Potted Plants Scorecards

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

Does anyone have one of these they could post? I am looking for a reference on these. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Toby

tp7161@yahoo.com

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hi Toby- I sent you an email with a lengthy description yesterday. Did you get it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank B

It pictures Will White and is a blank-backed proof.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Frank- as I told you in my email, I doubt it is a proof. My theory is at the end of the year they had printed more scorecard fronts then they needed, so they just left some unfinished. Still a very attractive item.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank B

Was sold to me as a proof so if it is not I'm not sure how I should
deal with that. The seller is a respected 19th century dealer and was
very specific when stating it was a proof, describing how they were
rotated from front of score card to back and interchanged with a half
dozen or so others.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Since we've been emailing too, please explain to me this theory of rotating fronts (don't understand it) and why that determines it is a proof.

I say it is unlikely a proof, and there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate it is.

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

Thanks for all the info here. Frank, I will buy yours if you do not want it. I think they are great!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank B

On the rotating business. I was told there were a half dozen or so
players and managers that would be rotated in and out depending on
who the opponent was that day etc. One would be on the front of the
scorecard and another on the back or sometimes an ad would go on the
back. I do not recall the others who were in that rotation but did
see four or five of them. I was only interested in Will White.

As far as the proof or no proof deal, I just took the dealers word
for it. I am not familiar with the printing process of the 1870s/1880s.
If I was misled or misinformed and paid "proof" money for something
that is not that scarce then I guess that is on me. I still like it
even if I may have overpaid for it based on it being a proof.

Bigfish, if I had another I'd let it go but I have been looking for a
Will White item for awhile and was happy to find this so it's a keeper.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1206998170/In+Search+of+Will+White

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

Frank,

I do not think you were mislead. The person you got that from is a real stand up guy and would not mislead you. I think they are proofs and I am happy to have the ones I picked up. They are very cool. Enjoy!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Toby- there is still nothing on the Will White to determine it's a proof. At best that's a guess, and the reason I have a problem with it is the term "proof" allows the dealer to charge more money for it.

Look at Leon's Matty white cap proof- it has hatch marks on the four sides, the name and team are missing, and I believe it is blank backed. That was made pre-production, so that the printers could study it and make the determination that it was as it should be for mass distribution.

The Will White, on the other hand, only differs from the scorecard in that it is blank backed. Maybe it was printed at the end of the season when there was no longer a need for these scorecards, thus it remained unfinished. That is as good a theory as calling it a proof, and given there is no way to know for sure what it is, just as valid.

The term "proof" is thrown around the hobby recklessly. That's my three cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Hans

Agree with Barry that there is really no evidence in the piece itself to classify it as a proof. But with a piece like this one, I don't see how that matters. A T206 proof, where thousands of regular production examples exist, is something special. A Potted Plant "proof", where perhaps a score or so can be accounted for doesn't seem all that special to me. All examples, proofs or production issues, are scarce and extremely desirable. That said, I agree with Toby as well. The seller is one of the most knowledgeable and upstanding nineteenth century dealers in our hobby. Perhaps he has external evidence to support his "proof" theory. At any rate, Frank, you have a superb piece here. I wouldn't be concerned about whether it's a proof or not. I think you got a nice deal on it (as well as the T214 Kelly).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Too many things are still called "proofs" today. I don't know about the Potted Plants card in question but here is a real proof, shown before and still proud to own it and another card that is labeled correctly by today's standards but certainly is no proof...

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

like the e90-1 young in the huggins auction?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank B

>>At any rate, Frank, you have a superb piece here. I wouldn't be concerned about
whether it's a proof or not.<<

I'm only interested at this point because SGC has agreed to encapsulate
it for me as long as I can properly identify it. I'm very happy with
the item as it is the only Will White piece I have been able to find.
Proof, no proof or blank-backed trade card - it is what I was searching for.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

I have a lot of these score cards. Click on the link and look at the page and then then next page as well

http://www.zmotive.com/gallery/album04?page=4

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

Thanks so much. The scorecards you have that are intact seem to have writing on the opposite side. The Reily you have does not. The Reily is similiar to the ones that Frank and I have. Now if these were cut or torn from scorecards there would be markings on the sides from the tear. There would also be some writing on the back right?

It looks like some of the scorecards have writing on the back and some do not

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

There are 3 types of these score cards. 1, 2 and 3 panel. Some have advertising and some don't. That is how you tell which type they are.

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

So the type one Reily is a scorecard or a trade card or a proof? Thanks for the time Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

In my experience the term proof is as overused a term as appears in the hobby. Just because something is blank-backed in and of itself doesn't make it a proof. Just because a dealer says it's a proof doesn't make it a proof. My rule of thumb -- show me the proof! And get the proof from someone who has no economic stake in whether you buy the item or what you pay. Such a person would not be the dealer who is offering the item for sale.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Extending the reasoning I am hearing from some people in this thread, all blank backed M101-4/5s would be proofs. That is obviously not the case. Don't know who the dealer who sold the piece was, but unless he/she has further information I would say that they were wrong(amazing how most dealers err in their favor). I agree with Barry and Corey that, short of finding some new evidence, this piece should not be considered a proof.

[Archive]

Posted By: bigfish

I agree the term is overused. I do not think that every blank back issue is a proof. I know the person who sold these really could have cared less if he sold them and they are not expensive items. Frank and I are just trying to figure out what these are and what their purpose was. I want to thank everyone who posted and who have e-mailed me directly about these. I appreciate the time.