Posted By:
tbobFor those who are lined up on the side of those who don't believe this card or the Kling or Olberman's Davis are proofs, I think you are overlooking several factors:
1) The "E95s" and "E96s" on the notebook covers are not of the same lightweight paper as these proofs.
2) The "E95s" and "E96s" have team listings identical to those of the E95 and E96 set.
3) These cards show the 3 players with teams other than those listed in the E95 and E96 sets.
4) If you examine the years these 3 players were associated with the teams listed, you'll see that it doesn't correspond with the years the caramel card sets flourished and were issued. It is not a huge leap of logic to see that a company planned on issuing a new set using the same pictures which appeared on previous sets. Look at the T213 Coupons which used the same pictures in 1919 for their set as the 1909-11 T206 set. The E95s and E96s were issued in 1909 and 1910, how difficult is it to believe that some company was going to release a new caramel card set with updated team names at the end of the decade.
5) I still think the most telling factor is the paper used. They are in color, but so are the proofs from T206 and several of the caramel card sets. The paper is ultra think and not the type of paper used as notebook covers nor schedules or other art work. If you could handle these cards you would see how delicate the paper is.
We'll never 100% positive, that I know. I put the Kling on ebay but it didn't hit reserve, thanks in part to naysayers on this board who trashed the idea of it being an uncatalogued proof, giving their opinions without ever having seen the cards in person. I guess in retrospect I am glad it didn't sell, it is a one of a kind item and I'm glad to have it in my collection.
I dare anyone to find a Chance New York with the green background portrait pose on ANY card, or on the cover of ANY notebook or used for ANY artwork purpose. Until that happens, there is no evidence the cards are NOT proofs.