Sunburned Groom... A question for the t206 experts here

[bn2cardz]

My home scanner had a default of 600dpi. I looked at the close up scans (I suggest people never do this if they are under the delusion that their cards don't have flaws or are "undergraded") and enjoyed trying to figure it out.

I was going to scan it at a higher resolution on my office scanner, but forgot to bring it will me to the office today. I will email them to you when I do scan them in. You can send me your email. Thanks.

[62corvette]

As a clergyman who has done over 550 weddings, I've seen a lot of sunburned grooms.

[steve B]

Looking at a high res scan it looks like it's actually two passes of the same color.

In the pic below which is a blowup of a section near the upper left corner you can see the two passes. one appears lighter and is slightly left and lower than the other. The blue lines point to the top of a kidney bean shaped part of the dot pattern that's both repeated and easy to see. The other lines and brackets point to other features of the pattern that are visible.

Since the two patterns match up it's extremely unlikely to be a different color.

I can't tell if one is actually darker than the other or if it's just that the areas where the two overlap is darker. Possibly a bit of both. And the patterns overlapping means the face and all the other areas where the pink overlaps itself have little to no white showing through.

The other thing that can cause this is running the inking rollers while adjusting the registration like on the Garvey I posted in another thread. But that usually gives a very reduced first impression and a proper second impression. On this card the two appear to be nearly the same.

I'm fairly sure it's a double printing of the pink, and the first card of any sort I've seen that I feel confident is a double pass of the same color.

Steve B

[bn2cardz]

Thanks for your insight Steve. I really would like to get my hands on a cheap Groom without the extra pink so I can compare the two.

I am glad I picked this card up because it has been fun to try and figure out the mystery. I really wonder if there are other ones that came off this sheet.

[Runscott]

lol

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

lol

Looking back I guess my wanting a "cheap Groom without the extra pink" was posted to the wrong board. haha

[bn2cardz]

While reading the "T206 upside down backs "should they be on the back run?"" thread I found this post in there by mrvster:

Originally Posted by mrvster

...please play around / add/ delete move ect...

rarity ranking....i say rarity because they are ALL rare....

THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE AND I'm GOING TO TAKE A STABBER and half asleep



note: these errors are GENERAL classifications...


I HAVE A SNOW FLAKE THEORY....each printer scrap is unique unto itself..and can vary greatly in value....they are so rare that price cannot be determined and rarity is a relative term...some just can not be classified such as my kruger scraps, and multiple problem / one of a kind scraps, they are just un classifiable, too many issues with the card...these cards are in a catagory by themself...IMPOSSIBLE

MAYBE MULTI - WHAMMYS?????????????????



HERE we GO:


1) brown om or cobb(both same rarity)


2)blank backed proof with design change(leon's matty)

3)blank back proof w no design change


4) ghost image front different player/overprint /multi stamp / print ect(CAN BE SCRAP OR FACT ISSUED)*****not "wet stacked" and ACTUALLY PRINTED

example: downey overprint front/ my bender/ my chance cycle over print front ect....

5) ghost image back overprint/multi print( CAN BE SCRAP OR FACT ISSUED) ****not wet stacked....WEIMER, CHANCE, GILBERT, anything directly PRINTED at factory


6) top to bottom front miscut showing a different player(like jamie hull's example) can be scrap or factory cut, they are just impossible

7) full caption jump(del howard/randall) totally outside border and in picture

8)front player miscut side to side showing another player being able to destinguish the player(either fact cut or scrap, they are near impossible)


9) severe front miscut top to bottom (jordan/knight)


10) all missing color scrap- ghost faces/ sever color missing

11)yellow browns / depeds on back/amount of color missing

12) blank back problems on front

13) blank back no problems on front

14)upside down printer scraps/ 4 or 2 backs ect(have to be PRINT SCRAP since we have to include a fact cut example on the mainsteam list( 4 backs are tufer than 2




the top 14 listed are near impossible cards and i'm sure i'm missing some / tired right now....here are the "less " dramatic sub set
15) missing magentas


16) fact back stamp

17) front miscut showing different player name

18) severe back miscuts 25% or more (top to bottom tufer than side to side)

19) double exposure front ghosts w next player negative present on either side or top to bottom, they are tufer

20)double exposure ghost front same player

21) missing color (magentas) fact cut- sweeney no b boston players ect

22) font/plate problems- hemphill, nodgrass, ect

23) printers crop marks, the bigger the better

24) missing color pass one or more cards are fact cut

25) side to side miscut front small portion/top to bottom front not as tuf as side to side


26) color variations orange back grounds quality control/color shifts/ drunken registers

27) wet stacked fronts/backs(the more dramatic the better)

28) same player name top to bottom front(full name at top and bottom scarcer)



remember, this is just a rough draft slapped together, please add delete move or help

PEACE

JOHNNY v

So would this Groom card be under the "26) color variations orange back grounds quality control/color shifts/ drunken registers" category? Or does this get it's own category for a double strike of a certain ink? Any opinions on this at all?

I didn't want to start a side tangent in that thread for a subject that I already had started a thread on.