Actually, I'll step up and provide the pictures myself. Nothing to hide here. Let's be honest, and openly discuss. I have a few pix from Syco now (we're talking off Pinside in email, and I will be phoning him tomorrow at some point to chat live). So I'll use the pix at hand. His pix, not mine.
Let me be clear, I'm not trying to single out Syco here. This will be an overall comment on what has been referred to as "pickyness" in general, on here. There is absolutely no doubt there are expectations vs. physical realities/results completely different between us and some end users. There is also absolutely no doubt there always will be. It's just a fact in the hobby. Doesn't make it right or wrong. It's just there.
As a playfield producer, you produce the absolute best you can, with all the small shortcomings of the legacy/classic methods. It's simply a fact that keeping authenticity with original processes, you get stung all the time by those little shortcomings. Because people will spot them, and they will announce them. All you can do is let the chips fall where they may. I've commented on this topic in various threads of the past. The most recent being the TAF thread (where hundreds shipped, ~10 had grievances to display in pix on here). That's darned good results, folks. All the TAFs were built completely the same. We don't intentionally make different runs of differing quality appearances. So one may wonder why there are always some playfields that will be called out in public, considering their gold graded playfield to be allegedly a standout failure, in their eyes. Sub-par. "Far from a gold" Etc. How can I and the end user differ so much? I truly believe it comes down to different expectations. One expectation is very high (what I consider one-off QC artisan/restored playfield quality), and the other expectation (mine) matches the maximum QC reality of actual production playfield possibilities. Again, neither is "right or wrong" ... just two completely different places on the spectrum.
So here we are discussing the Earthshaker run now. I'll pick the most grievous pic from Syco's selection. Again, this is not about Syco, and he is not being singled out. I want to illustrate what it's like to get a grievance, show it, explain it, and let's discuss. Might as well use a real-life submission, since this is what is being discussed above. So here is what we are dealing with:
insert1.jpg
Look closely at this picture. It has been scaled to "actual size" ... so we are dealing with what this insert would look like in real life, as a typical 1.5" Williams arrow insert. Look closely. How do you feel about the insert? What are you seeing? (I'm 'poisoning the well' a bit, because I'm basically forcing people to "hunt" for something wrong) Keep in mind, this insert is the worst example provided in the grievance being described up above. Just to set the tone of the playfield on trial, please know, this is what we are dealing with.
Now, the truth is, this insert isn't perfect. It DOES have a problem. A small problem, even most may say a virtually invisible problem, but yet some may say a CLEARLY-visible, completely unacceptable problem. Opinions are going to vary. Plus consider it's on many more inserts here and there, albeit lesser degrees, but there. My opinion? Normal occurrences, they aren't flubs but rather one of those methodology shortcomings as I mentioned above (I'll explain below BTW), yes score is lowered, but with the rest of the face being so beautiful and having nothing else findable - it confidently lands in the 97-99 percentile (CPR Gold).
Now what if this type of small technical shortcoming appears on THE WHOLE RUN ? Does it scuttle them all ? Again, look at that life-size picture. This is where the rubber meets the road, folks. The debate has got to be about the degree of importance on this kind of thing. We're all about striving for 100.00% perfection, but have learned after 14 years... 97-99% is all that we're going to get. There is no 100%. It means everybody has to accept a level of blemish that simply exists. Tiny things. There is no way 10-16 wet color layers can be separately laid one-at-a-time, across 7-10 days, across 10-16 separate silkscreen press runs, and yield a 100% perfect top-to-bottom stack of artwork with zero blemishes. Using authentic screening equipment and tech from the 1980's... It's just not going to happen. We're going to come darned close to what 'appears' to be perfection to the vast majority of end users... but some sets of eyes will always spot things, and then they cannot 'unsee' them. Depends on the end user. No question.
So here is another picture....
insert2.jpg
Same picture... except this time it's presented in the resolution it was provided in. The same type of 20X close-up magnification that is often presented on Pinside when issues are put on display. Now *everybody* can see the issue, without hesitation. Vomit, right ? Absolutely horrid. Yes, I completely agree. If an insert was THIS big on a playfield, who the heck could live with this ? Every CPR playfield would be a bronze... because every playfield would score 40-50, due to the degree of how messed up this looks. We'd never get near a 97-99 percentile, with flaws like this. In this example, we're getting in so close now, that one can actually see the ragged screen mesh edges on the fonts/edges. Wowzers.
