net 54 type collection- PART 3

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob 

One of a kind from my vault. Only 3 exist of these uncatalogued proofs from a set which was never offered. Chance N.Y., Kling Boston, both of which I own, and Davis, Cle. which is owned by Keith Olberman (as of 2 years ago). These are NOT E95 and E96 proofs as originally thought as the team designations are different, the teams indicating the cards were made years later. Also these are NOT cut from the notebook covers as some E96s were which were offered by Frank W at one time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

there are only 3 of these out there. I've seen TONS of these little boxes with the red X in them. Okay, enough smartass, what was the card.........?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have one of those little red boxes too.....I call it x-unc

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Bob,

With all due respect:

I can't believe............ how "proof" happy this hobby is.

In addition to the notebok covers we now know there are scorecards where E95 art was used. I couldn't tell from the lot in the Mastro auction but no one said the team designations are the same as the cards.

tbob's assesment DOES answer the question of "What is possible?"
tbob's assesment DOES NOT answer the question of "What is probable?"

Sorry, but just lke the Old Judge "proofs", just because there isn't evidence that they are "NOT" doesn't mean they "ARE".

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Some of you aren't able to see images in this forum (you get the little red box with the "x") that are located on non-Net54 servers. This includes the image TBob posted. I don't know the solution, but if posters login to Net54 and upload their images to a "realm", they can then do "insert object" to get a semi-permanent jpeg file into their posts. You can also use the "temp" filespace that Net54 provides, but these disappear after a short period.

Perhaps there is a browser setting that can allow you all to see links like the one TBob posted?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

I hope! HEY--NO FAIR--NOW IT'S THERE AGAIN...

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

For 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.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

tbob, sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. Anyone that has done any sort of scientific research knows this. There is no proof that Big Foot and other cryptozological creatures do not exist, therefore, according to your logic, they must exist.

I think scott, or someone else, pointed out before that proofs have very distinct things going on as far as how they look, printers marks, coloring, etc. These look like finish product.

During my days of collecting toys and action figures I owned several preproduction models and proofs, and none of them looked like something that would have been handed out to the public.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

There's no evidence to suggest I'M not a proof either. I know I don't have those silly marks on all four sides of my body, and some might argue that the "runscott" tatoo across my abdomen might disqualify me, but I'm sticking with my story.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Actually Bob I took every consideration in account. Neither you nor Olberman (I'm assuming) have any evidence these are proof cards of any kind. Some points:

1) The "E95s" and "E96s" on the notebook covers are not of the same lightweight paper as these proofs.

- All that meaning that your cut-out didn't come from a notebook cover. Nothing more. Are you saying there are no other possibilities? Look at Mastro catalog from April 2004 - Lot 1211. E95 art was used and being the cover to a writing tablet. The cover stock would be thicker then the paper stock. Just look at kids notebooks today, the same is still true. Mastro says it's "circa 1911". Hmmm, 1913 is very close 1911 making it within the range of what "circa" means.


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.

- So if another company bought the rights to the art for use on a scorecard they would look silly listing a player with an old team. Stands to reason they would update team names for a sports related item.


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....

- Bob, the fact that they came fom another year just proves they are came from the Philadelphia Caramel Co. As you know, I kinda collect this stuff and the Philadelphia Caramel Co. was cheap. The only new art they used was the baseball and boxing sets. Their card sets that feature non-Baseball themes uses artwork from card sets that were issued in the 1880s by Allen & Ginter. The Indian sets, the Animal sets - ALL reissued artwork. What a better way to save money then to use 20+ year old art (read: cheaper rights) and then make money of the art you paid for in 1909-1910 by selling the rights in the future for other peoples projects so you are right about your point but there is NO EVIDENCE that what the tobacco companies did is the same as the candy companies will do. How silly do you think a candy company would look using art from another candy company for cards that were issued only 3-4 years in the past.

5) I still think the most telling factor is the paper used.

- Like I said, a cover being on heavier stock then the pages inside in nothing new. It isn't always done, some producers are just cheap. I know this and anyone in the printing field knows what I'm talking about.



"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."

- You dare us? Them are fighting words Bob. I dare you to be big enough to admit you're wrong should one be found. And what are we supposed to do differently because you are a forum user? Look critically and logically at OTHER peoples offerings but if it comes from someone here we should just look the other way? That would make us EXACTLY what the scum in the hobby thinks we are here.

