Colgan Proofs/Squares

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric (goudeyhunter)

Since they are uncateloged, I'm interested whether these cards are considered a proof card, that wasn't distributed to the public..or possibly, a separate issue distributed by Colgans with one of their products. The seller who I recently purchased one of these cards from (he's offering more on Ebay currently) raises a good point in his description. He states that his grouping of Colgan squares were found in a scrapbook put together by his relative. He goes on to add that it would seem highly improbable that his relative would have had access to "printers proof" style cards. I would have to agree with his assessment, and believe that these cards were issued by Colgans with one of their products. Are there any established ideas out there on what product they were packaged with, and what year that might have been? I'm also curious what the known extent of this set is at this point?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I beleive that it is generally considered that the Colgan Proofs are a separate issue to the Colagan discs and are not actual proofs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

But I did own two of them before. Both came in ASA containers from hagar's auction of the early 1990's. At that time, he was billing them as 1910's... but I don't really know anything about the issue other than the gentleman I sold them to was trying to put together a known "set"...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I forgot to mention that before 1930 there were a number of cheap/small/primitive/obscure cards of similar design to these 'proofs' that were inserted (often times literally stuffed) into small boxes of candy. It would not be an unreasonable guess to say these Colgan's Proofs were sold inside boxes of candy, especially since Colgan sold candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

All I can tell you is that they were probably not produced before 1909, since that is the first year that Harry Hooper was in the majors, and he is represented in the set. However, it is possible that there were cards issued before 1909, and that the set was issued over several years, with new cards added.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

I picked up the Waddell at the National. My guess is that they were maybe some kind of salesman's samples. That would explain why there are more than one, but still not generally introduced to the public. Also, the piece of black construction paper stuck to the back makes me think that maybe they were all stuck in the sample book this way.

Just a theory.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

Do not consider these paper squares to be either Colgan's or proofs. On the other hand, we don't know WHAT they are, so feel free to call them whatever you like!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

I do remember that the two I owned did not have any remains of being stuck into a book... The backs were actually quite nice - no paper loss - just white like the fronts. I'm not trying to say that they weren't in a book for sur - but mine defenately did not appear as though they were...

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

I have always felt they were a seperate issue and definitely not proofs.

It stands to reason the company had other products that weren't suited for the round tins so I just assumed they were issued with a different product in more traditional packaging.

Just my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Eichelkraut (goudeyhunter)

One other theory I've concocted is, like many other vintage issues, the squares were possibly glued or stuck to a Colgans advertising board, that was placed near the candy in stores. This would explain the rough backside found on so many of the existing examples, and would have also allowed kids/collectors access to them. Whatever the real story may be, I don't believe that these are proof cards, there are too many of them in circulation. They may not even be Colgans related..as many have pointed out.

Another question regarding the squares, are the pictures featured on them the same as those on the Colgan chips? I don't have any to compare, just wondering if anyone had compared the two?

Thanks for the responses!

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

I often see pictures of the paper square Breshnehan, and I recently acquired a Colgan's Red Border Breshnehan--and I remember them being alike--in fact, I always assumed that that was the ONLY (though a pretty good) reason for thinking the two sets came from the same maker: the pictures are alike.

But I think the Fan Craze Breshnehan is also the same photo..

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

I think the other reason, in addition to the pictures being the same, that people have assumed some connection to Colgan's is that while the cards are square, the images are cropped in a circular manner exactly like a Colgan's card.

Has anyone taken a regular Colgan's card and laid it on top of the square card of the same player to see if the size of the cropping is the same size as the card?

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Very similar in size of the portrait and the circle cropping. My opinion/guess... I think they are not proofs but a separate issue that used the Colgans photos. I have only owned a few of the square cards and most had the small spot of black construction paper stuck/damage on back. Ive always heard they were stuck in some sort of notebook at one time. Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: RobertS

The only square cards I have ever seen have not had any black paper on the back -- nor any signs of scrapbook removal (paper loss, glue, etc.).

Also, if they were another Colgan's issue why would they not have any other product reference on the reverse?

Perhaps they were similar to the many mini-releases from Topps which were done as test issues in certain areas (Topps would run tests in Brooklyn and Philadelphia)?

