How ghosts came to be

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Peich

Ever since Seth posted the T-206s with ghost images, I have wanted to weigh in on the subject. One of my interests is fine printing, and in that area of my life I make books by hand from hand-set type, printed on a handpress. As a result, I am familiar with the pitfalls of ink, printing presses, etc.

When I look at the additional image in the Beck card, I do not see a ghost image. I see what printers call set-off, i.e., the ink from one sheet has set off onto the sheet beneath it. In this case the ink from the back of the card has set off on to the front. This is a mistake in the printing process, and if discovered, the sheet is destroyed.

That brings me to the point made a few weeks ago about the rarity of Seth's T-206s. They, like the Beck card, are printers mistakes. Nothing more. I discussed this briefly with Seth at Ft. Washington, and he pointed out, correctly, that even though they are mistakes, T-206 collectors enjoy having odd-ball cards as part of their sets. Fair enough.

My concern is this: By attaching value to these obvious mistakes, the card is being artificially inflated. For example, in the book collecting world of first editions (another addiction for which I am known), there have been notable examples of typos that identify the true first printing of a book. But, once the typo is spotted, someone corrects it, and all subsequent editions are free from the error. By knowing a book's typos a discerning collector can tell whether his copy is a true first edition, first issue, for example, of The Great Gatsby (it has one of the most famous typos). Thus, if one has a copy of The Great Gatsby with the typo, it is worth more than subsequent printings (with the typo corrected) because it represents the earliest version of the book.

That is not the case with printers errors on baseball cards. They are errors, and don't mark a card as necessarily an earlier version of that card. In the case of a book's typo, someone has actually gone into the book, if you will, and made a correction. That action involves a willful act and is much different from a mistake that was the result of a mechnical oversight by the printer, like set-off. Set-off usually results in the sheets being destroyed; however, we have examples of these cards only because someone did not throw the damaged sheet away.

So, instead of praising these printing mistakes by ascribing value to them, let's simply accept them for what they are--mistakes that have no real value. Besides, I think they're ugly, and should be worth less than a good card.

I don't mean to lower the value of Seth's cards with my discussion, because I believe that a card is worth whatever someone pays for it. But, I also find it hard to accept that we look upon obvious mistakes as being somehow more valuable than a clearly rendered version of the same card.

Thanks for reading, and while I await your responses, I'm going to open a beer and watch some more March Madness.

Cheers, Mike