A couple of years ago, I wrote an article warning collectors to be wary of T206s that are marketed as “missing red ink” cards. The reasons for this are two-fold. First, red ink seems to be especially prone to fading on T206s. Secondly, it seems likely that some of the adhesives used 100 years ago caused red ink to fade from the fronts of T206s. Whether the red ink was altered by a chemical, or simply faded from being exposed to light, there is almost always some paper loss or adhesive residue on the back of the card.
The full article can be read by clicking the link below:
Beware of Expensive “Missing Red” T206 cards
As you can probably tell, I am very skeptical of cards that appear to be missing red ink. However, there are some legit missing red T206s out there, and they are pretty cool. Ultimately, it comes down the this question: “Was red ink printed on this card, or not?” If not, it’s a rare card, and it will often command a premium. If red ink was printed on the card, but a post-production alteration (either due to chemicals or exposure to light) removed it from the card, that card is not a legitimate “missing red ink” T206.
Recently, I spotted the Frank Chance Red Background Portrait above and had to do a double-take. The background appears to be a cross between orange, pink, and gray. In fact, it looks so dissimilar to other Chance Red Background Portraits that the Auction House labeled it as Chance’s Yellow Background Portrait. At first glance, it looked legit to me, but I wanted to get it in hand to take a closer look. I put in a bid that was somewhere between what it would be worth if it was a real missing red ink T206, and what it would be worth if it was merely faded, and I won it. When the card arrived in the mail, the first thing I did was examine the back. I was looking for any sign of adhesive residue or staining. As you can see from the scan above, it looks totally clean.
Back damage is usually the tell-tale sign that the front of a card has been altered, either by exposure to light or chemicals. Even without any evidence of adhesive residue, fading is still possible. It doesn’t seem very likely, but it’s always possible that a card was left on a window ledge or bookshelf and the red ink faded over time. However, if the missing red ink was the result of fading, I would expect the front of the card to exhibit other signs of fading. Luckily, I had another copy of the card with a typical, deep red background handy. I scanned the two cards side-by-side at low resolution. The difference is striking.
Next, I wanted to compare the different attributes of each card. I turned the resolution on my scanner up to 1200 dpi. First, I looked at the black line around the images, and then the name and team caption. To my eye, both the black and brown inks look the same on each card. Next I wanted to compare the green print dots that appear to the right and left of his face. They are quite faint on each card. If the card on the left (aka “Orange Chance”) was exposed to light for an extended period of time, I would expect the light green dots to fade along with the red.
Then I shifted my focus to his uniform. To my eye, the blue on his collar is an identical shade on each card. If Orange Chance was exposed to light, I would expect the blue on his collar to be dulled, at least to some extent. To my eye, it looks like the card on the right has some red in the uniform while Orange Chance does not. Other than that, I don’t see any other differences.
Finally, I focused on the pink shading on his face. Red Chance not only has pink shading, but a small amount of red ink on his upper lip. The pink layer on Orange Chance is fainter than Red Chance. The red ink on his lip is completely missing on Orange Chance. I would expect the pink layer to be completely gone if Orange Chance had been exposed to a light source. On the other hand, the fact that the pink layer is lighter on Orange Chance does give me pause. This is the only difference between the two cards that points toward fading. It’s possible that Orange Chance could have been exposed to light, which caused the red ink to fade, and the pink layer to partially fade.
Taking all of the available information into consideration, I think it’s quite likely that red ink was never applied to my card. However, it’s probably impossible to prove either way, and I am certainly biased. I am hoping to have a friend who is an expert on printing processes used in the early 1900’s take a look at my card and offer his opinion. If I’m able to make that happen, I will post an update.