What Causes This Color Variation?

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

This discussion in the "Silver Comics" section...

 

misprint in xmen 7 (LINK)

 

...reminded me of a front cover color variation I had seen with Iron Man #113.

 

 

 

See Below. The first pic is normal, followed by two color variations I've found. Notice the yellow areas at the very top of the cover.

 

 

 

Does anyone know exactly how this variation occurs in the printing process?

 

Is this common or uncommon?

 

Is this considered a true variant?

[Point Five]

Looks like glitches of missing ink in the magenta plate, such that the yellow that should be combining with magenta to form the red cover is showing through. No idea what the specific problem would be that would cause the different error variations though.

 

I wouldn't consider these variants, just curiosities.

 

 

[jerome34]

Lots of items like this exist. Look at the "Variant Mafia" forum on

 

http://blogstl.stlcomics.com/

 

to see many and read comments by those who find them interesting.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Looks like glitches of missing ink in the magenta plate, such that the yellow that should be combining with magenta to form the red cover is showing through. No idea what the specific problem would be that would cause the different error variations though.

 

I wouldn't consider these variants, just curiosities.

 

 

Makes sense.

 

Weird that it's localized in two distinct areas at two separate times during the print run.

 

I wonder what the mechanism is that causes the loss of color.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Lots of items like this exist. Look at the "Variant Mafia" forum on

 

http://blogstl.stlcomics.com/

 

to see many and read comments by those who find them interesting.

 

Thanks for the link!

 

I found the area where they describe this issue. Looks like I found the only two variations.

 

LINK

 

 

I couldn't find any mention of cause, scarcity or value, but they are identified as "Color/Print Variants" (at least by the "Variant Mafia" ).

 

Cool stuff!

[Spider-Variant]

The Variant Mafia are just fellow collectors like yourself.

 

Metarog is a member of this board as well, and has done a tremendous job (along with the rest of the Variant Mafia) of doucmenting these types of variations.

 

There are several different books that have similar color defects such as this one. I have really seen no premiums above the normal price for these books.

 

 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

The Variant Mafia are just fellow collectors like yourself.

 

Metarog is a member of this board as well, and has done a tremendous job (along with the rest of the Variant Mafia) of doucmenting these types of variations.

 

There are several different books that have similar color defects such as this one. I have really seen no premiums above the normal price for these books.

 

 

I love that website. Kudos to Metarog and the rest of the group for compiling and documenting all this material. Good stuff!

 

I haven't seen premiums for these variants either, although I've never seen one specifically identified as such.

 

I actually think these color/print variants would make a great collection - regardless of the market price.

[Metarog]

Thanks for the Kudos guys... I personally love these anomolies on covers and when I find them they are posted up in the STL Interactive gallery.

 

BTW, I read somewhere that errors such as the one on IM 113 might be caused by something getting on the plate such as a piece of paper or other junk so that a color never gets to the area.

[Spider-Variant]

Thanks for the Kudos guys... I personally love these anomolies on covers and when I find them they are posted up in the STL Interactive gallery.

 

BTW, I read somewhere that errors such as the one on IM 113 might be caused by something getting on the plate such as a piece of paper or other junk so that a color never gets to the area.

 

You are the man Roger!

 

 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Thanks for the Kudos guys... I personally love these anomolies on covers and when I find them they are posted up in the STL Interactive gallery.

 

BTW, I read somewhere that errors such as the one on IM 113 might be caused by something getting on the plate such as a piece of paper or other junk so that a color never gets to the area.

 

Regarding the mechanism involved, my theory was along the lines of a plate etching error - in this case three plates being used (2 bad, 1 good) before the problem was fixed. I considered debri like a piece of paper, but the variant area seems too uniform and sharply defined above the banner. Also, I would think that debri would capture paint and print itself much like the unetched areas since it would be higher than the plate itself.

 

Just a theory. I love a good mystery.

[ShieldAgent]

I heard Roger looks like Superboy.

[Spider-Variant]

I heard Roger looks like Superboy.

 

31

[ShieldAgent]

I heard Roger looks like Superboy.

 

31

 

[Dr. Balls]

Since this is an old issue of Iron Man (before digital printing era) it sure looks like it's a stripping error when they imposed (the arrangement of the printed pages on the sheet) the film to burn the plates. Waaaaaay back when (up until the 90's) a 'stripper' would layout and register the four colors of film to be burned to plates manually by hand on a big light table.

 

In the olden days, you would have to strip multiples of the same images to be burned on a large plate because the parent sheet size for the press could be up to 36-48" wide. This large sheet size (on a roll for web offset presses) allowed several "copies" of each book to be printed at the same time, streamlining the process.

 

So, when you saw a printed sheet of the cover, it looked like this:

 

 

So, somewhere along the line, one of the strippers (who work for more than $1 at a time) may have miscut the magenta plate in those areas and it ended up being printed at 100% yellow the way it appears. It's not unheard of to make a mistake like that, and the nature of how it looks make me think it was made before the plates were burned (it does not look like a press-side error or printing issue)

 

It's not a variant, it's just a printer error. I'm currently waiting for Dice to show up and see if he has another theory.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Since this is an old issue of Iron Man (before digital printing era) it sure looks like it's a stripping error when they imposed (the arrangement of the printed pages on the sheet) the film to burn the plates. Waaaaaay back when (up until the 90's) a 'stripper' would layout and register the four colors of film to be burned to plates manually by hand on a big light table.

 

In the olden days, you would have to strip multiples of the same images to be burned on a large plate because the parent sheet size for the press could be up to 36-48" wide. This large sheet size (on a roll for web offset presses) allowed several "copies" of each book to be printed at the same time, streamlining the process.

