How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>We have debated these items ad nauseum on the board, with no resolution. So, how did GAI figure it out?<BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31719&item=4127228 635" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31719&item=4127228 635</a>

How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>As is typical, Bob Lemke's SCD description of the issue is right on the money.

How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>I didn't realize the item's origin was known - that explain's GAI's label.

How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>No Scott, you didn't. Maybe SCD did. When was it ever PROVEN these were proofs? Is it because they were found uncut? That doesn't make them proofs. <BR><BR>If so, then why aren't the uncut sheets of 1955 Rodeo Meats, 1954 Johnson Cookies, and the Bucyrus Brewing sheet in the Robert Edwards auction "proofs" as well. <BR><BR>Someone at Robert Edwards knows what they are talking about. Look at Lot 658 - 1941 Playball "uncut production sheet". They could have easily sold that as a "proof" and I'm glad they had the integrity not to.<BR><BR>Lets face it, "proof" sells, "hand-cut" doesn't.

How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>dan</b><p>I am with Pete, don't go with it just because krause says what it is. They had the Nodgrass catching pose listed which doesn't exist and currently have the Toront T206 missing the "O" which was lasered off as well.

How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>I agree that we don't know that it is a proof, and it is also a guess that it was a notebook cover. However, I don't beleive Lemke used the name literally, but (rightly or wrongly) borrowed the popular name for them. Many baseball cards have nicknames that shouldn't be taken literally (T3s aren't genuine cabinet cards, some Horner cabinets were BJ Falk).<BR><BR>Lemke wrote: "The date attributed to this issue, as well as its actual intended use is speculative." To me, this says he is not making a specific definition of the card and that others are welcome to speculate. In other words, if you are saying there's no way to know that these are proofs, I don't beleive Lemke is arguing.<BR><BR>If I were selling one, I would not call it a proof, other than to mention that it is listed in SCD under '1910 Notebook Proofs.' You know what I would say? "No one really knows what it is?"

How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>Henry Yee coined the "popular description" of these items?

How does GAI know what this is?
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>One think I've learned is that, in many cases, if you accurately label something people won't know what you are talking about.