When it comes to BG's, nothing compares to the original.

Its a scanned repro. A repro done like that is never going to be as good as the original. What your expectations should be is up for debate.

The lines in the pencil type drawing of the centaur man and his woman should be darker lines. They are too gray.

This section here stands out the worst.
repro_(resized).jpgorig_(resized).jpg

Look for some threads from when this originally came out. There was general disappointment with this glass. I believe it was almost an "oops", we'll do better next time sort of response from CPR. They thought they could do better as well. It looks clearly washed out to even a casual observer when compared to an original.

contact Steve at bgresto.com

I'll second this. You're going to wait a long time though. I ordered in November and am still (albeit patiently) waiting. I personally wasn't happy with my Paragon BG for the same reason; muddle detail and it scratched real easy. I received a very long explanation from Kevin at CPR, but it didn't justify the disappointment. Modern technology shouldn't have these shortcomings.

Nothing modern about silkscreening backglasses.

Same basic procedure from 1000 years ago.

-

Now that Rick has stolen the original films from IPB, some new glasses may now be created without scanning an old one.

We can only hope the stolen stuff brings something positive rathervthan more hoarding.
The current CPR offering is just plain junk. I bought one and it really it not usable imo. Most of their stuff is really good, but this one missed the mark.

I have a CPR Centaur BG, but didn't notice any artwork irregularities, but then again I haven't seen an original BG in a while to compare.

Simply put it's poor color management. Having worked in the print industry for far to long it's not the first time I have seen this, nor will it be the last. The good news is that it's an easy fix, but might be to late for some, but I am sure CPR will fix this for new ones. Also, hats off to CPR for the level of detail they put into this BG. Other then the bad color management it's a very faithful repro. And yes I am Canadian and spell color without a U intentionally.

Fwiw - the gen 2 translights from PPS suffer from the same issue - the colors are not as deep and vivid as the originals. I had hoped that since translights are printed and not screened, the gen 2s would be of similar quality to the originals - but they are not.

image_(resized).jpeg

When you are printing with a different process on different substrates some color shift even under the most strict color management should be expected, minimal when done correctly, but expected. What this Centaur suffers from is a clear lack of correct monitor color calibration/gamma setup OR soft proofing control OR conversion, OR some combo of all three. With centaur you have the input of the original art against a recreation of other art. Also, you can see the detail level on the repro isn't in the same ball-park as the original, but something you wouldn't see at 6ft. Color management is easy when you know what you are doing, but you can't wing it or this happens.

We can certainly expect sharp images, and artwork that doesn't scratch so easily.

That was probably the expectation 1000 year ago also

To be fair to Kevin and CPR I'll repost Kevin's reply to my Paragon issues from ~2 years ago. It's quite verbose, but does explain the challenges they face. I have no hard feelings whatsoever but will stick to NOS or good used BGs when I can.

"I understand. But I'm still sad to hear when people have problems.

I've attached a JPEG screencapture showing the warning label that's stuck on the outside kraftpaper wrapper that we ship our backglasses in. I'm aware some distributors (maybe all) open all our wrappers and shelf the glasses bare & free. Then they re-wrap and pack themselves when they get a sale. I fear that none of our warning labels are getting to end users. We try to keep this info public on our site as well, here in the Install Guide section (Part 3): http://www.classicplayfields.com/vote.html.

The problem with reproduction is we can't use the lead-based enamels they used in yesteryear. They don't exist anymore. Those inks dried like nail polish, possibly even harder, and were very durable to rubbing. Not scrapes. But rubs.

There is no "bite" between ink and glass, as glass is impermeable. So it sits on there, it's not attached. Same goes for original glasses. The magic of the old days was in those old inks. Today, the toughest enamels (which we use for the white and lightblock layer) are gloss enamels, but they're all solvent based and lead free.

Baked enamels (like on beer glasses, or any logo-printed glassware) are furnace-fired. Those inks cure like porcelain, and meld to the glass physically. A totally different thing. Of course, impossible for backglasses. The tempered panels would explode if brought back up to 500+ degrees.

As for the artwork itself - all our CMYK glasses (the ones made from dots) look that way. About a 25-30% "resolution" loss over an original, as it's basically a remaster (color copy) of an NOS specimen. All the original fine-res films are lost. So we have to create our own - starting from an actual glass. The factories had the paintings! Compared to the paintings, original glasses are a 25-30% loss. We have to start at a disadvantage, going from original glass - through a whole new lab rasterization to new dots / films - and they have to pull down the lines per inch to make the new dots. Originals were around 120 lpi sitting on the glass. The new films the lab makes for us are 87 lpi. If they pull any finer, they start to get a moire interference pattern and it ruins the films. Google "silkscreening moire" and you'll see what I mean.

Our spot-color glasses (like recent S&S, and EK) look identical to originals, because each color is a solid mixed ink. No CMYK dots.

We're still getting closer and closer to original-looking as possible with each CMYK run. It's not been done before, so we're breaking new ground and the film lab we're working with is fantastic. Making small tweaks on parameters with each passing run. We finally hit 98-99% color accuracy with the Whirlwind backglass release - on par exactly with the color mix of the translite. Paragon looked great if one puts away their original glass and let's their eye adopt the new one... but the color mix on the repro was off by about 15%. The lab weights the C M Y and K differently with each film set, trying to dial in a finished match once assembled as inks on glass.

I've rambled on, and I'm sorry for that. We hope to try Paragon glasses again someday, probably when the playfield comes out. We'll have new films made, using the tweaked parameters we're at with the lab at that time. By that time, we'll probably have had another dozen CMYK glasses under our belt to confirm the parameters - then we'll stick with it forever, having cracked the code.

Unfortunately, resolution will NEVER match an original CMYK glass. But on spot color glasses, a 100% match.

Kevin"

Reproduction backglasses always suck... but they are really meant for the "it's better than nothing or one that's pealing really, really bad" crowd.

Sharp images, yes.

Not easily scratched, no. Even when those backglasses were brand new, they were as fragile as fnck.

-

Hell, one pinhead had all the ink fall off his backglasses just from the bad roads up in Michigan:

There are substantial difference in how fragile the reproductions are. Kevin points it out above, snippet here:

"The problem with reproduction is we can't use the lead-based enamels they used in yesteryear. They don't exist anymore. Those inks dried like nail polish, possibly even harder, and were very durable to rubbing. Not scrapes. But rubs."

That's true.

At least the reproduction ink does not all come off when you drive on Michigan roads.

On the other hand, the new Sorcerer backglass from PPS looks absolutely amazing. I'm really impressed with it. Side-by-side with my near-perfect original, I prefer the repro.

And patience paid off ... my two backglasses just arrived today (Paragon and Devil's Dare). Well worth the wait - they look great. Nothing beats original, but these are the very next best thing.

Amen, Brother.

That's ok as long as you don't send me a cheque.

Will do. Weather was extra crappy here in the northeast, so you'd only be getting dark photos in my home if I did them today.

The beauty is in the eye of the beholder ... So with that said a "decent" original can range from $200-$500. It all depends on supply and demand.