Here's an example of two of the same player. As you can see, the photos are exactly the same (only the Colgan's Chips card is off-center):

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

and since the chips were from Louisville..........I haven't seen a square 'proof' of ANY of the Louisville players. Anyone have one out there? I'd like to have one but just more curious if they DO exist......Terry Knouse had about 15-20 of them at the National and no Louisville players. I search 'Colgans' daily on ebay and have never seen a Louisville player while I have about 15 of the normal chips and 4-5 red border Louisvilles. Thanks for any info..........

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Eichelkraut (goudeyhunter)

Thanks for the scans Frank and Robert, I especially think Robert's comparison scans of the same player is very interesting. I just received my Colgans square today, and was surprised to see that the stock was so thin (like the 1910 W-uncat). My example doesn't have any ruminants of black paper on the back either, but was obviously removed from another piece of paper of card board stock. So I'm still wondering about this issue.

I've always been under the impression that the squares were a made as cards, until now. Now that I see mine, and hear from others, it seems like the majority of them have a flaky backside (like they've been removed from something). Now I can only assume that these squares weren't intended or issued as cards. A good argument for this theory is the shape that most are in, a sort of discombobulated square. This doesn't help me with the advertising piece theory either, as I would think an advertising piece would have been more polished and cut squarer. The notebook idea is a good one, but if they were part of a greater notebook cover at one time, why are all examples cut down to almost the same exact size?

The "Colgan" squares really perplex me, as I can't think of one possible way that these were issued, without finding a side of impossibility. I do believe that these squares were some sort of issue produced by Colgans, and I do believe that they were not issued as a card, but as another piece. Although I was convinced to think that they couldn't be proofs, the thought does make some sense now, as I can't think of a product that these cards would come from, where they would all be nearly the exact same size, have rough backs, be cut abnormally (usually), and sometimes have black paper attached to the backside.
If anyone has more information on them Colgans squares, I'd really like to hear their insight or theories (here or you can email me). Thanks for all the great posts so far..they've been extremely helpful!!

[Archive]

Posted By: John Remington

Hankron, thanks for this nugget.

One of the puzzling characteristics of my specimens, which are now all scanned and available for viewing at ebay (userid also scupperjohnnie) is the small brown spots many of them have, and are very noticeable on these:

Lelivelt

Harry Davis


Jake Daubert


Yes, it's hard to image an early 20th century teenager coming up with printers proofs.

It's much easier, and more pleasant, to imagine that teenager retrieving the square from the bottom of the box with his fingers sticky from stuffing caramels in his mouth.

Though I suppose, if these things run in the family, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that same teen pulling the card from a pilfered pack of smokes with his nicotined stained fingers...

But I wax romantic.

As for the photos being the exclusive property of Colgan's, I made an interesting discovery the other day while re-paging through the scrapbook. I found a newspaper clipping that carried the same photo of Chief Bender that appears on the 1911 Philadelphia Athletics Notebook Cover, attributed to the Associated Press. Another clipping in the scrapbook carried the same photo of Stuffy McInnes (attributed to the great photographer Charles M. Conlon no less) that is used in my collection of miniature portraits clipped from an insert or magazine.

I'd speculate that the photographers, or more likely, the news syndicates, were simply mining their inventory by licensing their photo inventories to whomever was willing to pay for the publishing rights.

Cheers,

John

[Archive]

Posted By: John Remington

Daubert (see above) was with Memphis of the Southern Association in 1909.

RobertS' observation (see Test Issue below) addresses the small market angle. Major league players with national notoriety and big names from small markets like Memphis, Rochester, Milwaukee, etc.

John Colgan started making chewing gum in Louisville in 1879, selling his drug store and devoting all his energy to building the brand - an American success story. But what does any savvy business owner do when market growth opens opportunties, or when competition (like marketing master Wrigley) starts eroding market share, or a raw material shortage looms, or economic pressures require retooling current capabilities rather than risky new investments.

Diversify.

But how can Colgan's enter the caramel market and compete against the brands that have been issuing cards on their candy boxes for a decade or more?

Might Colgan's position itself by being the sole provider of local stars in the small markets? Might they promise a kid from Memphis not only the chance to obtain an Eddie Collins or a Johnny Evers, but also a Jake Daubert, who might be seen in person, at the ballpark, or even walking down the street?

