Uncut Proof sheet c. 1913 with Cobb and Joe Jackson in May '24 Hunt Auctions

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't know if it's real or not but anytime I see those big stars, in the same unique place, it gives me some pause. Someone needs to invest in some scientifc analysis of the ink, paper and the process used to print it.

.

According to the description: "Lab tests regarding both the ink and paper on which it was printed were carried out by Joseph G. Barabe and Frank J. Romano (both highly respected experts in the field of analyzing historical objects and print, respectively). The Romano findings conclude with production between c.1910-1915 while Barabe concludes the possibility that it could have been produced between 1913-20."

But what gets me is that the description in the current auction says "Due to current sizing constraints for SGC holder we are unable to have the piece encapsulated however it was examined by SGC President Dave Forman in 2016 who states that the no sees “no physical evidence that contradicts the finding of the Barabe And Associates Lab Report.” but the description back in 2015 when Hunt first sold the piece claims "Due to current sizing constraints for SGC and PSA holders we were not able to have the piece encapsulated but fully guarantee its authenticity as well as the fact that it would be deemed authentic by either grading company should said holders become available."


Looks like they are walking back the assertion that both PSA or SGC would holder it if larger slabs become available.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

According to the description: "Lab tests regarding both the ink and paper on which it was printed were carried out by Joseph G. Barabe and Frank J. Romano (both highly respected experts in the field of analyzing historical objects and print, respectively). The Romano findings conclude with production between c.1910-1915 while Barabe concludes the possibility that it could have been produced between 1913-20."

But what gets me is that the description in the current auction says "Due to current sizing constraints for SGC holder we are unable to have the piece encapsulated however it was examined by SGC President Dave Forman in 2016 who states that the no sees “no physical evidence that contradicts the finding of the Barabe And Associates Lab Report.” but the description back in 2015 when Hunt first sold the piece claims "Due to current sizing constraints for SGC and PSA holders we were not able to have the piece encapsulated but fully guarantee its authenticity as well as the fact that it would be deemed authentic by either grading company should said holders become available."


Looks like they are walking back the assertion that both PSA or SGC would holder it if larger slabs become available.

Both groups of "experts" have been gradually stopping the grading of some things, usually anything they can't get right

[packs]

I would just hesitate to call them baseball cards. How do you know they're cards? I know they have printer's mark for cutting but cutting something up doesn't make it a baseball card by virtue of the square having a picture of a baseball player on it.

I think the intention can't really be determined from this one sheet. They could be part of an advertising piece, a calendar, any kind of print media really. All we know for sure is that the images may have been meant to be cut out. But for what ultimate purpose is impossible to know.

For example, how do you know these weren't images intended to be arranged for a notebook cover? There's just as much precedent for that as there is for baseball cards.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

I would just hesitate to call them baseball cards. How do you know they're cards? I know they have printer's mark for cutting but cutting something up doesn't make it a baseball card by virtue of the square having a picture of a baseball player on it.

I think the intention can't really be determined from this one sheet. They could be part of an advertising piece, a calendar, any kind of print media really. All we know for sure is that the images may have been meant to be cut out. But for what ultimate purpose is impossible to know.

For example, how do you know these weren't images intended to be arranged for a notebook cover? There's just as much precedent for that as there is for baseball cards.

Good point. I think calling them an uncut sheet of cards makes it seem more valuable than the alternatives, like an uncut notebook cover sheet. But yeah, just because they resemble cards, does not mean that there supposed to be cards (assuming they are authentic in the first place).

[D. Bergin]

Hmmmm....


Roy Otis / Doc Crandall





"Roy" Hobbs




"Doc" Graham




Sid Finch
















That's my theory, and I'm stickin' to it!

[brianp-beme]

Dangit, I missed the Otis Crandall attribution in the lot description...4 lashes with a wet noodle for me!

Here is Doc (why in the fadoodle is he identified as Roy?) as compared to Roy Otis on the proof sheet. He was with the New York Giants during this time frame, the NY team emblem on his sleeve also seems to match the Giants emblem from that time, and more importantly, his eyebrows swoop in a very similar fashion.

Brian

[Snapolit1]

One picture looks like a Hollywood leading man. The others looks like the inspiration for the Stay Puff Marsh mellow man.



QUOTE=brianp-beme;2431064]Dangit, I missed the Otis Crandall attribution in the lot description...4 lashes with a wet noodle for me!

Here is Doc (why in the fadoodle is he identified as Roy?) as compared to Roy Otis on the proof sheet. He was with the New York Giants during this time frame, the NY team emblem on his sleeve also seems to match the Giants emblem from that time, and more importantly, his eyebrows swoop in a very similar fashion.

Brian[/QUOTE]