posted 12-30-2012 01:04 PM               

It is printed onto what appears to be a sheet of aluminum cut from a role (the ends are not even cuts) and measures approximately 22 1/2 by 13 5/8 inches.

Does anyone know if this is how the New York Times or any standard newspaper company would produce a "proof" page prior to being mass printed? I thought it was a neat item and seeing how I do have the New York Times from the Challenger disaster, this would be a good match.

I wish it was from the first lunar landing to be on a more happier note, but it is space related. Any thoughts?

posted 12-30-2012 03:12 PM               

Proofs were usually full-sized photocopies on paper, they didn't use metal to make them, as there would often be errors that the page editors would make corrections on with a pen and run back to the composing to correct, or most often would be used for the first edition pages they intended to change on a following edition.

Although this was done by the plate room and on the same material plates were made in, this was NOT an actual printing plates they used to print the paper with. The real plates do read right, they're not backwards. But the real printing plates are curled inward on each end (and usually notched in the upper and lower edge centers, if memory serves) to put onto the printing machines. They're also a little messy after they get used, depending on how well they got cleaned afterward.

The plate room guys at the newspaper I worked at were asked to make these from time to time for 'keepsakes' for other people who worked there. For example, they made several of these the day the air war started in Desert Storm. They made one for me for a page I did a large drawing for, but I've long since lost it. They should be roughly the size of a printed paper. As easy as they were to make, you'd think more of these would have been made. All they needed to do was take the full-size-page negative sheet from the paste-up page put together (by hand, back in those days) in the composing room, and just expose the 'plate' sheet to it, like you would making prints on photo paper from a negative.

I don't know this specific paper, but I'd expect a normal paper's front page to have some color in it and the explosion photo does not look to me like the b/w part of a 4-color photo. So if they ran color at all, this would certainly be a copy made as a souvenir.

The plate room folks at a newspaper could make dozens of these. That said, they probably wouldn't have made many (or any) beyond the timeframe of the news event, so it was almost certainly made around the time of this incident.

posted 12-30-2012 03:22 PM               

I just wasn't sure if these were printed out first before the printing plates were used on the paper itself.

posted 12-30-2012 03:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
I don't know this specific paper, but I'd expect a normal paper's front page to have some color in it and the explosion photo does not look to me like the b/w part of a 4-color photo. So if they ran color at all, this would certainly be a copy made as a souvenir.

---

posted 12-30-2012 07:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyd2831:
I know it was not a printing plate because, yes it would re read in reverse and you would need a mirror in order to read it.

---

The only reason I know this isn't the printing plate is that it doesn't have the bends on the top and bottom with the slots (the plate room people punch these) to place on the press. Otherwise, it's exactly like the plate they would have used to print the newspaper with.

posted 12-30-2012 08:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyd2831:
The New York Times wasn't using color from what I remember back then.

---

posted 12-31-2012 04:11 PM               

This gentleman told me that this appeared to be an unused "printing" plate because it did have the center line "tick" marks, but was never mounted onto a roller.

I asked if he could explain the process and he told me to follow him. In the next room was entire printing press that included metal sheets similar to the one I had, and even showed me how he made the different negatives for it. He then took me to the machine in which the printing took place, demonstrated the water and ink process and how the finished product came out.

So, he believes it is an actual printing plate for the Jan 29, 1986 New York Times edition that was never used. Now, I'm having it framed along with the front page of the NY Times based on that plate same plate. It will cover both the historical aspect of the space program, plus a process in how the paper was produced.

The rest of the paper that discusses the disaster will be laminated so that the reader can also see and read the rest of the story, and will be stored on the backside of the frame.

posted 12-31-2012 04:51 PM               

As for the 'ticks' (actually registration marks), last night I recalled that the plates actually came that way when they came out of the box. I hadn't thought about this in many years as I left the newspaper in 1993 (wow, that was 20 years ago next month, how odd), so that detail had eluded me, sorry.

Plates were made all the time like this as souvenirs at the paper I worked at, a paper of this size would have had God-knows-how-many of these made for an event of this magnitude. The actual printing plate probably doesn't exist today as we always recycled ours. The run plates don't look all that good when you're done with them. I bet yours is pristine, right? If I had to bet, I bet a LOT that the plate room crew made this for someone the night the story broke.

posted 12-31-2012 05:02 PM               

I'm sure being that these headlines were for the following days paper that several hundred of them had to be produced for a paper that was nationwide. I'm sure some when home as a keepsake and the rest were scrapped.

I obtained mine from a seller who acquired it along with a few others from an estate sale somewhere in Florida.