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

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Brunners may have been ugly, but still had a more layered print process than this.i also did not say it wasn’t real, I said I would not be comfortable on faith and no supporting evidence as to period. Did you read it?

Are you personally involved with this item? With 400 posts in 14 years and 6 just on this thread it’s a little odd.

No Justin, I'm not personally involved. I'm just tired of the usual "one take" posts that happen here too often so I thought I'd put some effort into this one. Yes, I had to read the post in order to pull one line out of it that helped me make fun of D304's. Then I left a space to seperate my thought and continued with my effort to discuss this item I find interesting.

(space for seperate thought)

Its funny that someone would have to be "involved with the item" to take interest in it. I'm reminded why I prefer lurking most of the time, so I'll just stick to that from now on...and I've been here for 21 years now, there was a site move in 2009 that changed the dates in everyones bio pages at the time.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

No Justin, I'm not personally involved. I'm just tired of the usual "one take" posts that happen here too often so I thought I'd put some effort into this one. Yes, I had to read the post in order to pull one line out of it that helped me make fun of D304's. Then I left a space to seperate my thought and continued with my effort to discuss this item I find interesting.

(space for seperate thought)

Its funny that someone would have to be "involved with the item" to take interest in it. I'm reminded why I prefer lurking most of the time, so I'll just stick to that from now on.

I think your idea that the uncut sheet was potentially created by a printer to drum up business is very interesting, and sounds plausible to me. Yes, perhaps no one took the bait as they didn’t find it appealing enough to try to sell. Thanks for posting your thoughts on the subject.

[packs]

I still think the biggest issue with this piece is whether or not these were baseball cards in the first place. As suggested, I think the idea that these were cards contributed to the perceived value of it. But what if these weren't cards at all? What makes them cards in their present state?

For example, I find it problematic that these baseball cards don't have team identifiers on them. Pretty unusual for a baseball card of the time, isn't it? Can anyone think of another contemporary set that didn't include team names?

Even the low-fi candy sets like Baseball Bats included team names with the images.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by packs

I still think the biggest issue with this piece is whether or not these were baseball cards in the first place. As suggested, I think the idea that these were cards contributed to the perceived value of it. But what if these weren't cards at all? What makes them cards in their present state?

For example, I find it problematic that these baseball cards don't have team identifiers on them. Pretty unusual for a baseball card of the time, isn't it? Can anyone think of another contemporary set that didn't include team names?

T227, T4, The orange borders,
Several sets in the 1920's.

[packs]

Orange Borders is a set I didn't consider. But T4 is a photographic set and not a baseball card set. The T227 set was a generic sport-based set and not a baseball set. A set released in the 1920s would not be contemporary.

[spec]

Originally Posted by steve B

T227, T4, The orange borders,
Several sets in the 1920's.

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.

[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.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

No Justin, I'm not personally involved. I'm just tired of the usual "one take" posts that happen here too often so I thought I'd put some effort into this one. Yes, I had to read the post in order to pull one line out of it that helped me make fun of D304's. Then I left a space to seperate my thought and continued with my effort to discuss this item I find interesting.

(space for seperate thought)

Its funny that someone would have to be "involved with the item" to take interest in it. I'm reminded why I prefer lurking most of the time, so I'll just stick to that from now on...and I've been here for 21 years now, there was a site move in 2009 that changed the dates in everyones bio pages at the time.

My apologies if you took offense, I thought it a valid inquiry with some of the activities on the board in the past week. If you have seen my posts. I would think the one thing I do not do is "parrot" as I try to give honest thoughts and opinions. I can assure you that they have often not agreed with the crowd. I seem to have read too much into that phrasing.

Yes, mine has the same date of 2009 for the change as well, so apologies for underestimating while playing it safe.

If it is a contrary opinion then please have at it as constructive talk is important. I just read your reply as a subtle jab and did not see the reasoning as it was a personal opinion the same as yours and not directed at you at all.

