E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[barrysloate]

To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.

Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.

[ubiqty]

I just looked at 16 new e90-1 cards I recently acquired and only the Phelps has the shading you are looking for. I'll check my others and respond back over the weekend.
Thanks,
Scott (ubiqty)

[caramelcard]

"It was mentioned that the only one of the cards that Robert showed in a previous post was the shaded variation...however those other two cards have areas in the border where there is some shading. "

Thanks Brian. That's what I tried to highlight with my post.

I have a few dozen that have no shading at all or maybe a touch here and there and then those three.

This is a neat printing gaffe and we might be able to pin it down to only several, specific cards that have the problem. I'm not sure it needs to be recognized in the SCD, but I'm glad that Scott pointed it out and that we were able to discuss it.

Rob

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.

Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.

why does have a variation HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE?

it was a mistake at the Press, i know that, they were never intended to be different....

BUT, it only shows up on specific cards, and it is not common...

if it happened only once, or it wasnt predictable, then it means nothing....

BUT ITS PREDICTABLE WHAT CARDS HAVE THIS...


PS....NO CARD, even the SHADED version, have ALL of the areas shaded...they have areas (especially the left border) that usually remains clear...


it must have been an older plate that was worn down, thus the spots that were meant NOT to have any ink, got some....BUT again, this doesnt happen in all the cards, and proves that some were created at different times (separate print run)...

we all know this set was made for a few years and nobody knows the series breakdown....

this could be the first step in deciphering a specific series print run within the set!!!

if this is predictable, no matter what you call it, why cant it be recognized?

wish Rich Klein would chime in (mr errors and variations)

Brian, your on the right track!

[barrysloate]

Scott- it doesn't have to be deliberate, I was just pointing out it was an inadvertent error that was caused by a little ink bleeding. As such, it doesn't strike me as a variation. But that is one area of the hobby where we have vastly different opinions.

To me, the Magie misspelling is a variation, the while the Nodgrass is not. The printers designed a new plate to correct the Magie error; while the Nodgrass was a result of a small foreign substance lodging itself on the plate during the print run. But I know the hobby considers the Nodgrass a bona fide variation.

[ShoelessBob]

Darn...I think I this was one of the "Shaded" variations but somehow it got erased.

[brianp-beme]

Typical grading company blunder...that Bridwell pose (as seen with blank back in previous post) does not exist in the E90-1 set. E92 Dockman is a probable contender.

Brian

[ShoelessBob]

Thanks Brian!

I did not realize this was an e92 Dockman. Would it be worthwhile to get re-graded?

[sreader3]

Bob,

I have just two E90-1s [Joss (Portrait), Wallace]--and no shading.

Scot