[Archive]

Posted By: John Remington

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2747240404&category=31719

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Based on the following observations, and Robert's Maddox example...

- the "proof" photo is of poorer quality, as are most, if not all, of the "proof" images I have seen so far.

- there is more photo on the bottom right of the actual Maddox Colgan card.

I believe that the "proof" is a reproduction of a real Colgan that was cut a little differently from the real Colgan that Robert shows. I think that all of the Colgan proofs are cheap reproductions of real Colgans, and were created to fit in some sort of square box, probably caramels. It was common back then to "borrow" photos, so perhaps someone had access to most (or all)of the Colgans and decided they would be easy enough to create in a square version that would be more appropriate for including as an insert in their product.

It's not odd that many of them had black paper on the back - these quite possibly were created in the late 1910's when black paper was commonly used in scrapbooks - I have had many old photos with black bits of paper attached. Square b&w photos of baseball players would have been great scrap-book material.

Of course, the "salesman sample" and other theories are equally valid (maybe more so), since we don't have much to go on.


"Re-creating history is both fun and easy." - principle of Liberal education

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

[Leon]

Since there is some talk about Colgan's "proofs" and what they actually are, I pulled this ancient thread up because it has some great info and makes sense. Generally we don't want to pull up old Archive threads (under threat of lawsuit of course....that had to be the funniest thread ever on this board) but this time I think it is warranted. There is great information here.... I do not believe these were proofs at all and think they were a seperate set. Here is the write up we gave them in our most recent auction:

"Amongst the caramel issues that still have some mystery surrounding them, the E254 Colgans square "proofs" are near the top of the list. While we don't believe they are proofs in the true sense of the word we don't believe it has ever been determined how these were issued, made or distributed. They do share the same photo's with the E254's and if we had to make a guess we would call them a seperate set, maybe E254-2. Whatever they are, they are seldom seen and the group listed in this auction is one of the bigger groups we have seen for sale in quite a while. Get one while you can!! "

[Frank A]

Here are 3 that I have. As you can see they have horizontal lines across them. The lines have bled through from the back. Looks like it may have been some kind of glue. No black paper on back. The Pfeister is not listed in the guide.

[fkw]

Wish I still owned it

Here is the Cobb



PS.Many Ive seen have back damage in center of the back

[ethicsprof]

Leon,
i don't see 254-2 in burdick's ACC.
are you suggesting we amend it?!
all the best, ole buddy----i'm pleased i finally have a colgan proof or 254-2, thanks to your last auction.

[rhettyeakley]

These cards have always been a bit of an enigma. I have never really gotten into them (though I may in the future as my Colgan's purchases have been pretty slow lately!). There is no evidence that these were ever actually issued with any Colgan's product (although they could have been.)

There was an issue that are similar in size and everything that featured Confederate Generals (also on really thin stock) made by the Kis-Me gum company. My theory has long been that these "Colgans Proofs" were likely distributed with candy or gum (probably in individual pieces within the wrapper.) I have seen original pieces of Kis-Me gum (and other similar gums from the time period) and they are roughly the size of these little cards and square and came individually wrapped in a parchment paper wrapper.

I had always assumed these were a 1909 or 1910 issue, but recently I saw a Harry Davis card with him listed for Cleveland, a team he only played for in 1912, so that may actually be the date for this particular issue (although there is always the possiblity of a multiple year issue--but these tend to show up fairly infrequently.

-Rhett

[milkit1]

is there a pop report on them? I have a Pfeister as well though not in as good a shape

[calvindog]

Seems highly unlikely these are Colgan proofs. When have you ever seen proofs where an effort was made to have the names of the players put on them in a different font and location than the final product? And the pictures are cropped? Seems pretty clear these are just a different issue.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

Leon,
i don't see 254-2 in burdick's ACC.
are you suggesting we amend it?!
all the best, ole buddy----i'm pleased i finally have a colgan proof or 254-2, thanks to your last auction.

Hey Barry
Yes, this would be a case where I think an additional (amendment) would be nice. I think E254-2 would be spot on!! take care

[barrysloate]

At least we got Leon to admit that it is possible to amend the ACC. In that respect, this thread has been a smashing success!

