Whatever is contracting, it is pulling towards the middle, evenly? Would an autograph on the opposite side have its "shadow" on the opposite side as well? With such differences in surface tension from signed side to other side I think it would warp or delaminate if not stored properly and if not over a long period of time?
If the ink it not as protected as it would be if still "inside" the underprint due to skrinkage in some direction on the laminate (radially, to the middle?), it must be more delicate I think?
To add support to Perry's theory, look at the roach/cigarette. It has the same features (and likely the same causes) that Perry discussed.
Interesting discussion. Definitely appreciate Perry’s explanation and that makes sense to me. The ink is essentially floating on the laminate and does not saturate the cover. When the laminate shrinks it pulls from the edge to the center and I think that is consistent with what we are seeking here.
Also the Tracks COA clearly shows a signature with considerably less ink than it has in the other photographs. Therefore it is logical to assume it has been “touched up” or “overwritten” at some point in its history. If not it’s hard to reconcile the difference in contrast between the Tracks COA and the photo in this thread.
The contrast in the signatures can certainly vary within the image and brightness settings between the images provided here.
But if this album was traced, then where are the double impression lines on the lamination from both the original signing and the tracing? Only one impression from the original signing is present.
True - bug take a look at this example. You can clearly see the lighter and darker areas of the ink lay down which does not correspond to the COA. As far as the lack of a signing impression for the overwritten part that is likely due to a very light trace of the original signature. I think a restorer would not press hard at all and would only apply as much force as necessary. Also the pic shows what are multiple stops and starts?
It appears the bottom of the "r" is pointy in the unperprint and rounded in the shrinking ink layer?
Again, the signature itself varied with ink pooling in areas while the.impression left on the cover did not. It only transferred the image bases solely on the stroke and pressure.
I see now, literally. Excellent thread and not something I have seen come up here before.
I see more pooling ebb and flow of ink which is typical of laminated surfaces than I see actual starts and stops. There is one at the T of the last name but the thinner one below is covered by it and the break cannot be seen. The lower script is an image of the upper save for the color and thickness. And the lower being an image transfer, doesn't have the same light and darkness of the ink as it was created solely by the original single signing impression. I've seen traced over signatures over time and they generally tried to run their re-sign inside the original impression restoring or darkening the original. But next to it?
Again, who is ever going trace 'next' to the original in an effort to fraud or restore ink by creating 2 distinct signatures side by side? What is accomplished doing that? Anyway, we dont have to agree on these points, but a nice discussion a d I've appreciated the other viewpoints. Im mean what if both sides of this discussion were right to some degree? .....1. The original faded leacing mostly it's impression . 2. The lamination still shifted retaining it's impression lines but with little color. 3. Then perhaps somebody did an amazing job tracing new ink in the original groove? This would also then have 2 images of the signings viewable as we see it now. But I seriously doubt this is the case either as the inknfills the impression exactly and Im not sure thats possible with a retrace job. ....anyway sorry to use too many words to say what a better writer can say in 30.
I'll just use two words - Thanks Perry!
And thanks to you as well.