C'mon Bob, don't you think that I, more than most would LOVE the fact that a proof from an e-set exists? Prove that card, the Kling, the Davis are authentic "proof" cards and when one comes to auction believe me, set your reserve, it will sell.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

proof of what?

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Julie, That is one of the funniest things I have ever read on this board. Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

<<<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....

- Bob, the fact that they came fom another year just proves they are came from the Philadelphia Caramel Co...How silly do you think a candy company would look using art from another candy company for cards that were issued only 3-4 years in the past.>>>

Ummm, probably as silly as the Coupon Tobacco Company did in 1919 when they used the same artwork owned by the varying companies that printed the T206 set in 1909-1911 and issued the set which has come to be known as the T213-3 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

<<<< 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." TB.>>>

<<<- You dare us? Them are fighting words Bob. I dare you to be big enough to admit you're wrong should one be found. And what are we supposed to do differently because you are a forum user? Look critically and logically at OTHER peoples offerings but if it comes from someone here we should just look the other way? That would make us EXACTLY what the scum in the hobby thinks we are here. Pete >>>

Pete, I absolutely will admit that I am wrong if you or anyone else can find one. That said, I am sure no one ever will.
Anyone here obviously can have any opinion they want on any issue and I'll respect it, what I was not happy about was that this forum was used to create what the courts call a "chilling effect" which ended up affecting the card price based on total speculation and no shred of evidence that the card was not a proof. I certainly don't feel that because I am a regular poster that I should be immune to anyone's opinions regarding a card which is offered for sale. On the other hand I don't think that anyone's cards should arbitrarily and capriciously be slammed based on pure speculation without any evidence to back it up. If you want to say, "well a certain card looks trimmed because I observe the tell-tale signs or it appears short" fine, that is an opinion based on observation. If you want to say, "I don't think a certain card is real because I have examined the dot pattern or the colors are not correct, etc." fine, ditto. But to say a card is not a proof because someone hasn't ever seen one before, is wrong.

<<<C'mon Bob, don't you think that I, more than most would LOVE the fact that a proof from an e-set exists? Prove that card, the Kling, the Davis are authentic "proof" cards and when one comes to auction believe me, set your reserve, it will sell.>

I am trying, Pete, believe me I am trying. If and when I do, it will go back in the vault, tucked neatly inside its little slab.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

you are wrong, wrong, wrong on this one.

<<<I think scott, or someone else, pointed out before that proofs have very distinct things going on as far as how they look, printers marks, coloring, etc. These look like finish product.Jay>>>

Jay, do you remember the E96 Lajoie proof on ebay a while back? It was slabbed and graded by SGC and designated specifically an E96 Lajoie proof. It has the exact same finished coloration process as do the Davis, Chance and Kling and it also lacks the "cross-hair 'proof' markings" that you speak of. The proof itself is also on that very, very thin paper that is the type used on these 3 also.
I am not saying that SGC is the end all when it comes to determining what is and what is not a proof, but they graded this one and designated it as such.
I think everyone agrees by now that those cross-hair proof marks are not on every proof, although they show up on the T206s. I have two M116 proofs which do not have them and one was recently recognized and graded by either GAI or PSA (I forget which). The black and white E97s are also considered proofs and they don't have the cross-hairs.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

tbob, You should use your logic for the argument against these being proofs. You have yet to provide one shred of eveidence other than the wishful thinking on the part of a few people. If you read what I wrote about about "proofs" and prototypes, the B&W e97s would easily meet that criteria. Also, claiming that no one else will ever find another one of these cards is rather bold. Or do you happen to know printed up these "proofs" and how many, thus knowing that no more will show up.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

<<Also, claiming that no one else will ever find another one of these cards is rather bold. Jay>>>


