Almost the same as 1967 topps Jim owens……dots or snakeskin

'71 Progressive Proofs
 

LOVE the coloring on those '71 Progressive Proofs.

Thank you, Mark. Obviously, the Bando and the Fregosi appear to be "blue" only proofs. The Wine card seems to have just 3 colors lacking the black, the same as the Garvey in this thread: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1583626

As with the Garvey and Beckert card, these 3 cards have normal backs

My question then is, is the Wine card simply black-less card or is it a 3-color progressive proof? If it is a 3-color progressive proof, what is the progression of the first 3 colors on the progressive proofs? My guess is that blue would be the first color as the Beckert, Bando and Fregosi cards are blue only. So, is a blue/yellow only card or a blue/red only card second in the progression after the blue only?

ETA: I found my own answer:

From the Dictionary of Marketing Terms: progressive proofs (progs)
Set of proofs made during the four-color printing process; also called color proofs. Typically, there are seven different impressions in a set of progressive proofs: one for each color alone and then the combinations as succeeding colors are added. The final proof will show the finished color reproduction. An example of a progressive sequence follows: (1) impression of the red plate; (2) impression of the yellow plate; (3) impression of the yellow plate on the red plate; (4) impression of the blue plate; (5) impression of the blue plate on the yellow and red plate; (6) impression of the black plate; (7) impression of the black plate on the yellow, red, and blue plate.


With this in mind, the Wise and Garvey cards would be #5s, while the Fregosi and Bando would be #4s.

The progression list above would explain this black only card I received with the other 3. This card is a blank backed card.

Break out your '53 BC Folks.
Being a single player collector and combing over the same cards gives you a wide array of what to expect. I found that Reds '53 Bowman color usually has a very small small red dot, very faint red line, or in this case (the only one I've ever seen) a complete bloody wound. No it's not a mark. I can't tell if it's a print defect or an actual injury red had that was caught and airbrushed very early on. To me it looks like the ladder and fits his skin too well for a print defect.
I've been looking for over a year and headed to the national trying to find another example as one of my top priorities. Alas nothing came close. So I've given up looking for another and wondered if anybody on the board had one.

Thanks
Lucas https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e5077f5ab9.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e1c15b8b0c.jpg

I picked up this nice 70T Tovar with a bullseye between the name and position.

Received this in a lot today..one of the lightest Luis Alcaraz with the Omaha O clear on the hat (I think)..but a Dodgers Jersey?

Best,
Edhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...23ec6563ab.jpg

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Strange, that sure doesn't look like it could possibly be an Omaha jersey but his hat clearly was. You can make out the O on a normally tinted card if you angle it and squint. Omaha was a Royals farm team, so the photo must be from after his sale to the Royals. Odd he'd still pose with a Dodgers jersey

Just picked up some Gil Hodges rocking a little earring bling!

He will be removed from the tomb and will join all the rest of his friends in the binder.

Another variation off the list.

Cheers,

Butch

Ed,

This may sound a little whack. I looked at a number of these cards and they all have that "O-esque" look about them. I am thinking that it may just be an unintended consequence of a bad attempt of covering up the "LA" on the hat. They all have that "O" look about them.

The other circumstance that leads me to believe the above. The Omaha Royals started operations in 1969. My WAG here is that picture of Alcaraz would have been taken in 68. If that is the case, then no Omaha Royals team existed in 68.

Cheers,

Butch.