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

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by spec

Interesting to see the E-Unc Orange Border set mentioned in discussion of this piece as that is the set that seems most similar in design: colorized photos, last names hand-lettered at bottom rather large, no team designation though, like the Orange Borders, a team name or insignia is visible in most images (only Leach, Laporte, Miller and Steinfeldt in the Orange Borders don't have a team identifier in some way), star-studded array of players including some non-entities. I could easily see this as a mockup for a candy box set c. 1912-3.

Do not know much about the orange borders set but that is interesting - Did notice a similarity - use of the full name of some players ( Ty Cobb , Sam Crawford) and just the last names of others

[FrankWakefield]

About that 1910 paper...

If that printed piece is authentic, and the paper dates to 1910 (I don't know that nailing it down to that precise year is possible), then I can envision that a 1910 printing date is possible.

However... let me get onto ABE Books, give me time to find a folio hardcover book circa 1910... It'll be highly likely that there will be end pages that are !9" tall by 12" wide, and the end pages will most likely be blank. I could then print cards on those thick end pages depicting circa 1910 players. That printing could happen in 1910, 1980, 2010... no telling when, although I suspect that if the printing was less than a few months ago that could be detected. I concede that I don't think there are many options available today to successfully create lithography as lithography was in 1910. But then we don't really know that the sheet has that printing quality. On that sheet, I initially thought of the proof centering lines, and the splotches of various colors, as something to decoy the casual observer into assuming that it's authentic.

My point is that to merely test a sample of the paper, forsaking other testing options, doesn't result in sufficient information that really proves much of anything definitively.

Having said all of that, I still think it could be genuine. But it just doesn't look right to me.

[packs]

I really don't think you can print on vintage paper and have it turn out the way you're envisioning. I see it all the time in the autograph world. A person buys old stock paper, signs with old ink, but it still doesn't look right because it's not new paper anymore. It doesn't absorb ink the same way and it ends up being blotchy, usually a tell-tale sign in the cut world.

It's why people opt to use pencil instead when trying to pass cuts.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by packs

I really don't think you can print on vintage paper and have it turn out the way you're envisioning. I see it all the time in the autograph world. A person buys old stock paper, signs with old ink, but it still doesn't look right because it's not new paper anymore. It doesn't absorb ink the same way and it ends up being blotchy, usually a tell-tale sign in the cut world.

It's why people opt to use pencil instead when trying to pass cuts.

hmmm...learn something new everyday.

.

[packs]

Is avoiding pencil cuts not as common as I thought? I'm extremely wary of cuts in general but I thought avoiding pencil cuts was pretty common in the autograph realm.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by packs

Is avoiding pencil cuts not as common as I thought? I'm extremely wary of cuts in general but I thought avoiding pencil cuts was pretty common in the autograph realm.

Not an autograph guy, but I assume that it would be tempting, and just too easy, to change a Babe Pinelli or Babe Herman into a Babe Ruth.


Brian (let this not dissuade helpful replies)

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Not an autograph guy, but I assume that it would be tempting, and just too easy, to change a Babe Pinelli or Babe Herman into a Babe Ruth.


Brian (let this not dissuade helpful replies)

I trust this is a joke.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by packs

Is avoiding pencil cuts not as common as I thought? I'm extremely wary of cuts in general but I thought avoiding pencil cuts was pretty common in the autograph realm.

Lots of people don't avoid pencil, especially when it comes to very rare, obscure vintage players. Sometimes, you don't have much of a choice if you don't want to go another 20-30 years before even seeing another example which may or may not be more attractive.

Personally, pencil has never, ever been a deterrent if I am interested in a piece. If I'm confident in its authenticity, then I'm fine with pencil, provided that a pencil autograph would work for me in that instance. Would much rather have something signed in pencil than in taped-over ink.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Lots of people don't avoid pencil, especially when it comes to very rare, obscure vintage players. Sometimes, you don't have much of a choice if you don't want to go another 20-30 years before even seeing another example which may or may not be more attractive.

Personally, pencil has never, ever been a deterrent if I am interested in a piece. If I'm confident in its authenticity, then I'm fine with pencil, provided that a pencil autograph would work for me in that instance. Would much rather have something signed in pencil than in taped-over ink.

Not an autograph collector, but I have had some people tell me they prefer pencil for display pieces (flats logically) as there is little to no chance of fading as there is with ink. Perhaps, that is a very small segment of collectors per this thread.