T206 Billy Sullivan missing red ink variation? Your opinion

[AJR]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

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.

No offense to anyone but I have heard this many times... glue/adhesive or a solvent singularly removes the red ink... Does anyone have any proof of this?

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.

t206DahlenBosYellow001.jpgFullSizeRender-8.jpg

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

user4257_pic18319_1430928335.jpg

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.

Griffith faded red a.jpgBeckle a.jpg

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.

[steve B]

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

[atx840]

[Thromdog]

Originally Posted by AJR

This is an example of glue or solvent changing color from the back.

That's my Dahlen!

[mrvster]

THAT'S BRILLIANT!

[Jantz]

Glue only takes red ink off the front, not the back.