T206 Ghost Images.....how do these normally grade?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Won this tonight with the specific intent of getting it graded by PSA. Anybody else have any experience getting cards with the "ghost" image on the back graded? Is it more frowned upon and giving a lesser grade? Can you specify "ghost image" on the label? My assumption is this card would grade a 4, maybe with a couple idiot graders a 5. Or is it gonna be a 2 with the image? Opinions are welcome.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Dave,

First time I've seen a ghost image on a T-206 that's kinda neat. Do you have any idea what created the ghost image.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

i'm not sure what causes it....although from what i've seen of other before this is barely one at all, some are quite visible through the other side. i am a bit concerned though how psa will grade it like this. if you go to t206musuem.com peter i think they have a section of some other ghost images.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

I believe the theory is that ghosts are created when an uncut sheet is placed on top of another sheet before the ink has completely dried. The transfer is actually from the bottom sheet rather than from the ink seaping through the paper to the reverse.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

When the card sheet on top or below has wet ink. Wanna see some more:

http://imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

So...in theory a card with a "ghost" print could be labled with an MK?

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i do not think they (psa)would give a ghost image a mk qualifier but rather lable it as a ghost image. sgc/gai do not have qualifiers so i think that the ghost image would not effect(lower) the grade

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

This isnt a ghost image, the card looks like it bleed threw to the back when it was wet. ghost image is when its printed on the back. that has not been printed on the back. not a consistant print. its just a normal card

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

That doesn't happen. it is a wet sheet transfer. When the color field is heavy as it is here and especially with red cards it is not unusual to see it. My experience has been that it will be downgraded by SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

alright....conflicting opinions on whats a ghost image and what isnt.....who actually knows?

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

not a ghost image. They will either MK it or downgrade it depending on which company you send it to.

End of Story.

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

warslawaw (sp) lol is right. wet transfer. nothing special with this card. ghost image is when they print an image down on the card. obviously no image is clear so it wasnt printed... wet transfer for sure

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I don't think that is a ghost image. It is just bleedthrough.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

....that's a ghost image, you've never seen one.

Click here for the real deal:

http://www.t206museum.com/page/ra_ghost.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

not a t206, but a ghost all the same...

[Archive]

Posted By: johnny

HELLO EVERYONE!!
i just joined this board....bear with me guys...i have been reading the various threads and everyones input is great..i hope u don't mind me writing:

anyway dave, i bid on this card also...i exclusively collect t206 oddities/errors/printers scraps and the like...

you definetly have a "wet stacked" card....like the rest of the guys say....the ink didn't bleed thru....
don't bother getting it graded...all the companies look at this as a "weaknesses" in the cards, in turn will just lower the grade(i own a few graded already that are wet stacked and just receive a lower grade similiar to a "2 name" which might get a mc label)..i look at them as "beauties"..it will never get recognized as an error/ghost or anything, but it is a nice print "freak" by me and some others...anyway,enjoy the card!!!...still a great card!!!
in my experience, the blue is the most prevelant wet stack color, both on fronts and backs, yellow second..
some examples of "ghosts" are really on different levels..there are "double exposures", printers scraps w/different outlines actually printed on them...without getting into a drawn out explaination on all the classifications of "ghost" images..

more common than the back "ghost" wet stacked cards, are the front"ghosts" of the back images that are actually "wet stacked" on the front(tolstoi and peidmont the most common i have seen)..similiar cards to what u have
as a print oddity..

hope this helps!!!

johnny
(mrvster)


hope this helps

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

thanks for the input....all info taken. I dont disagree with what anyone has said, most here know alot more than me about the subject anyway. I do disagree with the grading companies though if something that comes directly from the tobacco companies to begin with (ink) should classify a card MK. my thought were mk also meant a mark given by an actual person...not the card manafactuer. oh well, another live and learn purchase.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Not a t206, but here is how sgc graded a real nice looking e93 (I assume the grade is a result of the reverse - the card is otherwise an easy 50):

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill K

This one is slightly trimmed, but one of only two e101's that I've seen with an ink transfer/ghost image.

Any other Caramel examples out there? Nice Evers btw!



