Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1713650)

Would someone mind defining a proof, exactly?

Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1713650)

Pretty interesting thread (in spots).

Would someone mind defining a proof, exactly?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 1713735)

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 (Post 1713681)

the other primary use of ticket proofs was to spot any errors in text or graphics during the printing process. a sheet of tickets would be designed, then printed so the printers could “proof” the content for errors. because these weren’t meant to used for admission to the event, there was no need to add seat and row numbers, because that involved an extra step in the printing process.

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941 (Post 1713681)

the other primary use of ticket proofs was to spot any errors in text or graphics during the printing process. a sheet of tickets would be designed, then printed so the printers could “proof” the content for errors. because these weren’t meant to used for admission to the event, there was no need to add seat and row numbers, because that involved an extra step in the printing process.

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities (Post 1713665)

Either a ticket that was never meant to be used or a ticket for a game that was never played.

Originally Posted by rlevy (Post 1713761)

World Series proof tickets were also given to ushers at Dodger Stadium during the 1963 and 1965 World Series so that they would know what legitimate tickets looked like. I received a couple of these from an usher who worked there then.

Rick

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 1713771)

This thread reminds me more of Resevoir Dogs:

Mr. Pink: Hey, why am I Mr. Pink?
Joe: Because you're a f----t, alright?
Mr. Pink: Why can't we pick our own colors?
Joe: No way, no way. Tried it once, it doesn't work. You get four guys all fighting over who's gonna be Mr. Black, but they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down. No way. I pick. You're Mr. Pink. Be thankful you're not Mr. Yellow.
Mr. Brown: Yeah, but Mr. Brown, that's a little too close to Mr. Shit.
Mr. Pink: Mr. Pink sounds like Mr. Pussy. How 'bout if I'm Mr. Purple? That sounds good to me. I'll be Mr. Purple.
Joe: You're not Mr. Purple. Some guy on some other job is Mr. Purple. Your Mr. PINK.
Mr. White: Who cares what your name is?
Mr. Pink: Yeah, that's easy for your to say, you're Mr. White. You have a cool-sounding name. Alright look, if it's no big deal to be Mr. Pink, do you wanna trade?
Joe: Hey! NOBODY'S trading with ANYBODY. This ain't a goddamn, f-cking city council meeting, you know? Now listen up, Mr. Pink. There's two ways you can go on this job: my way or the highway. Now what's it gonna be, Mr. Pink?
Mr. Pink: Jesus Christ, Joe, f-cking forget about it. It's beneath me. I'm Mr. Pink. Let's move on.
Joe: I'll move on when I feel like it... All you guys got the goddamn message?... I'm so goddamn mad, hollering at you guys I can hardly talk. Pssh. Let's go to work.

Originally Posted by TUM301 (Post 1713800)

O K O K, speaking of tickets, "they sold him his tickets ALREADY torn in half" ! Poor poor Eddy................

Originally Posted by Dave Grob (Post 1713359)

Stephen,

Please don’t take this as a poke in the eye, but I think you are missing the point of what I took the time to lay out. My apologies if I was confusing. Assuming for the sake of argument, the only two examples out there are yours and the Heritage example. If this were a fact (which I am not saying it is), it does not change or effect the likely perceived market value or likely demand for the item in question as suggested above. Rarity, whether it be numeric or condition based, does not always translate into enhanced value over comparative items for any number of reasons. That is what I had hope was the “take away” from my previous post.

Is there a way to change this dynamic? There could be, but this requires that demand be created for the artifact/item in question. This can come though educational efforts (convincing collectors/the industry that the item is undervalued in a way that makes objective sense to them). In short, growing the number of collectors who would want what you are selling. In this case, numeric or condition based rarity might not be enough.

Offering comparative pricing data may not be enough since it appears (only an observation), that demand for the whole sheet may not be as strong as for the eaches. The dynamic might also change though the application of industry wide pressure. By this I mean the demand for grading/encapsulation of odd size product like this. I don’t think this will likely happen since this would require a market strong enough to justify the additional cost of creating new holders. For the most part, grading/encapsulation is based a volume business model. As such, there is little incentive to invest money in developing a supporting infrastructure for low density items.

I really don’t have anyone more thoughts or information on this particular topic. Maybe others do.

Dave Grob