63 Topps Mantle - Possible Print Variation? Unfinished Proof?

[packs]

This Mantle was described as being "washed out" but I think a lot more is going on here than some fading:

The text box is supposed to Green, but it's entirely Blue on this card. Even with fading, Green is Green and Blue is Blue. I don't see any Green here at all.

Besides that, the "N.Y. Yankees OF" text is supposed to be Yellow. It is White on this card. Perhaps fading could explain where the Yellow went, but perhaps the Yellow was never printed on the card either.

Lastly, the "Mickey Mantle" text is supposed to have a 3-D effect where the White letters are outlined in Blue against the Green printed box. This card has no 3-D effect because it's just the White letters against the Blue print.

Because all Mantle's have this 3-D effect in the text box, I think it's reasonable to guess that every Mantle was Blue before being overlaid in Green to create the 3-D effect.

What do you guys think? Print variation? Unfinished proof without the Green and Yellow passes? Sun damage?

[swarmee]

Could it be that the yellow was never printed? Yes.

Is it more likely that it was faded after years of sitting in UV light? Yes.

Did Ziploc teach us that yellow and blue make green? And on a half-tone printing process, if you remove the yellow, all you have left is the blue?

Edit: I guess my point is what are you trying to say? That this card should definitively be called a proof so it sells for more? I disagree.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

looks like it's missing yellow ink on the front. Even though the colors aren't laid individually on modern cards if a less than observant pressman let the yellow ink run out it can happen.

[packs]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Could it be that the yellow was never printed? Yes.

Is it more likely that it was faded after years of sitting in UV light? Yes.

Did Ziploc teach us that yellow and blue make green? And on a half-tone printing process, if you remove the yellow, all you have left is the blue?

Edit: I guess my point is what are you trying to say? That this card should definitively be called a proof so it sells for more? I disagree.

Having a tough day or something? I'm asking if this card is unfinished or faded. The whole text box is a solid color. I know how to make green like anybody else, but you'd think you'd still see some of it if it were there.

[bnorth]

Looks sun faded to me, it has that overall dull look that faded cards have. Real missing color cards are still bright and vibrant looking.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Could it be that the yellow was never printed? Yes.

Is it more likely that it was faded after years of sitting in UV light? Yes.

Did Ziploc teach us that yellow and blue make green? And on a half-tone printing process, if you remove the yellow, all you have left is the blue?

Edit: I guess my point is what are you trying to say? That this card should definitively be called a proof so it sells for more? I disagree.

Fading is a possibility but man that blue is so pure, and the black areas seem OK. Having worked in a print shop, it looks like missing ink. That doesn't make it a proof necessarily (or even likely) but a print screw-up like a blank back.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Fading is a possibility but man that blue is so pure that to me, having worked in a print shop, it looks like missing ink. That doesn't make it a proof necessarily (or even likely) but a print screw-up like a blank back.

Proof is a word that carries a lot of weight. Maybe I shouldn't have said proof, I think unfinished is a better word and more in line with what I was going for.

I am in agreement with you. I don't think this card got all the ink it was meant to. The Blue is so strong and even that it looks like it's all that was printed. I think the faded look of the photo portion of the card could be a result of missing coloring in those areas too.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Proof is a word that carries a lot of weight. Maybe I shouldn't have said proof, I think unfinished is a better word and more in line with what I was going for.

I am in agreement with you. I don't think this card got all the ink it was meant to. The Blue is so strong and even that it looks like it's all that was printed. I think the faded look of the photo portion of the card could be a result of missing coloring in those areas too.

Bet the farm it is sun faded. I have experience in this.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by packs

Having a tough day or something? I'm asking if this card is unfinished or faded. The whole text box is a solid color. I know how to make green like anybody else, but you'd think you'd still see some of it if it were there.

No, I just see this question asked over and over on this board. Go back and look for the threads. There are plenty showing that the color can be completely sun-faded out. So proving that this one is not sun-faded is not really possible.

[packs]

Originally Posted by swarmee

No, I just see this question asked over and over on this board. Go back and look for the threads. There are plenty showing that the color can be completely sun-faded out. So proving that this one is not sun-faded is not really possible.

I am not some new guy. I know that sun fades color. I'm asking a question about a card I thought had atypical qualities because I didn't think the sun was the answer. If you don't want to partake in the discussion it is totally optional.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Bet the farm it is sun faded. I have experience in this.

I don't think the sun is the answer for your card either. The thinking would be that the sun ate the yellow coloring out of the green to make blue, right? but the yellow outlining the Brave is untouched.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think the sun is the answer for your card either. The thinking would be that the sun ate the yellow coloring out of the green to make blue, right? but the yellow outlining the Brave is untouched.