Bill

My personal collection - http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Enjoy

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Just received the Wiltse in the mail.....too bad the popular opinion is the back will end up making the grade fall off.....otherwise this card is really nice. Was hard to tell from scan, but in person the card I think should easily be a 5 and I really think it stands a shot at a 6. Don't know what type of scanner they used, but it didn't do it justice. Card measures perfect and everything. Oh well....too bad to see a card that could be a 6 probably come back a 2.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...that is not a 6. It has a diamond cut and the corners are not particularly sharp. I would bet SGC grades it an SGC 50, with a chance to be a 40 or 60. Assuming there are no creases, it will not grade as low as a 30/G/2. I do not think the color on the reverse influences grades when you are already in SGC 50 territory. I would bet the Evers has another problem making it an SGC 40 other than the wet sheet transfer on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

I don't see a "ghost image" on the back of the Wiltse... just a little blue ink.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

When I submitted this, considering the addition on the back is very vintage, I was secretly hoping for a 50, but was sure a 40 was the worst It would garner.....no creases or other serious blemishes (in all light angles) and the corners though rounded are lovely and even. A 20 though?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

There is a HUGE difference between a wet sheet transfer at the factory in 1909 and some guy running a ballpoint pen along the back of the card sometime between then and December 7, 2006. The first is a factory imperfection which, no doubt, impacts the grade -- just not at the SGC 40 or 50 level.

The pen mark is a drastic addition that ruins the grade. One of my nicest cards is a T206 Juan Violat, but the reverse has three huge purple symbols stamped on it -- an asterisk, an exclamation mark and something else I can't recall. The card would be an SGC 60 without the purple stamping. I just sent it in for grading and it should come back no better than an SGC 20.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw"

Ghost Image is just a fancy word for a "wet ink transfer".

Poor quality control, stacking sheets before they are dry. Not a variation at all. They are found in some form on almost every vintage issue that are printed. There is no way in heck that ink can soak through a card, let alone be perfectly crisp in definition like some of the ghost images.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

How on earth does a grader or anyone for that matter know when a spattering of ink occured? Ok, a ball point line you can sort of date and it personalizes in a way that paint doesn't....but what is to seperate time of printing splatter - with 1940's kid and an inkwell, or paints of the time, or other ways such inks can make their way on to card?

daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

This is the only known "ghost print" from the 1923 Maple Crispette set.

Sorry for the blurry scan!
http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j136/MapleCrispetteV117

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Looking at the back of that card, I would say with almost complete certainty that the color showing through is bleed. The image is perfectly reversed and colors in only where the orange shows, and take a peek at how on the back you can follow the image of his throwing arm....it ends at exactly the same point in reference to the border as the front.
I would think if it was a wet transfer, there is no possible way the image underneath could match so very perfectly the positioning of evers on the card as to create the most exact mirror image.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

We're talking about wet sheet transfers, where the card appears to have been layed on the top of a wet version of itself leaving a stain on the back that looks somewhat like a reverse of the front.

If there was a factory spill of red ink at Factory 25 2d Dist Va in 1909, and all of the Juan Violat's printed that day have big red lines over the front of the card, that would certainly impact the value -- perhaps as much as your ball point pen example. It all depends on the size and nature of the mark, obviously.

My Cy Young portrait is a good example of a factory blemish causing a substantial hit to the grade, though centering didn't help on this issue either.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

To me, that particular card hardly shows classic printing error or transfer.....anyway, guess I am just out there by myself again.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

Daniel, I see your good point. Then I considered; A bleed-through would also spread laterally, into the white border some? I haven't a clue, just tossing this out there. Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw"

The Evers had orange ink that was wet, fairly common with issues to have one color still wet (see card below).

If the card stock was porous enough and the ink strong enough to bleed through, it would obviously be consistent and bleed on 100% of the cards. On top of that it would never have been used. they would have changed the paper or ink. These cards are not printed on tissue, they are printed on sturdy miltilayered card stock. The ink is topical and not going to soak in otherwise the image would be one big distorted blob with no definition.



(dont own this one)

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

there is no way that ink sits on the top layer of the back of the card.
My opinion, and I'm sticking to it. It looks entirely different to the Wiggs you've shown us, which displays evenly distributed ink across the surface and shows to the eye to be sitting on the surface, as a transfer would. The Evers does not, and in fact shows most heavily where the glove - and darkest most saturated color reside, and in differing strength over the rest of the card.

still, just an opinion.

Daniel


Oh, I still think that to have a 'wet' sheet evers underneath transfer the image to the exact, exact place to create the most perfect mirror effect on the reverse is incredibly unlikely.

[Archive]

Posted By: Martin Neal

I have been trying to figure out who this is on the back. I went through all my t206s and it must be someone that is not in my collection. I actually thought it was Merritt on the reverse until this morning but the profile doesn't match up to the front. I am not sure if the "ghost on the back" will show up in the scan. If it doesn't, I will have to learn photoshop and post it later. If you can see it, let me know who it is.




I played around with the brightness and contrast. It really makes it look ghostly. It is definitely not Merritt.