I readily stated it could or could be, but I just felt that a 30k commitment to this being a rare unissued baseball set more than a possible salesman sample or printers proof was not in my personal window. I think that opinion was fair.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

No Justin, I'm not personally involved. I'm just tired of the usual "one take" posts that happen here too often so I thought I'd put some effort into this one. Yes, I had to read the post in order to pull one line out of it that helped me make fun of D304's. Then I left a space to seperate my thought and continued with my effort to discuss this item I find interesting.

(space for seperate thought)

Its funny that someone would have to be "involved with the item" to take interest in it. I'm reminded why I prefer lurking most of the time, so I'll just stick to that from now on...and I've been here for 21 years now, there was a site move in 2009 that changed the dates in everyones bio pages at the time.

Yeah...I do find it sad that even when it comes to cards it seems that humans cannot have differing opinions without it being contentious. Used to be just over religions and politics.

I think the sheet is fascinating. Love hobby mysteries and love to float ideas and theories. Should not lead to animosity though.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

A thought I just had, it's a TCMA/Renata Galasso All Time set that never got released. Not necessarily from one of those two, but paper experts opinions notwithstanding I could easily see it being an "indy" 1960's or 70's piece that didn't have MLB permission so they left off trademarked info.

[G1911]

I think it would be fairly easy to determine general period it comes from with the sheet in hand. I don’t see anything that makes me doubt 1910’s from the scan but these things are always much easier in hand and give much more detail that way. Has anyone here actually handled the sheet? If it’s been known within the hobby since the 90’s then a fair number have probably encountered it.


While I am not certain that it is period I am more questioning whether these are even cards at all. It’s cool either way, but the auctioneer has made a ton of leaps (there’s no evidence this is a Cracker Jack proof, etc.) to try and pump it.

[parkplace33]

Like I said on the other auction post, let's see if this comes back up for sale in the next few months.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it would be fairly easy to determine general period it comes from with the sheet in hand. I don’t see anything that makes me doubt 1910’s from the scan but these things are always much easier in hand and give much more detail that way. Has anyone here actually handled the sheet? If it’s been known within the hobby since the 90’s then a fair number have probably encountered it.


While I am not certain that it is period I am more questioning whether these are even cards at all. It’s cool either way, but the auctioneer has made a ton of leaps (there’s no evidence this is a Cracker Jack proof, etc.) to try and pump it.

They only said theories were floated since it's first sale in 2015. From the description: "Several theories have surfaced to include the possibility it was a pre-proof for the Cracker Jack series of 1914 and 1915 (sheet was also found in Brooklyn area where Cracker Jack cards were produced). Another belief was that it may well have been a proof for the prolific American Caramel (and similar candy issues) of the 1910-15 era."

I don't feel they hyped it all. Imagine if this had been in Memory Lane the other night. An extra 35K for the poetic prose, alone.

I have not seen it and agree would feel better if I had to speak to it being period but they had two different experts do lab tests and Dave Forman also looked at it in 2016.

I think the question is were these prototypes for a set that never got issues, an early version of a some set that is now mainstream or a notebook cover. And to me I am not sure there is any less value to it. If it is period and we never know what it is, I think it is a great item. Kind of shocked it sold for as little as it did.

And so that I do not get attacked, I have no affiliation with the house, the buyer in either sale or the seller in the first sale. These days you have to disclose upfront to potentially save from being stoned by unhappy guys.

[Hankphenom]

So very interesting! I'm 50/50 with a lean toward legit, meaning it's vintage to the images portrayed, whatever they were supposed to be used for. However, by 40 years ago, when it first surfaced, apparently, there were already Peter Nashes and others fabricating pieces to cash in on the collecting boom. It could also be an artistic endeavor, but if so I don't know why the artist wouldn't just make it a finished uncut sheet rather than a proof. More questions than answers with this baby, which would be enough to keep me from betting more than a few hundred bucks of throwaway money on it. But a number of bidders clearly disagreed and were willing to take the plunge.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

They only said theories were floated since it's first sale in 2015. From the description: "Several theories have surfaced to include the possibility it was a pre-proof for the Cracker Jack series of 1914 and 1915 (sheet was also found in Brooklyn area where Cracker Jack cards were produced). Another belief was that it may well have been a proof for the prolific American Caramel (and similar candy issues) of the 1910-15 era."

