|
T206 Billy Sullivan missing red ink variation? Your opinion
2 Attachment(s)
MkRecently purchased and realized that background was missing the red matrix dots. Further inspection missed red on ears face and lips. Any opinions? Should I get graded to show missing red ink? No other has been reported via PSA population report. Would this be a 1/1? Added second picture showing the ones not missing the red.
|
It looks genuine to me, missing red ink pass. SGC might grade it as missing red ink. I don't know if you need it graded, unless you're going to sell it.
|
That's what I'm thinking of doing or trade for several common low grade T206's.
|
Do you have a scan of the back? I am curious if there is any evidence of glue.
Also, PSA doesn't slab missing ink and I think I heard that SGC stopped doing it, so you might get to save some money on grading fees. |
Yup
I would say that it is missing the red pass, but SGC won't slab it as such.
|
Yes. Does have paper loss due to having been glued. Reason I asked about it being slabbed "missing red ink" is that I have seen some PSA graded cards slabbed this way.
|
And now, AFIS has your fingerprint on file!!:D
|
If it has glue on it, it's not missing the red so much as the red has been removed. 90%+ of "missing red" cards simply are the product of reactions to adhesives and/or light...in my opinion.
|
The glue did not remove the red. Was glued on verso. Not one trace of red ink on front. I have a B.A in fine arts and have studied at graphic studios where we printed lithography using multiple plates. There is no know technology that can remove one of several multicolored printing plate impressions without removing all the other colored impressions without of course completely blanking out the image.
|
No, he's right. Most cards that appear to be missing red have adhesive residue on the back of the card. Either the adhesive removes it, or the card was displayed in the sun and the red faded. I can dig up some examples and post if you want to see what I'm talking about.
|
Furthermore it is true that some inks can fade however the ink itself does not dissipate. You would still have the ink marks.....in this case 400 matrix dots on the background that would have have faded to lets say a pink or white. Believe these cards were printed using 6 or seven colored plates one after another creating a thick almoust painterly like compositions which can be seen with the naked eye....on the other hand offset lithograph is uniformed and extremely flat. Had this been captured during fine art printing in today's standards it would have been destroyed or notated as a working proof and generally not accepted by the artist. I have several Salvador DAli workings proofs which were signed and then signature xed out by him and prints cut it half due to printing flaws. Because this item is missing a step in the overall composition of the finished product and passed as a purchased product I believe that it should be recognized as a variation.
|
Sure.
|
Furthermore it is true that some inks can fade however the ink itself does not dissipate. You would still have the ink marks.....in this case 400 matrix dots on the background that would have have faded to lets say a pink or white. Believe these cards were printed using 6 or seven colored plates one after another creating a thick almoust painterly like compositions which can be seen with the naked eye....on the other hand offset lithograph is uniformed and extremely flat. Had this been captured during fine art printing in today's standards it would have been destroyed or notated as a working proof and generally not accepted by the artist. I have several Salvador DAli workings proofs which were signed and then signature xed out by him and prints cut it half due to printing flaws. Because this item is missing a step in the overall composition of the finished product and passed as a purchased product I believe that it should be recognized as a variation.
|
4 Attachment(s)
Here's one that sucks for the buyer. Paid quite a bit.
http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2013/292.html And a couple scans from faded red cards I have sold. |
If all the inksFurthermore it is true that some inks can fade however the ink itself does not dissipate. You would still have the ink marks.....in this case 400 matrix dots on the background that would have have faded to lets say a pink or white. Believe these cards were printed using 6 or seven colored plates one after another creating a thick almoust painterly like compositions which can be seen with the naked eye....on the other hand offset lithograph is uniformed and extremely flat. Had this been captured during fine art printing in today's standards it would have been destroyed or notated as a working proof and generally not accepted by the artist. I have several Salvador DAli workings proofs which were signed and then signature xed out by him and prints cut it half due to printing flaws. Because this item is missing a step in the overall composition of the finished product and passed as a purchased product I believe that it should be recognized as a variation. are faded I would agree but
|
I would agree if all colors were faded due to sunlight. But due to a dab of glue? I am sure many cards that were glued retained the red color or else there would be an epidemic of redless cards. Im pretty sure all cards were printed using red plates. Let's remember that quality control was horrible and if it looked ok cards would be circulated. And the most important thing here I believe is the type of printing. Six to seven separate colors were used thus creating thickness on the image itself so even if red faded you would still see where the red was applied. Harder to tell on faces because because they required more minute matrix dots and the faces would use all colors. The background color of the Sullivan used what is today known as op art. Yellow with red dots to give an illusion of an orange background. If you look at the pick of the one with orange red background you can see a texture . that texture would have remained.
|
I bought two t206s that had around 40 years of light exposure. Red faded for sure, the other colors didn't.