[fkm_bky]

Maybe Colgan's changed from a square tin to a round one and had to go back to the drawing board.

Well...I'm glad I solved that for everyone. NEXT!

Bill

[ethicsprof]

Barry S., yes indeed it is a monumental day!!!

Jeff's argument along with the 2 chase in comparison settles the case methinks.
254-2. Go ahead and get the ball rolling on this change when you get a chance Leon.

play on words unintended but kinda neat.
best,
barry

[milkit1]

So um....yeah pop report anyone?
Also do you think sgc would ever slab by pfeister proof with an actual colgan?

[19cbb]

My contribution

[DixieBaseball]

Re: 1909 Colgan Squares
I was going to start a new thread, but it seems this is the only Colgan square thread we have on the board for discussion, so I thought I would just keep it to the same thread, even though it has been 9 months since last discussion. (Leon-If it is better to just start a new thread, then by all means I will do it) From reading all the posts, It seems clear to me that we can at least deduce that these are probably not proofs, but at this point should still think of them as Colgan squares due to the images being just like Colgans images, which brings me to my question : Has anyone verified that all the images are exactly like the Colgan chip images ? If an image was different than its Colgan's counterpart, would that be proof enough that these are not Colgan's squares ? Would be interested in more perspective from the board on this, as well as any new pickups from this group over the last 9 months. Here is my contribution, which I snagged at the Baltimore National back in August :

[teetwoohsix]

Maybe SGC could post a response as to how they decided to mark these as "proofs" on the flip? They must have a reason........

Sincerely, Clayton

[fkw]

Theyve been called "square proofs" for a long time, SGC just used that name because thats what catalogs have called them for many years.

[FrankWakefield]

When I first heard of these, I fell in with the thinking that they're Colgan's proofs. I bid on a few of them, never won one. Now, it seems to me that they don't antedate Colgans. What seems more likely to me is that after Colgans sold to Auto Sales, at some point in time Auto Sales quit with the round baseball cards... and evidently, shortly thereafter, someone put square ones of a similar nature in with various candy products. Square ones would have been easier to make, and easier to put in with a piece of caramel or chocolate. So I think the Colgan's proofs aren't proofs at all, but some 'after the fact' production that postdates Colgans.

[DixieBaseball]

Interesting thoughts, Frank. That seems very possible. I really don't think these are proofs and several have stated good reasons why they are not, but they are definitely squares and probably from a candy version like Colgan's, so we continue to affiliate them as Colgan's squares, but may in fact be Autosales square's, or some other candy maker who used the same images as Colgan's. I still need to confirm that all the images are exact to their Colgan counterpart, as I think that if one were different, it might lend itself to "proof" that these are not Colgan's at all, but simply a Uncatalogued Square. If that were the case, maybe over time we could correct the record. I feel we certainly can avoid calling them proofs going forward and by no means does that diminish their rarity as I don't recall seeing 2 of any example, but surely they exist. There are very few around, that is for sure.

[millerhouse]

So many of these squares have appeared from so many different sources that there can be no question that these are in no way proof cards. (Some have paper residue on the back, while a number do not. This only proves that some were glued into a scrapbook at some point -- not at all uncommon for the time.) Alan Hager, never exactly a leading authority (despite having published a book), appears to be the person most responsible for the "Colgans proof" nonsense, but, given that he apparently had a small stack of these himself (graded, I believe, by ASA), the appellation came loaded with self-interest.

Unfortunately, every other attempt to catalog these is equally mired in speculation. E254-2 is only slightly more likely than anything else. While they do make use of the Colgans pictures, need I remind board members that the reuse of images in E, D and T cards from this era was rampant? Mino Cigarettes had nothing to do with American Caramel (as far as I can tell), which may or may not have had anything to do with General Baking, who may or may not have had anything to do with either E101 or E102 -- or, for that matter, Niagara Baking. Yet all freely used images from the other sets.

Until someone stumbles onto the holy grail, like, say, the camera-shaped candy box with which the now-obviously miscatalogued W555s were issued, the W-miscellaneous catagory is the only place to put them. (E254-2 is pure guesswork.) And, in the absence of a W-listing (Leon, please feel free to pick one.), calling them square "Colgans" at least lets people know what one is discussing.