I don't feel they hyped it all. Imagine if this had been in Memory Lane the other night. An extra 35K for the poetic prose, alone.

I have not seen it and agree would feel better if I had to speak to it being period but they had two different experts do lab tests and Dave Forman also looked at it in 2016.

I think the question is were these prototypes for a set that never got issues, an early version of a some set that is now mainstream or a notebook cover. And to me I am not sure there is any less value to it. If it is period and we never know what it is, I think it is a great item. Kind of shocked it sold for as little as it did.

And so that I do not get attacked, I have no affiliation with the house, the buyer in either sale or the seller in the first sale. These days you have to disclose upfront to potentially save from being stoned by unhappy guys.

It seems pretty clear they are hyping it beyond what the facts warrant, as is, frankly, their job as the salesman. I note they do not raise any 'theories' that do not serve to spike the item. There is no evidence or actual reason whatsoever to think this is a Cracker Jack proof sheet or an American Caramel proof sheet or any evidence at all to tie it to any famous set people like and will pay more for.

I believe the two race-baiting clowns peddling that fake Wagner also got 'lab tests' that said their Wagner is from 1910. I am extremely dubious of this as proof of being period in our hobby with its history and lack of an accurate track record to rely on. The claim from Forman is rather tepid, merely that he did not see physical evidence to contradict the lab report. That's not particularly helpful.

As I said though, my question is more whether these are cards or not. It is quite difficult to authenticate a one of a kind item with nothing to compare to it too, but I don't take for granted it is authentic to the period. It probably is, but I would not conclude this with the evidence available to me right now.

I speak for nobody but me, myself, and I and bear no affiliation to any hobby organization, company, other collectors, blah blah blah blah blah and did not bid and would not bid on said item as I don't want to spend anywhere near 30,000 on a card item. My good sense concludes that while it is a perfectly good decision and wise to spend a few K on a picture of a man if I really like the picture, spending more than that on a picture of another dude is silly.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

It seems pretty clear they are hyping it beyond what the facts warrant, as is, frankly, their job as the salesman. I note they do not raise any 'theories' that do not serve to spike the item. There is no evidence or actual reason whatsoever to think this is a Cracker Jack proof sheet or an American Caramel proof sheet or any evidence at all to tie it to any famous set people like and will pay more for.

I believe the two race-baiting clowns peddling that fake Wagner also got 'lab tests' that said their Wagner is from 1910. I am extremely dubious of this as proof of being period in our hobby with its history and lack of an accurate track record to rely on. The claim from Forman is rather tepid, merely that he did not see physical evidence to contradict the lab report. That's not particularly helpful.

As I said though, my question is more whether these are cards or not. It is quite difficult to authenticate a one of a kind item with nothing to compare to it too, but I don't take for granted it is authentic to the period. It probably is, but I would not conclude this with the evidence available to me right now.

I speak for nobody but me, myself, and I and bear no affiliation to any hobby organization, company, other collectors, blah blah blah blah blah and did not bid and would not bid on said item as I don't want to spend anywhere near 30,000 on a card item. My good sense concludes that while it is a perfectly good decision and wise to spend a few K on a picture of a man if I really like the picture, spending more than that on a picture of another dude is silly.

Your disclosure was better than mine. Anyway, I hear what you are saying. I have seen some one offs in the hobby in my short time here that in most instances turned out to be legit items after extensive research. I totally accept your skepticism. There are lots of unexplained things out there lacking full stories due to lack of technology or importance.

I think as an auction house, Hunt does a better job than most of providing information rather than hype. To my pov, I feel they were mild and responsible in this write up.

And the two circus clowns having analysis done on their Wags I feel is not a fair comparison to put both of this uncut sheet's experts in the same light but opinions are like assholes...Forman had no vested interestin 2016 and I cannot expect him to do much else than we would do by seeing it having handled pre war issues. I think Dave has likely handled many so his vouching for feeling it is a valid period piece would carry weight with me.

If I had an extra 30K plus to stick into something (since I am not liquidating my retirement accounts for cards) I would have been all over this. Could I use the money in the hobby in a better way, yes, but not sure it would be as interesting as this piece.