original post - I don't think this is a legitimate variation.

Not a back guy but for what it is worth, I agree with this point. I checked my Boston AL team set and this one is kind of the only one I see with some shade.