The card I pictured is not sun faded but done in a similar way. I know this because I done it.

Your card is 100% sun faded. I have real missing color cards and I have faded cards so I know the difference.

I have done countless experiments with different cards because I was tired of getting conned by altered cards. Some of those experiments have been posted on here to help others who also believed their faded card was missing color.

[packs]

What do you think happened with the 58 Topps Aaron blue background cards? I liked my Mantle because I thought it shared some common threads with the known Aaron print variation. For example, the Aaron blue background cards are missing the yellow lettering in "Milwaukee Braves" and the yellow coloring around the Brave itself.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

What do you think happened with the 58 Topps Aaron blue background cards? I liked my Mantle because I thought it shared some common threads with the known Aaron print variation. For example, the Aaron blue background cards are missing the yellow lettering in "Milwaukee Braves" and the yellow coloring around the Brave itself.

The 58 Aaron is a known ALTERED version, they are ALL altered.

I just sold a 58 Blue Aaron in the auction section of the BST yesterday. Check it out and the link in the OP to see the color change happen.

I made the Spahn so you could see it in stages on the same card.

[packs]

Oh, wow, I did not realize all the Aarons were altered cards.

When you altered your Aaron, did anything happen to the back of the card?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Bet the farm it is sun faded. I have experience in this.

That card looks awesome. Quite “trippy” - for lack of a better word.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Even though the colors aren't laid individually on modern cards if a less than observant pressman let the yellow ink run out it can happen.

Really modern stuff is probably on a multi color press, but I believe most cards up to 92 at least the colors were done individually. Even on a multi color press, they sort of are. I'm not aware of any litho presses that can do multiple colors from the same plate. (Intaglio yes, but those aren't used for cards, and maybe aren't even used for stamps anymore.)

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by steve B

Really modern stuff is probably on a multi color press, but I believe most cards up to 92 at least the colors were done individually. Even on a multi color press, they sort of are. I'm not aware of any litho presses that can do multiple colors from the same plate. (Intaglio yes, but those aren't used for cards, and maybe aren't even used for stamps anymore.)

I don't disagree but unlike T206's they weren't removed from a press and fed through another press to apply the separate color where a color could just be "missed". Maybe I'm early on the multicolor press I assumed they were in use by the 1950's. My problem with the fading theory is the black, especially in the head shot in the blue field is very strong.

Ben, the Spahn is an eye-opener for sure. I would have agreed even before I saw your card that green absolutely can fade to blue, as colors fade at different rates, but on the card in question I just keep coming back to the ONLY color I see missing is yellow. I see Cyan, Magenta and Black that don't appear faded to me.

[packs]

The reason I think this card goes beyond a simple sun soaking is that the coloring of the blue is so uniform.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't disagree but unlike T206's they weren't removed from a press and fed through another press to apply the separate color where a color could just be "missed". Maybe I'm early on the multicolor press I assumed they were in use by the 1950's. My problem with the fading theory is the black, especially in the head shot in the blue field is very strong.

Ben, the Spahn is an eye-opener for sure. I would have agreed even before I saw your card that green absolutely can fade to blue, as colors fade at different rates, but on the card in question I just keep coming back to the ONLY color I see missing is yellow. I see Cyan, Magenta and Black that don't appear faded to me.

Put that card beside a normal one and you will see a big difference in the black under magnification. I have faded a 63 in the sun before. One big misconception is all faded cards look alike. That is far far from the truth, different years and different brands fade differently. I got tired of getting ripped off so I done a ton of experimenting on so called "print errors".

[ALR-bishop]

Sun or light impacted but still kind of neat

[packs]

Would sun be the explanation for the Mays turning the colors it did? That back change is pretty interesting.

[JollyElm]

I obviously could be wrong, but to me there is no question it is sun faded. Here's a random 1963 Mantle from ebay...

s-l1600-3.jpg49227112593_9754d9404c_c.jpg

Like your scan, the blue circle is still blue, but yours is a very faded blue (which shouldn't/wouldn't have been affected by a dearth of yellow), and the rectangle 'text box' is a different shade of blue than the circle, and you can 'see' some green (depends on how good someone's vision is, I guess) there. It's subtle, but it is a lighter, bleached out green (same with the under side of his hat). Plus, as was implied earlier, the entire card is lighter all over and across the entire color spectrum, telling me it either spent a lot of time in the sunlight or was held by some bikini babe in a tanning bed (wanted to sex up this post a bit).

