1911 T3 Blank Back

[dmick]

Has anyone ever seen a T3 Blank back? I have this one, and I know of one other. PSA would not holder this card for the previous owner a few years ago - SGC is considering it for grading now. Just wondering if there are any others out there...

[barrysloate]

Never saw a blank back T3 before. If it hasn't been skinned, it's certainly rare.

[Michael Peich]

I have one blank back in my collection (Carrigan--trimmed down to the border, alas) which I purchased as a proof copy. I do know that T3 proof copies exist, and everyone I have seen has a blank back. It may be that yours is a proof. Craig Diamond is the expert on T3s and maybe he will weigh in on the subject.

Thank heaven for the internet as we are currently in the midst of a fierce snowstorm in SE Pennsylvania--16+ inches and more on the way. A perfect day to spend with cards!

[barrysloate]

Hi Mike- we only got about an inch in Brooklyn, but I just walked to the post office and it was brutal. Strong icy winds, pretty miserable!

[canjond]

I had thought all of the t3 proofs that I believe were discovered all at once when being walked in to the NYC card show had printers proof marks on the side.

I wonder if the card above was from a later stage of the production process.

[jcmtiger]

I have 1 proof, Schmidt Detroit, the proofs have the printer marks and they don't have the players name.

Joe

[Michael Peich]

Hi Jon,

You are correct about the printer's proof marks you mention, and they usually represent the color registration marks. I've seen examples of those proofs owned by Terry Knouse. The blank backs without the registration marks were, I thought, proofs that were discarded once the registration was accurate and the cards were being checked for color. Once again, this is purely speculation, but as someone who makes handmade books, and has a passing familiarity with printing processes, it would make sense.

This is, however, a good thread, and let's try and solve the mystery. What about a word from "Back-man," our intrepid moderator?!

Barry--No way will I get mail today. Good thing the NYC group doesn't have one of its famed dinners planned for this evening!

Snow-bound cheers,
Mike

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Hi Mike- we only got about an inch in Brooklyn, but I just walked to the post office and it was brutal. Strong icy winds, pretty miserable!

Barry, that's incredible. On the upper east side there is not even a dusting on the street.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Barry, that's incredible. On the upper east side there is not even a dusting on the street.

Actually - same thing here. I'm on Liberty Street, one block north of Wall Street and there is nothing on the ground... window sills show a little snow

[barrysloate]

I listened to the news this morning and they said there will be more snow in lower Manhattan than in Harlem. And parts of New Jersey are getting a foot of snow with blizzard conditions. It's a storm with an odd path.

[Robextend]

I'm on the Island, but close to Jersey...it's pretty bad out here; definitely a few inches. I've been hearing plow trucks all morning.

[bijoem]

we have about 4 or 5 inches here in Staten Island.

[dmick]

Thanks for the feedback!

I previously discussed this card with Craig Diamond - in fact, he owns the other blank back (a pristine DoolIN variation), and he confirms that these are these are the only two blank backs he has seen. I also own a Rhoades proof (just consigned it to REA with my T3 set) - and yes, proofs are blank backs and have printer marks with no name or team inserted on front. This Lobert T3 is clearly different (no printer marks and name and team is inserted). Walked it into SGC last week - they want to investigate further before grading it - I will keep everyone posted.

I am one hour north of NYC - no snow.

[jeffshep]

I seem to remember the T3 proofs having a sharper more vivid image - does anyone have a scan of a regular issued Lobert to compare? Although discrepancies in scanners may not help the theory...

[dmick]

I don't have a good scan of another Lobert, but here is a proof: