PDA

View Full Version : Old Judge Proof?


bn2cardz
01-24-2014, 09:44 AM
I know studio photos used in Old Judge Cabinets are considered "proofs" in the hobby. What about this card that ended last night in Baggers (previously in a Mile High Auction in October):

Link to Auction: Lot # 16 - 1889 Goodwin Cabinet Proof - John Leighton, Omaha - FAIR (http://baggersauctions.com/DTL.jsp?auctionID=14&lotNumber=16&JSessionId=49AE0878A63049BAAA7FA25766ED4A37)
http://baggersauctions.com/Graphics/Lots/1889GC_Leighton_FAIR.jpghttp://baggersauctions.com/Graphics/Lots/1889GC_Leighton_FAIR_Bk.jpg

My question is does it look period and is it possible that it is just a photo from a studio that was pasted to another board at another time? I ask because I know of other cards that were being sold as "proofs" that were done at a later time.

Runscott
01-24-2014, 11:38 AM
The print itself (not the mount) should have near-perfect corners. Why wouldn't it?

slidekellyslide
01-24-2014, 12:10 PM
I don't believe it is a proof...I believe there was a larger display of Omaha players that these cabinets were taken off of years ago.

oldjudge
01-24-2014, 12:12 PM
It's a trimmed N173

bn2cardz
01-24-2014, 12:18 PM
The print itself (not the mount) should have near-perfect corners. Why wouldn't it?

That is a good point. That is also why I ask if it could essentially be a "skinned" portrait put on another mount later on.

bn2cardz
01-24-2014, 12:23 PM
It's a trimmed N173

So you believe the bottom was cut off? What about the rough corners on the picture itself as pointed out by Scott?


Also forgot to mention in the original post, that I was the winner of this because I thought the clarity of the image was still very nice and could fill the N173 hole in my collection. (The verified n173 in the auction was way too dull in contrast, to do it for me and never got a bid at $200 so others must have felt the same way).

packs
01-24-2014, 12:24 PM
I don't think they are proofs or were issued when the N173 cabinets were. These types of cabinets only seem to mainly exist for Omaha players. It also seems like most (but not all) of the "N173 Proof Glass Negatives" are of Omaha players.

Not sure why Omaha, but I don't think they are contemporary to the set being distributed.

triwak
01-24-2014, 12:35 PM
Sure looks like a trimmed N173 to me. I own this one.

slidekellyslide
01-24-2014, 12:40 PM
They all were pulled off of something...I still think it was a display of some sort.

Exhibitman
01-24-2014, 12:42 PM
On the back there is a handwritte "A7776"; any ideas on what that means?

bn2cardz
01-24-2014, 01:20 PM
They all were pulled off of something...I still think it was a display of some sort.

Are you referring to just the image? I bought it thinking it may have just been an image from something else that was reattached to a backing board, but I really don't know enough about cabinets from this era to know anything that wasn't put in the Goodwin Book.

drcy
01-24-2014, 01:30 PM
The cardboard mount is period. The gold angled edges dates it to that time.

There are the 'Vermont find' pseudo-proofs that were made in 1900s, but, without having seen one in person, the so-called proofs with the standard N173 mount shape and style in general always looked okay to me. Though I don't know that they are actual proofs. Some may have been samples sent by the studio to Goodwyn and some may have been sold to the public by the studio. If a cabinet was found in the Goodwyn archives or with the Goodwyn embossed stamp on the image, then it's safe to assume it's sample, proof or something on that order. I have seen cabinets with the tobacco manufacturer's embossed stamp on the images, so there's no doubt about they're being some sort of production item. I believe the Kalamzoo Bats cabinet Proofs with the black mounts have embossed stamps on the images. Without any markings, provenance or other information, it's hard to tell just looking at the cabinet.

One thing is the N173 Proofs (quote unquote) are rather plentiful (relatively speaking), which would suggest at least some were sold publicly by the studio. Normally, genuine studio proofs or production items are rare and, in fact, the Kalamazoo Bats Proofs are amongst the rarest cards in the hobby.

As has already been said, this one resembles a trimmed N173.

Runscott
01-24-2014, 01:51 PM
If Jay says it's a trimmed N173, then I would go with that 100%.