Regardless, let's discuss what is going on here. Is that a crack? Is something wrong with the blackline art? Yes, I will be discussing this with Syco on the phone, but I want to make my/this general comments public, so it stays on here for reference.
So what is this hairline in the blackline, and why is it on several other inserts as well ? The answer is one of those damned shortcomings of the tech: What you are seeing is black ink shear. The black layer is being "cut" across two completely different heights on the surface... the face of the insert, and the face of the inks next to the insert (which are about 8 mils taller than the face of the insert). To help by using an illustration, here is a drawing:
Ink Layering
This is a side-view cutaway of a seated insert in a playfield. The tan is the wood, and the light grey is the insert. What happens in classic spot-ink silkscreening, is that the white layer goes down first (seen on the wood, and overlapping the insert). Then the color fill layer goes down on top of that (in this case the insert is surrounded by yellow). Then at the end, the black layer (the "blackline") goes down last.
Our press prints from left to right. That means a huge squeegee blade (dark blue) travels across the playfield, squeezing the black layer through the screen (screen not shown) onto the wood/color layers, jumping the black layer on top of everything that is there.
So why the hairline sometimes in the blackline ? Answer: Due to the wet ink squeegeeing across from left-to-right, due to the right edge "shelving up" in height from the face of the insert, the sharpness of the squeegee blade SOMETIMES will "chop" the black ink across that shelf. Note that it's always the right hand edge, rarely (if never) the left. For some reason, the "downward" transition (on the left) flows the black ink without a chop.
You'll notice in this example, the chop reveals yellow ink. That is what you are seeing in the actual photos above. It's not white. It's not wood. It's the top of the "shelf" of inks.
These have been random and on nearly every playfield for years, here and there. Some runs more than others. The reason ES has it relatively 'the most' is due to us double-hitting the white. In other words, we screened white twice. There are TWO layers of white. This was because white was so plentiful on Earthshaker, and had to be opaque and pristine. So technically the diagram should have the white layer DOUBLED in thickness, if you can picture it. This increased the "shelf" around the inserts upward of 10-11 mils. Just enough to add that extra "chop" factor, and thus these tiny dropouts in the black around inserts can and does appear, here and there. Every wet hit on the press is slightly different. It's old analog technology, physically rubbing the artwork onto the playfield, via mesh with openings.
IN CONCLUSION:
So that is "why" and "how" ... the meat of the issue rests with what to do about this kind of thing. We can try to find a specimen with 'less of it' and do an exchange. We can take the playfield back for a full refund. But to find one with NONE ? Impossible. These are the realities of playfield making, folks. If there is anyone who would give anything to produce 100.000% flawless playfields... we would. Nobody can.
In fact, CPR may 'get the heat' more on here than anybody else - we get that - but I chalk that up to our playfields being more 'on-the-radar', thus more discussed, and more in the hobby want the best for/from us. There is nothing wrong with that. It comes with the territory. Trust me, there are plenty of things to nitpick, horror stories, QC flubs to go around in playfield making. No maker is immune, and plenty of threads are on here about them too... they're just more unread, get way less attention, and drop off the front page into history. Some of those playfield runs are made with VERY modern methods, and printed digitally (not screened), sprayed mechanically (not by a clearcoater) and STILL have their issues within their runs. So all I'm trying to say is there is no utopia. There are hits and misses - the goal is to be as close to a hit as humanly possible.
OK, now back to Syco... I will try to come to a solution with Syco that will make him completely happy, or at least happy as possible. I'm very easy to get along with. I have (and will) do exchanges to other specimens if something is going to bug a customer to the level of displeasure. Sometimes just reducing the "thing" they hated about the random playfield that was selected from the grade that they got, is what most are seeking. I have no problem with that. Complete refund is also always on the table - if one chooses to simply abort. No problem. Nobody is stuck with their playfield. Customer service is fine with me, as long as we're not in utopian territory. If I plain screwed up in missing something substantial during a grading, then I'll fess up and eat crow. No playfield run doesn't come with a couple to a few exchanges. Again, it's just part of the territory. We've been at this for 14 years. Water off a duck's back.
I'm sure this is TL:DR ... but if you got this far, thanks for the read.
KEVIN
Classic Playfield Reproductions
http://www.classicplayfields.com