How many times can they get it wrong?

Ghost prints & Error cards:

I thought it would be very interesting to view ghost prints or any other error cards.

Hey Brad, how many times can who get what wrong?

That Crispette looks like neither a ghost print or an error card, but a wet sheet transfer.

How many times can they get it wrong?

It was in regrades to the Company's that produced the sport cards "Ghost prints & Error cards".


That Crispette looks like neither a ghost print or an error card, but a wet sheet transfer.

I have seen meny cards listed in auction's that were wet sheet transfers labelled as ghost prints.. Company'/s that manufactured cards with a wet sheet tranfer didn't intentionally try to produce anomalys with in there final product. So I would consider a wet sheet transfer asa somewhat error card.

Please fell free to add wet sheet tranfers to this thread. I believe any cards with anomalys are considered error cards! Yes, there are degrees and discrepancies when classifying error cards!

Here is my one and only GHOST.....A T206 Jones:




I also have this E90-2 Leever that has a wet sheet transfer on the front of the card. It's hard to see from the scan, but it has the "American Caramels" back boarder around the outside edges (in the white boarder), and you can see the "100 Subjects" in the pink background.

Another ghost...

This #148 Eddie Farrell card has an upside down #160 Lou Gehrig back. On the very bottom can be seen the top half of 149 ... which happens to be Babe Ruth! So I like to think of it as a Lou Gehrig & Babe Ruth back!

That's a pretty sweet card King!

v117collector wrote:Companies that manufactured cards with a wet sheet transfer didn't internally try to produce anomalies with in there final product. So I would consider a wet sheet transfer as a somewhat error card. I believe any cards with anomalies are considered error cards! Yes, there are degrees and discrepancies when classifying error cards!

I think that's a fair argument. Wet sheet transfers are error cards to a certain degree because the uncut sheets were mistakenly laid upon eachother before the ink was completely dry, leaving a mirror image on the back. Sometimes its tough not to get caught up in the language people use in their auctions.

v117collector wrote:I have seen many cards listed in auctions that were wet sheet transfers labeled as ghost prints..

I don't see wet sheet transfers as the same thing as ghost images. I'm no expert though, would anyone care to weigh in on that? From my point of view, the ghost images are not a mirror image of the front of another card, they are actually kind of random and sometimes mysterious. Not the result of wet ink stacking. Ghost images turn up far less often and are not really unique looking like this one below and these ones too


This one belongs to Brian too I believe. Very cool card.

So a wet sheet tranfer with an alernet image are considered ghost prints?

I thought ghost prints had nothing to do with a wet sheet tranfer, and have everything to do with a mistake with in the printing process.

It seem that all ghost prints are basically wet sheet tranfers.


This look like wet sheet tranfers lablled ghost overprints, is my Maple card any different?
http://www.t206museum.com/page/ra_ghost_back_field.html

fisherboy7 wrote:

v117collector wrote:I have seen many cards listed in auctions that were wet sheet transfers labeled as ghost prints..

I don't see wet sheet transfers as the same thing as ghost images. I'm no expert though, would anyone care to weigh in on that? From my point of view, the ghost images are not a mirror image of the front of another card, they are actually kind of random and sometimes mysterious. Not the result of wet ink stacking. Ghost images turn up far less often and are not really unique looking like this one below and these ones too


This one belongs to Brian too I believe. Very cool card.

Ben, that's my Bernard and its in a SGC holder with "Ghost Image" label. I also agree with your assessment of ghost images versus wet ink transfers, mirror images, and bleed throughs.

Here is another Obak, that I don't own, and that I don't consider to be a ghost image...

Here is a pretty extreme wet ink transfer. It should be noted that the text usually found on the back is not present, but there is a slight ghosting of the text on the front (hard to see but it is visible down by his name). Anyways, I thought it was a pretty cool piece...