Posted By:
runscottI really wasn't expecting a response from anyone. Usually the attitude about stuff like this is that the card was doctored or someone altered the bitmap (this is reasonable, given how many bitmaps I have altered 
. But for some weird reason it is always very difficult for collectors to accept that something new might have popped up...and when the evidence can not be disputed, such as in the case of scrap cards with multiple images, the non-scrap collectors insist that the card is valueless...unless it is in their collection, in which case it becomes a "proof".
As stated in my original post, I already considered the "smeared ink" theory and in fact bought the card assuming that's what had happened, but I dismissed it soon after examining the card under a magnifier. I have seen background patterns similar to this in OBAKs, and they look very nice, so why is it so hard to believe that someone would have experimented a little with the t206's? Actually, it's not hard to believe at all - in fact, it's probable.
The Matty black cap variations are proof of this;however, with the Mattys a distinct move was made to another "shading" technique after a significant number of the first type had already been distributed. In the case of the Mattys, even though I produced hard visual evidence that there were two distinct variations, I was told by several collectors that one variation was simply a case of "light ink". Not true, but also not worth banging my head against a wall over.