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I obviously could be wrong, but to me there is no question it is sun faded. Here's a random 1963 Mantle from ebay...

Attachment 377055Attachment 377062

Like your scan, the blue circle is still blue, but yours is a very faded blue (which shouldn't/wouldn't have been affected by a dearth of yellow), and the rectangle 'text box' is a different shade of blue than the circle, and you can 'see' some green (depends on how good someone's vision is, I guess) there. It's subtle, but it is a lighter, bleached out green (same with the under side of his hat). Plus, as was implied earlier, the entire card is lighter all over and across the entire color spectrum, telling me it either spent a lot of time in the sunlight or was held by some bikini babe in a tanning bed (wanted to sex up this post a bit).

I will tell you, Darren(if that is your real name), any woman that spent that much time in a tanning bed would not be a babe.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will tell you, Darren(if that is your real name), any woman that spent that much time in a tanning bed would not be a babe.

Well, you have to understand that when she first laid down, she was a bikini babe. If she continually overdid it, then she moved herself into the beef jerky section of the human supermarket.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't disagree but unlike T206's they weren't removed from a press and fed through another press to apply the separate color where a color could just be "missed". Maybe I'm early on the multicolor press I assumed they were in use by the 1950's. My problem with the fading theory is the black, especially in the head shot in the blue field is very strong.

Ben, the Spahn is an eye-opener for sure. I would have agreed even before I saw your card that green absolutely can fade to blue, as colors fade at different rates, but on the card in question I just keep coming back to the ONLY color I see missing is yellow. I see Cyan, Magenta and Black that don't appear faded to me.

Originally Posted by bnorth

Put that card beside a normal one and you will see a big difference in the black under magnification. I have faded a 63 in the sun before. One big misconception is all faded cards look alike. That is far far from the truth, different years and different brands fade differently. I got tired of getting ripped off so I done a ton of experimenting on so called "print errors".

A lot of black ink uses carbon black or lamp black as the colorant, and will not fade. That Ben has gotten a change in the black means that at least for 63 (Maybe just a portion of 63) They used ink with a chemical colorant.
Most chemical colorants for black are quite resistant to fading.

[steve B]

As an entirely separate aside, I've seen a few things that make me think some portion of T206 production was done on a 2 color press. Nothing I'd hold out as certain proof, but I think a strong case can be made for it.

I'm not sure when Topps would have switched to multi-color presses. Even on some of those it's possible to run sheets with only one color, usually during setup.

I feel very confident that 1982 Topps were done on 2 color presses. This card shows evidence of a massive adjustment to the registration over at least 4 revolutions on both black and magenta.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve B

A lot of black ink uses carbon black or lamp black as the colorant, and will not fade. That Ben has gotten a change in the black means that at least for 63 (Maybe just a portion of 63) They used ink with a chemical colorant.
Most chemical colorants for black are quite resistant to fading.

I have found with black it turns from a deep dark shiny black to a dull greyish black.

[ALR-bishop]

Agreed on the black. Have several variants with that defect

[packs]

Updating an old thread of mine. Saw this similar Mantle in the current Hunt auction. Guess it's possible both cards faded the same way, but wondering again if it's a repeated defect. Here they are side by side:

https://huntauctions.com/live/imagev...=213&lot_qual=

[GasHouseGang]

If someone had a Mantle that was graded a 2 or 2.5 and they found out they could put it in the sun for awhile and then get double or triple the money, I'm sure lots of people would do it. (I am not trying to imply anyone on the board is trying to do that. I'm just pointing out it's possible someone could try it)

[ALR-bishop]

I think that is exactly what happened with the 58 Aarons. Once the Blue Aaron was discovered and brought a premium others set out to create them and more showed up. It is risky to screw with an major star card but if it is a lower grade to begin with and people will pay a premium for a version that looks different, why not.

Says me who bought a blue Aaron and Mays, but not so far a Mantle

I do have a set of 82 blackless and those cards otherwise look vibrant color wise. But I have a few 68 Blackless and they have an overall washed out look

[clydepepper]

My two cents:

The back of the card looks just fine.


I'll be here all week.


.

[packs]

The fade on the two Mantles is so uniform that I thought perhaps it's not a fade but a missed color pass. The similarities are such that I thought they were produced the same way rather than ended up with the same fading under different conditions.

On the blue Aarons, are the cards so uniform like these two? What about the backs of the blue Aarons? Did the fading process alter them?

I should maybe mention too that I did not pay a premium for my card nor was it offered for sale as any variation. I also have not offered it for sale since I bought it.