That doesn't mean there isn't another out there, but the odds are that there isn't another one.
As far as evidence that the cards are proofs, what evidence is there that any card which you currently believe is a proof is actually a proof? The cross-hair markings? Not all proofs have these printer marks. The fact they are black and white as opposed to color? There are T206 proofs and everyone of them is in color. The blank backs? Handcut cards from poster boards have blank backs.
I think the strongest evidence that these are proof cards for a set which was never offered include: the fact all are hand cut; the fact they are on extremely thin paper, like the M116 and E97 proofs; the fact the team designations gives them a timeframe after the E95 and E96 cards were printed; the fact that the E96 Lajoie authenticated by SGC has the exact same coloration, paper thickness and quality, and lack of cross-hair printer proof marks as these 3; and the fact the artwork used is identical to the artwork used in the E95 and E96 set. There's evidence. As far as going through the files and notes and old papers of the Philadelphia Caramel Company of Camden, New Jersey, no I haven't done that, not have I interviewed the descendants of the men who printed the cards or made the decision.
There is more evidence that these cards ARE proofs than evidence they aren't. In fact there isn't any evidence that these cards are anything other than proofs. They belong to no known card set and the tissue paper thin paper does not logically correlate with any one producing these as artwork for notebokk covers, schedules, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Grading companies make mistakes (anyone disagree with this?)

...just as sellers on ebay sometimes speculate that cards are proofs when they are more likely to be pictures cut out of scorecards or notebook covers.

Also, I don't think we should avoid discussing odd items on ebay just because it might effect someone's sales.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I guess by your rationale then, those horrific looking e-unc that were offered recently are proofs. There are no known dupes of any players and they are blank back. Why aren't these proof too?

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

I guess by your rationale then, those horrific looking e-unc that were offered recently are proofs. There are no known dupes of any players and they are blank back. Why aren't these proof too?>

I have a T206 Chief Bender portrait blank back and I do not think it is a proof. I have owned a T205 Snodgrass blank back and do not think it is a proof. A similar example of either has never appeared but these aren't proofs. I think everyone, other than the handful of collectors who wouldn't believe an e-card was a proof if it jumped up and bit them on the ass or appeared in their mail in a heremetically sealed envelope bearing the date and town, 1911 Camden New Jersey, with a letter of the president of the caramel company documenting the envelope included a printer's proof, has tired of this thread. The point was to share with the board a unique card. I have done that. The naysayers have had their say and will go to their grave denying it is a proof simply because they say so, with no evidence it is not a proof. If you deny, like Scott, that the E96 Lajoie proof which was so authenticated by SGC is a proof, why don't you show me what an E95 or E96 proof looks like. Have you ever seen one? Do you think they do not exist? Do you think the printer just slapped the stock on the press without making sure colors were correct, margins and pictures were correctly aligned, etc.?

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

I don't believe the e96 Lajoie card was a proof September 12 2004, 6:41 PM Grading companies make mistakes (anyone disagree with this?)RunScott>>

So Scott, have any evidence it is NOT a proof?

...just as sellers on ebay sometimes speculate that cards are proofs when they are more likely to be pictures cut out of scorecards or notebook covers.>>

Since when were notebook covers and scorecards printed on almost tissue thin paper?

Also, I don't think we should avoid discussing odd items on ebay just because it might effect someone's sales. >>

People can say anything they want but when someone speculates and makes a rash statement without any proof (no pun intended) or evidence and the result is it affects the results of someone's item on ebay, that is just plain wrong. If you were selling the SGC entombed E96 Lajoie on ebay and it was trashed by posters on this board because they just didn't think it was a proof, no reason, they just didn't think it was, and as a result you received several hundred dollars less than you expected, I have to believe you'd be roaring and sputtering to beat the band...

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

any card you think is a proof IS a proof...because we can't prove they are not proofs. I can't argue with that logic.

...and because the Lajoie is in a plastic slab that says "proof" on the label, that must prove that it is also a proof.

Bob, I doubt we can prove that any cards in your collection are NOT proofs, therefore you probably possess the world's largest collection of proof cards. Congratulations and good luck convincing your potential ebay customers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tbob

Do you want a little cheese with that whine?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...you are the one whining. Remember, we all picked on you and ruined your sale?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Bob, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative. As scott pointed out, we cannot prove that any card in your collections IS NOT a proof, therefore, your whole collection must be of proof cards.

Bob, burden is upon you to prove that the card IS a proof. You have only provided circumstantial evidence. Nothing concrete. Until then, there will many people that have very serious doubts and reservations as to whether this card is a proof or not.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

"to say a card is not a proof because someone hasn't ever seen one before, is wrong."

"To say a card IS a proof because someone hasn't ever seen one before, is wrong."

Sorry Bob but without evidence one way or the other BOTH statements are true.