 

So, when you saw a printed sheet of the cover, it looked like this:

 

 

So, somewhere along the line, one of the strippers (who work for more than $1 at a time) may have miscut the magenta plate in those areas and it ended up being printed at 100% yellow the way it appears. It's not unheard of to make a mistake like that, and the nature of how it looks make me think it was made before the plates were burned (it does not look like a press-side error or printing issue)

 

It's not a variant, it's just a printer error. I'm currently waiting for Dice to show up and see if he has another theory.

 

Great info!

 

I learn something new here every day!

 

Just a wild wild guess, but is this a clue to the miscut?

 

It seems like the angles align (look inside the blue box) when the two variants are arranged in this way with one being flipped.

 

[Dr. Balls]

Since this is an old issue of Iron Man (before digital printing era) it sure looks like it's a stripping error when they imposed (the arrangement of the printed pages on the sheet) the film to burn the plates. Waaaaaay back when (up until the 90's) a 'stripper' would layout and register the four colors of film to be burned to plates manually by hand on a big light table.

 

In the olden days, you would have to strip multiples of the same images to be burned on a large plate because the parent sheet size for the press could be up to 36-48" wide. This large sheet size (on a roll for web offset presses) allowed several "copies" of each book to be printed at the same time, streamlining the process.

 

So, when you saw a printed sheet of the cover, it looked like this:

 

 

So, somewhere along the line, one of the strippers (who work for more than $1 at a time) may have miscut the magenta plate in those areas and it ended up being printed at 100% yellow the way it appears. It's not unheard of to make a mistake like that, and the nature of how it looks make me think it was made before the plates were burned (it does not look like a press-side error or printing issue)

 

It's not a variant, it's just a printer error. I'm currently waiting for Dice to show up and see if he has another theory.

 

Great info!

 

I learn something new here every day!

 

Just a wild wild guess, but is this a clue to the miscut?

 

It seems like the angles align (look inside the blue box) when the two variants are arranged in this way with one being flipped.

 

 

At first, I was thinking that it might have lined up, so I laid them out. But, in actuality, the two color errors would look like this when laid out:

 

 

And, the other thing is that they are very linear and exact - perhaps some tape/paper/something blocked the magenta separation in that area from being exposed when they shot the plates.

 

Anyways - don't take it as gospel, but that's my educated guess based on my knowledge of printing. Dice and I have similar backgrounds I think, because we always seem to come to the same production conclusions on these issues. I'm interested in his take - if he meanders in here...

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Since this is an old issue of Iron Man (before digital printing era) it sure looks like it's a stripping error when they imposed (the arrangement of the printed pages on the sheet) the film to burn the plates. Waaaaaay back when (up until the 90's) a 'stripper' would layout and register the four colors of film to be burned to plates manually by hand on a big light table.

 

In the olden days, you would have to strip multiples of the same images to be burned on a large plate because the parent sheet size for the press could be up to 36-48" wide. This large sheet size (on a roll for web offset presses) allowed several "copies" of each book to be printed at the same time, streamlining the process.

 

So, when you saw a printed sheet of the cover, it looked like this:

 

 

So, somewhere along the line, one of the strippers (who work for more than $1 at a time) may have miscut the magenta plate in those areas and it ended up being printed at 100% yellow the way it appears. It's not unheard of to make a mistake like that, and the nature of how it looks make me think it was made before the plates were burned (it does not look like a press-side error or printing issue)

 

It's not a variant, it's just a printer error. I'm currently waiting for Dice to show up and see if he has another theory.

 

Great info!

 

I learn something new here every day!

 

Just a wild wild guess, but is this a clue to the miscut?

 

It seems like the angles align (look inside the blue box) when the two variants are arranged in this way with one being flipped.

 

 

At first, I was thinking that it might have lined up, so I laid them out. But, in actuality, the two color errors would look like this when laid out:

 

 

And, the other thing is that they are very linear and exact - perhaps some tape/paper/something blocked the magenta separation in that area from being exposed when they shot the plates.

 

Anyways - don't take it as gospel, but that's my educated guess based on my knowledge of printing. Dice and I have similar backgrounds I think, because we always seem to come to the same production conclusions on these issues. I'm interested in his take - if he meanders in here...

 

Yes, some step in the photo process seems to make sense given the precision of the error.

 

Looking at your plate layout, I guess they must have corrected the problem mid-run, otherwise 50% of the copies in population would have one of the error variations (assuming 2 correct images+1 left side yellow variation+1 right-side yellow variation)

[Dr. Balls]

Looking at your plate layout, I guess they must have corrected the problem mid-run, otherwise 50% of the copies in population would have one of the error variations (assuming 2 correct images+1 left side yellow variation+1 right-side yellow variation)

 

Yeah, it all depends on the size of press they would run on. It could have been a gigantic press that laid 4, 6 or 8 FC/BC covers on a signature, and if only two had errors - it could have been a 1:4 or 1:6 or 1:8 ratio. (or 2:4, 2:6, 2:8 for both covers). Hard to say if it would have got corrected or not - web presses - even back then - might have printed at 1,500 feet per minute, so they may not have caught it in time. Plus, web presses are much more complex to set up than regular sheet-fed presses. They may have just chose to let it go.

 

Ahhh, it's nice to talk shop.

[DiceX]

This book was printed on a letter press. Not an offset press.

I'll explain what happened when I get home late tonight.

 

 

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

This book was printed on a letter press. Not an offset press.

I'll explain what happened when I get home late tonight.

 

 

Great! Looking forward to it.

 

Dr. Balls got me interested in reading more about offset printing today. But the more I read the more questions I have. It's amazing to me that all of the ink is successfully transferred to the paper. I would have thought some ink residue would remain on the offset blanket cylinder after each impression and would quickly build up and cause problems.