Best of the New Year to everyone,

Millerhouse

[Leon]

Originally Posted by NashvilleBaseball

Interesting thoughts, Frank. That seems very possible. I really don't think these are proofs and several have stated good reasons why they are not, but they are definitely squares and probably from a candy version like Colgan's, so we continue to affiliate them as Colgan's squares, but may in fact be Autosales square's, or some other candy maker who used the same images as Colgan's. I still need to confirm that all the images are exact to their Colgan counterpart, as I think that if one were different, it might lend itself to "proof" that these are not Colgan's at all, but simply a Uncatalogued Square. If that were the case, maybe over time we could correct the record. We certainly can avoid calling them proofs going forward and by no means does that diminish their rarity as I don't recall seeing 2 of any example, but surely they exist. There are very few around, that is for sure.

Good thoughts, Jeremy. My thought on these has always been that they are not proofs (they have 0 attributes of proofs) and I have labeled them as an E254 variation, say E254-2. There are duplicate examples of players so that also helps rule out the "proof" label. There is more than one Cobb and I believe I even sold one before. I've handled about 20 of them in total. A larger group of them was once glued in an album and that is where the "black remnants on back" statements come from. I doubt very seriously those black paper remnants had anything to do with the mfg of them. Neat little cards imo...but then too I like esoteric stuff.

edited to add- Millerhouse- we were posting at the same time. Great minds think alike ....and thanks for lending your expertise.....One of these days I would love to see your type collection!!

[DixieBaseball]

What other issues are the Colgan images on? (My focus is on minor leaguer's, so I don't have a handle on the major leaguer's) My image of the Babb, is the only time I have seen that image used, the best I recall. I know Babb's card in the T210 series is of him fielding, and I think Colgan's is the only time that image was used for him...
Dan - Thanks for your input... So we have a Uncatalogued Square Candy Issue and for reference purposes, we call them Colgan squares, for familarity.

My original question about the Colgan images matching up exactly with these Uncatalogued squares, tells me that perhaps there may need to be some work/research in that area just to make sure all the Colgan images line up exactly with this issue. I don't think anyone has actually verified all of them.

Good Info guys -

[nolemmings]

It appears from the Old Cardboard checklist that there are several confirmed square cards of players who are depicted on more than one team in Colgans (like Babb), and that in each instance, the square card is captioned with the same team as the e254 Colgans, not the later e270. This suggests that these were made before Autosales took over the Colgan brand.

[DixieBaseball]

Todd - I went back through and read some good observations in the thread and John Remington made mention of Daubert being with Memphis only in 1909. I looked it up on baseballreference and it appears that Daubert spent the last 1/3rd of the season in Toledo and the first 2/3rds of the season in Memphis. So, with Daubert being depicted with Memphis, that seems to answer the time frame for Colgan's (1909) and Autosales...

One thing I find interesting that stands out, there is only 1 southern league team represented in this issue and that of course is Memphis. Why only Memphis ? Perhaps this was a test issue, as someone suggested earlier in the thread. Also, in looking at the SCD, there are 3 players from Memphis : Babb, Bauerwald, and Daubert that are depicted on squares. In virtually every other T or E set, when 1 southern league team like Memphis has players in that set, usually Nashville or other Southern League teams are featured. This set screams test issue or production shut down after a very short run of squares hit the market or advertising examples, salesman samples, etc. If this was a Colgan's issue where are the 2 Nashville players, like in the E254 set ? Where are the other Southern League examples ? The SCD from 2009 shows 49 different players. If anyone has an 10 or 11 SCD, it would be interesting to see if more have been added...

[nolemmings]

It's my understanding that Colgan's printed e254s from 1909-1911, and that Autosales did not get involved until e270. All of the square Colgans seem to correspond to the 1909 e254. I can't explain the absence of Atlanta Crackers, but maybe the reason there are no other Southern Association/Southern League square Colgans (except Memphis as you noted) is because there were no corresponding 1909 e254s for those players. It appears the Birmingham and Chatt players would have been printed after 1909, and while the two Nashville players were there in '09, they were also there in 1910---maybe their e254s were not issued until then. I'm just going on some research from Baseballreference.com tonight, so if you have better info, then I'll gladly defer.