On one there's still some gloss where the red was, on the other it's not visible. The individual ink layers aren't all that thick, so a faded card won't always show the ink layer as a clear layer. (For lithography, other forms of printing might show a layer with a visible thickness. ) Fading of inks is a tricky thing, especially in that era where natural pigments and dyes were being replaced by synthetics. What's common with T206s is that the bright red will fade often completely while the underlying pink layer won't fade. The bright red is probably cochineal which produces a brilliant red, but is only a bit more lightfast than reds made from plants. The pink is probably one of the two early synthetics that didn't produce a brilliant red, but were far more lightfast. Another trait of a real missing color is that most of them are missing another color as well. http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=18319 Downey and Lobert are the two known faded cards. The lot they're from is probably the one that made SGC abandon slabbing cards as missing colors. There were a few lots from the same seller, some fairly large and still on the backing. All mentioned the cards being framed and in sunlight for around 40 years. I bought one lot early to see if they might actually be missing colors, and decided they weren't another buyer bought one of the bigger lots and a few of them passed as missing colors. It was discussed here, and shortly after someone sent another more likely card to SGC and found they no longer slabbed cards as missing colors. Beck is a genuine missing color, missing both pink and gray. Subtle but a cool card. Huggins is an odd one. A few subjects are found with a very pale look. I believe they might be missing pink, and possibly another color, or might be examples of cards missing pink, but not having the second color as part of the design (Like maybe gray) 6-8 colors is the minimum, some cards have 10 or more. Steve B |
For Informational & Educational Puposes...
Hey there Mr. Creech!,
I fir one would Really Like to See High Res Scans of the Front & Back of Mr. Sullivan's 1st Card that You Offered fir Opinion as fir Missin Red Ink. I also do Believe that it does matter what kind of Glue was used... Your Example has quite a bit of a Resolution Shift & I would love ta See what the Back Looks Like! I do Respect Your Education Endeavors! However, You did ask fir Opinions... I'm Sure that we can all learn from one another here... At Your Leisure, High Res Scans would be Most Helpful ;) |
For sure will send more pics and opinions are what we need.
|
3 Attachment(s)
|
3 Attachment(s)
|
where is the proof?
5 Attachment(s)
Quote:
I mean the actual scientific proof that certain chemicals in glue or solvents remove only red color of ink! If anyone has this proof please post it and we can end this debate. IMO there are some cards out there truly missing the red ink and there are also cards where prolonged direct sunlight or chemical exposure changed colors. That said, it is very easy to tell what is faded and what is chemicals and what is missing red ink. Specifically speaking about missing red ink cards. T206 were printed with a 6 color process. The bold red ink was the last color printed, therefore it is on top of 5 other colors. Glue or solvents placed on the back of a card cannot remove the red ink without also removing/changing the 5 lower layers of color. Chemical agents do not selectively alter ink. They do not go around certain layers. Any chemical bleaching or change impacts on all colors. This is an example of glue or solvent changing color from the back. Attachment 228139Attachment 228150 As we see it is impossible for application of chemicals (glues/solvents) on the back of the card to only change the top layer of a card while leaving the lower layers untouched. Therefore IMO the condition of the back is not relevant where just the top layer of red ink is missing. **It is in theory possible to remove the top layer of red ink with chemicals applied to the front of the card, however it is impossible to remove the ink from the stained cardboard without soaking the card fully in an acid, alkali, glycerine or boiling water... all of which will cause changes in the card as whole not just the red layer of ink. Further, most of the solvents that are strong enough to remove an entire layer of bold red ink are too aggressive for application to cardboard. The would not only dissolve the stain (red ink) but also the cardboard material.** Sunlight fading, the sun can and will fade the red ink because the bold red ink is the top layer. If the cards were exposed to sunlight for extended periods of time there will be a change to their appearance. This is an example of sunlight fading Top 2 cards (Steve Birmingham: Steve B Post) 40 years direct sun exposure Attachment 228133 Note, however that while the red ink did fade, it did not disappear. It is still there just faded, the letters on the jersey are not white, they are pink-brown and the faces retain flush cheeks. More examples (Luke Lyon: LukeLyon Post) faded red ink. Attachment 228149Attachment 228148 Again, the red is still there just faded. So, there are some examples of cards with chemical color change from the back of the card and sunlight fading from the front of the card. In a following post I will identify cards IMO that are missing red ink from the factory... Again, I ask everyone out there to provide Net54 with actual scientific proof that it is possible to selectively remove only the top layer of red ink with chemicals from the back or completely remove it with sunlight from the front. |
The process was more than 6 colors. Most of the ones I've looked closely at are at least 8 colors.
Red on most T206s is done a couple different ways. Typically the bright red is printed over pink. I have normal examples of all three for comparison. On Beck the pink is printed behind red on the hat and cuffs, but not behind the B on the sleeve. For the cards I posted, Both Lobert and Downey have pink printed behind the bright red on the team name. On Downey, the bright red was not printed over the belt, an oddity I can't explain. At the time the technology for ink colors was changing. The really bright reds are probably Cochineal, a really great colorant for bright red, but labor intensive and expensive. The pinks are probably one of the then fairly new synthetic dyes, usually called aniline dyes. Cochineal gives a really brilliant red, but isn't great at holding color under exposure to light. The old aniline dyes held color under light much better, but didn't generally produce a really nice red. They would have been a very good choice for pink. Most of the other colors had available dyes or colorants that held up well under light. The ink makeups were proprietary, but were usually a dye or colorant in some sort of oil based carrier that would dry and harden well. Hard to explain dyes, but they're a solid chemical color. Colorants would be physical particles added to the carrier. Black was usually carbon, either lampblack or carbonblack and won't fade. Some browns were rust, some blues were finely ground turquoise. Many of those won't fade. Someday I need to check the inks with the blacklight. Many aniline dyes react to UV, red often glowing orange red. Steve B |
|
Quote:
|
Chris........
THAT'S BRILLIANT!:eek:
|
2 Attachment(s)
Glue only takes red ink off the front, not the back. ;)
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 PM. |