As far as the rounded corners on the actual print, it could be that they were cut that way intentionally for aesthetics, although for normal cabinet issues this would not be common.

bn2cardz
01-24-2014, 01:54 PM
If it really is a trimmed N173 that would make it even better to me. Especially since, from what I understand (purely from the auction description), this is not a confirmed cabinet photo for this player.

Thank you for all the help thus far. I am glad to know that there isn't a consensus on the origins then I don't feel so dumb for not knowing myself :D

Maybe by the time I die and my wife has to sell it off (or I find I need to sell it for a replacement purchase) there will be more of a consensus. I like having pieces in my collection that have a little mystery.

drcy
01-24-2014, 02:13 PM
There's plenty of mystery with Pre-War baseball cards. There are cards where no one know who made them or how or with what product they were issued.

oldjudge
01-24-2014, 02:15 PM
There might not be a consensus, but it is a trimmed N173. You can take that to the bank. BTW, the fact that the pose is not listed as an N173 in a catalog means nothing. N173s have not really been cataloged, except in the Cartophilic Soc listing, and that has not been updated for decades.

z28jd
01-24-2014, 02:22 PM
Are the known N173 poses going to be listed in your next book, Jay? I have one that I haven't seen anywhere else.

Not that anyone needs my opinion after Jay said so twice, but this is a trimmed N173. I have trimmed ones, this is what they look like.

bn2cardz
01-24-2014, 03:06 PM
I am very happy that it is a trimmed n173. I was a little concerned it may be from a later date. I am glad to obtain an n173 with a fantastic image for such a low price. Thank you.

I really didn't believe the "proof" part of the auction. That is why I had to come here and get opinions. Thank you to all whom chimed in.

I knew that this may not be the only version of this pose for the n173, that is why I clarified that this was only from the info provided by the auction house.

Joe_G.
01-24-2014, 10:42 PM
It's a trimmed N173

I second . . . ah, third that motion.

Are the known N173 poses going to be listed in your next book, Jay? I have one that I haven't seen anywhere else.

John, are you saying you have an N173 that features a pose we didn't capture in the book? If so, there are already 34 poses in the Book that are currently only known in cabinet form, yours would push that to 35. Who is it?, time for show & tell.

z28jd
01-24-2014, 11:31 PM
John, are you saying you have an N173 that features a pose we didn't capture in the book? If so, there are already 34 poses in the Book that are currently only known in cabinet form, yours would push that to 35. Who is it?, time for show & tell.

No, it's a pose I've never seen pictured or mentioned as an N173. Fred Carroll batting. No scans though, I got my two N173 cards before I had a scanner and I've never got around to scanning them. Give me time, it's only been 14 years :)

Joe_G.
01-24-2014, 11:36 PM
Ah, I see, thanks for clearing that up. The Cartophilic listing and checklists for N173s and especially N175s are notoriously incomplete. But that doesn't change my desire to want to see your cabinets so scan them already ! :)

bn2cardz
01-25-2014, 01:04 PM
Ah, I see, thanks for clearing that up. The Cartophilic listing and checklists for N173s and especially N175s are notoriously incomplete. But that doesn't change my desire to want to see your cabinets so scan them already ! :)

I would love to have the listings and checklists the Cartophilic does have for the N173, N175, and N172 cards. I have been wanting to know what year and type each pose can be found in. I can't seem to find a copy anywhere and have been looking for a while.

z28jd
01-25-2014, 01:40 PM
The 1993 Sports Collectors Digest has the most complete OJ checklist that I've seen. Breaks it down into individual variations for each pose. It's 20 years old, so it is obviously missing some, but I'd say it's still at least 98% complete

http://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Card-Price-Guide-Collectors/dp/0873412621

bn2cardz
01-25-2014, 08:01 PM
The 1993 Sports Collectors Digest has the most complete OJ checklist that I've seen. Breaks it down into individual variations for each pose. It's 20 years old, so it is obviously missing some, but I'd say it's still at least 98% complete

http://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Card-Price-Guide-Collectors/dp/0873412621

Thank you for the insight. I purchased a copy. I really never thought I would need an older version of the book. I always had beckett books and borrowed SCD from the library, but never knew I would have to go older to get the info I needed/wanted.

sb1
01-26-2014, 01:28 PM
I bought the entire group of Omaha off of Ebay and sold them thru Lew many years ago, they are N173's with the bottoms cut off.