If SCD says so...

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2748105816&category=31718

I'm really not picking on SCD---I've been happy with the cards I have bought that have been graded by them----but, I don't think they should have labelled this as an orange background. Thoughts????

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

I have to agree. The "orange" could be from fading or simply a printing anomaly. In my opinion, only true variations should be noted on the label, otherwise there'd be a deluge of similar (silly) designations within the T206 series.

On the other hand, there are some T206s that are actually missing one or more colors. I would not be opposed, in some cases, to an appropriate labeling designation for these cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I don't know how everyone else does it, but I determine something's color by its color. It's hard for me to fault SCD because they labelled something that is orange as orange, instead of red.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

David,

Given the following hexadecimal HTML color representations (and realizing that they are only a very small sample of the available hues present in nature), could you please indicate which colors would be "red" and which would be "orange."



Also, if some T206 Cobbs are "orange" does it also stand to reason that some could be "dark red" or "light red" as well? And how about "dark orange" -- I think I've seen a few of those too. Heck, why not label all T206 color "variations" in such a manner? I know of many T206 portraits that contain subtle differences in hue. Perhaps this SCD graded Ty Cobb is an invaluable impetus in reforming our uninspired and carelessly outdated T206 color-blind nomenclature.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Your point is valid, and if you or Elliot don't think the card is orange you shouldn't call it orange. There will be slight variations in color to many T206s where the color can be reasonable debated.

I may have misinterpreted Elliot's post, but it seemed that the discussion was about the collecting significance given to the color (printing defect versus intentional color variation), and not whether or not the card was orange. These are separate issues.

I will finish by saying that if I was selling an orange T206 Ty Cobb I likely would call it orange, but clearly describe how it is merely a printing/ink variation of the regular red background. Unlike those graders, I'm never required to fit a description on a label between the logo and the bar code, so I can take as long as is neccesary.

[Archive]

Posted By: anothercollector

This is similar to the Ken Griffey Jr 1989 Upper Deck Purple hat variation controversy a while back. However, in the long run, Beckett refused to acknowledge it's existence and few bring it up today. Personally, I think it's nothing more than a faded ty cobb portrait. Check this card out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2746010607&category=31718

put this card out in the sun for a couple of days and I'll have a orange background too...

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi All
I don't think the card is faded, it just received less red ink than it was suppose to. Red was the last color added during the printing process, so anything which received less Red than normal would appear orange because of the yellow underneath. While I don't think this is as Orange as some I've seen, It probably received just enough red ink to keep it in the middle. Color Variations with Red backgrounds are actually fairly common, only the Cobb's seem to garner serious attention. It's much easier to see the lack of red in the Boston players, who have varying degrees of color, some have none at all, some have just enough to appear pink, and some are very vivid.
I'll post an example in a minute.
Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Having problems with pics, I'll try later.

Be well Brian