What color is/was this e98 Mack?

[RCMcKenzie]

www.ebay.com/itm/370793923120

What do y'all make of this card? Is it a black and white e98? Was it purple or another color that has now faded? Is it a print error or badly faded? I threw in a bid and ended up winning it and was wondering what y'all think it is.

[jimivintage]

That beauty was once owned by both me and Brian McQueen. There was a couple of threads somewhere that talk about the possibility of it being printer's scrap. Several people have voiced their opinions, and I'm sure you'll get a few responses on this issue.

[caramelcard]

It was orange and then soaked.

There's others out there.

Rob

[RCMcKenzie]

Well, at least it has good provenance. I have not soaked an e98 before. Do they fade easily? I will look under a loupe when it arrives.


-------------------

(thread hosting)

[shammus]

I'm skeptical that the B&W e98s were simply soaked and all the colors were removed from them, yet the blacks and greys, as well as all the ink on the back were untouched. I do remember Steve's orange e98 Young which lost a lot of color. If I remember the story, I believe he forgot about it and left it soaking for 3 days. However, the card still had some color to it that was quite visible, just very faded. Some of the e98s I've seen have had no color at all.

Also, some of those e98s were in numerical holders. If evidence of soaking could be determined under a blacklight or otherwise by SGC, it would seem to me that they would put the card in an "AUT" holder.

Many of the e98s I saw, such as the Mack from the original post, had very crude cuts to them which also leads me to think that they could have been cards that missed color passes or otherwise became printer's scrap, and then taken home and cut up by hand. Ignoring the color on the cards for a second, the cuts alone are indicitive of cards that never made it through the entire printing process and were pulled early for one reason or another.

Another thing, if I recall, a lot of those e98s were also really dirty. So the soaking removed all the color but left the dirt?

All that being said, I do believe that soaking is a good theory for what happened to these e98s and it's clear to me that soaking does cause the loss of a significant amount of color. Just wish there was a way to test this without needing to call on one of my e98s to be the "sacrificial lamb".

[poorlydrawncat]

Most of you have probably seen this, but I thought I'd throw it in here. This Young measures 2mm long and has a pretty weird cut. Also, while the background has some faded color, the image of Young himself has none whatsoever. Make of it what you will.

[caramelcard]

Hi Brian,

The crude cuts, though interesting, were on Steve's card before he soaked it. Not sure why he soaked it, but he had a really interesting group of E98s from the doctor in Boston.

I've had blue and green E98s that look like they're missing the pink in the faces. I believe it's from soaking. I have soaked M116s leaving them with the same exact "whited out" look.

As for dirt, a card can get dirty after being soaked.

I respect your opinion and don't feel too strongly either way. Was just looking at what I thought was the most likely scenario.

Hope you're well.

Rob

[RCMcKenzie]

e98magnified089.jpge98magnified2090.jpg

It's clearer in hand, but here are some close up scans of this card. It looks like it has traces of orange in the upper left corner.

[Leon]

I picked up the Evers off color...It is in an SGC10 holder. It certainly could be missing some orange from soaking.....not positive right now.