[FrankWakefield]

I always worry when someone starts dating an issue by the team indicated for a depicted player. I usually think of Willie Mays. He's up with the New York Giants in 1951. The Giants move to San Francisco for the 1958 season, Willie moves with them. A card of Mays in 1954 could show Willie with an "NY Giants" hat. But so could a card from 1964 or 1974. In May of 1972 he was traded to the NY Mets. So a 1974 card could show him with any of the 3 teams. But, if a card shows him with a "NY Mets" hat, then it seems highly likely that the card would be from 1972 or afterward.

My recollection is that Auto Sales got involved around 1912. Somewhere there's a thread about the tins that would fine tune that date. I think the round cards were still going into tins then.

Maybe the square cards were a regional issue, or maybe in a few regions... I once thought there was only one of each back when I thought they were proofs. But sometime I saw where one of the square ones was offered for sale when I knew the fellow who already had that one, so I figured there must be more than one of at least some of the players depicted. Since then I think I've seen other duplicates. I still lean toward the square ones being something that came out on a limited basis after the Colgan's issue.

In my American Card Catalog, Mr. Burdick has E254 Stars of the Diamond, Colgans Chips 1 1/2 round b&w. E255 is taken, it is for Tradesmen, Kis-Me Gum. E270 Baseball Players, Violet or mint chips, 1 3/8 round, 2 series. In my book E286 Ju Ju Drums is the last E card listed. Maybe these square cards should be E287's.

[nolemmings]

I don't disagree that dating cards by team affiliations is imprecise; still, I find your example inapposite. You might see a Willie Mays card with an old photo, but it is not the photo that's important, it's the caption. I doubt you'd see a 1973 Mays card with a New York Giants caption, regardless of photo.

Here these captions or nameplates have team affiliations that can be traced to 1909. In several instances--more than a half dozen-- there were Colgans cards made of these players with updated team affiliations. If you already have a team change for a player say by 1912, why not release your "square" card showing the new team since you took the time to issue a round one with the change? Sure it's possible that this was just old inventory from several years earlier, but it seems at least as likely to me that these were printed and released in 1909. I would be interested in learning why you think the cards were issued after Autosales was finished with Colgans.

[FrankWakefield]

In 1993 the Upper Deck Heroes of Baseball cards could have had a Mays New York Giants caption.

But if Mays gets back into baseball, and becomes a special coach for the Colorado Rockies, and they made a card of him in a Rockies uniform, then we'd know that the card must be after the 1970s or that the card maker was big time omniscient.

So to me, captions don't mean all that much. Look at Roy Ellam's caption in T206. Still, I understand what you're saying about them... such as Hub Perdue's caption on his 1915 Cracker Jack card has him with St. Louis, even though he's wearing a Braves uniform from when he was with Boston at the beginning of 1914.

[DixieBaseball]

Frank - I understand your thoughts and anything is possible...
Todd - What you are saying makes sense on the Chatt & B'Ham teams, and Nashville could be 1910, so that leaves us with Atlanta not being featured from 1909.... Perhaps these are Samples that never were produced in quantity due to lack of interest in product/candy/card,etc. or market they were being sold in had little interest in the square/candy,etc. (This could explain why there seems to be no more than a few examples of any one player. Since multiple cards exist which takes away the proof theory, I would love to see 3 or 4 of any one player. It does not seem likely unless someone has been hoarding these for 15 years or longer as I recall maybe seeing a few dozen of these over the last several years.
FYI - In reviewing all the Colgan's Square images vs the Colgan's Chip images, I did find one inconsistency. Oddly enough, Daubert's image is different, possibly reversed, on the Colgan's square. Has anyone ever caught this ? We know that all the images are the identical from Chips to squares, but has anyone seen a reverse image ? (Simple mistake from the negative, perhaps in production ?) Maybe these images are slightly different and not reversed. Is this the only image that is different in the Square set ? Take a look-see :

[ethicsprof]

very interesting thread!
the daubert looks like a reverse to me----still fascinating if it's the only one of the whole bunch with this difference.
i have only the one square camnitz and am wondering as you indicate just
how rare these square beauties are----have you done a survey to see what
folks have or is there data already out there regarding numbers of these squares. I like yourself have seen only a few in the last several years.

best,
barry