Is it missing......... or not?????????
 

I mentioned this in the thread about SGC that I wanted this card labeled as "missing red ink" What do you think?????

The first one is borrowed from ebay and is not mine.

The back has a bright red SC back.

Not necessarily missing it as in printer error but possible fading. Interesting nonetheless.

Here is a Cobb up in a current auction and a recent eBay card that have faded reds.

http://i.imgur.com/Eatiq.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/vX87u.png

That might be possible if the rest of the colors showed some type of fading also and weren't so bright. They said the card would grade numerically, and it was not from bleaching since the back is bright red SC print. I thought it was going to be slabbed but.....:(

Looks faded to me. All the colors. But especially the red which tends to come out quicker with a good soaking.

I agree looks like the red came off from soaking, soak a red exhibit and you get the same fade look while many other color exhibits do not fade.

I think it may be a case where soaking in a chemical affected it. Look at the ball on the orange Ball. It has pinkish shadowing, as though the red had been washed off and had run a little at that spot. The bases also look 'off' tone. I know if you soak a T202 in turpentine it will discolor the white card stock; perhaps something similar? The gold border also has some odd shading.

Not all the orange background cards are faded, though. Some of them have red ink that simply ran out. Missing or light red seems to be a theme of the T206 set.

chemical reaction probably...the discolored gold border is the giveaway...if it was just missing the ink, the border would still be more "golden." But the border looks oxidized. I have a t-80 that is very similar.

the bright red back might be different as well. I am fairly certain that the inks used on the front were different from the inks on the back and tend to survive soaking better.

Or another theory...this was soaked prior to the back printing, meaning something spilled on the sheet before the back was printed (I am fairly certain the backs and fronts were printed separately).

Joshua

I'm going to hijack this thread for a little bit, because I think it is related to the original spirit of the post. So the T206 Beaumont is actually a "faded red?????" Is that correct???

Attachment 44735

Okay then, a couple of questions......

First question, since the T206 Beaumont has an obvious pin-hole, one would assume this card was exposed to light for a longggggg period of time. Would direct light and/or exposure to moisture alone make the red disappear???? Is that even possible??? Or perhaps, it was in a shed with exposure to chemical fumes??? Would fumes alone eliminate the red without impacting any other color???


Second question, when I first saw the card, I assumed that the "red" circle around the pinhole was perhaps caused by a thumbtack, which maybe held this card in a prominent place on a boys bedroom wall. But under a loupe, it is obvious that the red around the pinhole was made at the factory. I made the grand assumption that when originally printed, the red ink was running way low and only printed on that spot (which would make it a bullseye for a kid with a thumbtack), while the rest of the card printed orange. Is this theory even possible (for only a spot on a T206 card to print red while the rest prints orange)???

Any info would be lovely.

Lovely Day...

It doesn't really seem to benefit the grading companies to start listing errors on their slabs unless they are absolutely sure about it... just opens up a can of worms for them.

If the error is so clear, I'm not sure why it needs to be on the label anyway.

Most red inks fade badly in sunlight. If it was tacked up near a window that's about how it would look. Fading of the red, with a bit of fading on the other colors except black. (most black inks of the era used carbon for the color and don't fade.) And the area under the tack got no light so no fading.

Steve B

Thank you Steve! I was hoping you would chime-in. This sure puts a damper on "orange" background T206's for me :(. If the color red can fade so easily when exposed to light, one can never be 100% certain that orange background cards came out of the factory looking that way. Afterall, some T206 cards were and still are placed in picture frames with no protection from sunlight and no visible thumbtacks. I'm guessing the supply of T206/T205 orange background cards will increase as time marches on. Bummer!

Guess that is a "no" vote for me.

Lovely Day...

If you look at the Cobb, you can see the right top corner has a healthy red section where it was hidden under a corner holder and protected from the light. I assume the same happened with the Beaumont but with a tac.

well after reading all this I have to second guess my standing. Some very good points here. Would like to see more if you guys have them.

For me, it is simple math......NO "$$$$" premium should ever be applied to a missing red ink T205/T206 card. If that Cobb is mounted just a little bit differently, we would all have assumed it came out of the factory looking that way. Which, as I've learned today is not the case.

Lovely Day...

Not all orange is faded red. There are some missing red cards out there.

I sold one of a pair I had years ago and I'm not sure which one I kept, I'll have to look next time I'm looking at the T206s. I had a Pair of Dygerts one with red lips and one without. Both came from the same batch which had nothing faded.

I'm reasonably confident I could tell the fading from missing ink if a card was in front of me. Going from scans is usually difficult unless they're high resolution. I'm trying to think of how to explain the difference, as it's usually not really obvious.

Steve B

Andrew
 

I tend to agree with your original premise that this T205 Neal Ball is missing the RED ink application. The RED ink was applied in the last phase
of the multi-color printing process of T205's (and T206's) by American Lithographic.


I don't have any T205 examples. Here are some of my T206 "missing red ink" examples......These T206's are not "faded". This I am certain of,
since these cards were glued in an album for 90+ years when I acquired them.


<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/abpinklinghuggins.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/abredcobborange1.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

<img src="http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/beckleydevlinklingpink.jpg" alt="[linked image]">




And, here is a Lundgren missing the BLUE ink application........

<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/alundgren4versions.jpg" alt="[linked image]">



TED Z

Here's a T205 with the wrong color base, should be white instead of pink. Inking errors were made, but are far and few between. I have seen a couple of others like this. FYI it will be in the upcoming B & L Auction.

Just picked up this card that is similar to the one shown above right. It came in a lot of 43 and was the only one with this issue - seems like more than a coincidence that it happened to also be a Neal Ball T205:

http://runscott.homestead.com/Cards/PT205Ball.jpeg

Sorry Leon, perhaps I'm being impatient waiting for a response on this, but I'm thinking the thread has gone belly-up.

Just tossing the 'Ball' out there for discussion.

You can always bump an old thread if no answer was given or you just want to bump it. Generally, on much older general topics, a new thread is requested to be started, again, if there is no real reason to bump the old one. There are no set rules for a reason....just be cool with stuff (as you are), have a reason for what you do (you do) and all is well :).

Since I have never really looked in to this topic, does everyone feel that this card is simply faded?