View Full Version : Question about vintage proof cards
Archive
07-19-2003, 11:12 AM
Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>There seem to be a number of proof cards on ebay lately, from Sporting Lifes to Goudeys as I was wondering what the consensus was on the true nature of the cards. Alan Hager is the seller and of course he has all the proofs neatly encapsulated in ASA holders (which he owned/owns) and graded himself. The Chance Sporting Life card, in my mind, could easily be cut from an advertising poster and in no way is it EXMT, closer to VG if that, but I have no knowledge of the Sports Kings proofs. Anyone hazard a guess?<BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=217&item=2742150716" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=217&item=2742150716</a><BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2743002567&category=31718" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2743002567&category=31718</a>
Archive
07-19-2003, 06:04 PM
Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>I have seen other M116 blank back cards including Ira Thomas,and the general hobby opinion is that these blank backs were cut from an advertising poster.
Archive
07-20-2003, 02:26 AM
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>I'll tell ya, I once pulled a blank back Oscar Gamble from a grocery store pack and I've had blank back proofs that came straight from the Topps archives. If I didn't know the provenance of the cards, there would be no way for me to tell which one was a proof and which one was a blank back error. There are times when a card is obviously a proof (the T206s with the little crosses, or one color progression proofs on mylar). But in many cases there's no practical way to tell, so one shouldn't loose sleep over the issue.
Archive
07-20-2003, 02:35 AM
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Though I can tell you that, when in doubt, the safest guess is always that something is not a proof. There are many times more printing errors, scraps, cutouts and blank backs out there than there are geunine proofs.
Archive
07-20-2003, 12:01 PM
Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>Has anyone ever seen one? I wonder if they are the crosshairs in the borders you see on the tobacco cards?
Archive
07-20-2003, 12:02 PM
Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>I meant if they "have the crosshairs" in my post.
Archive
07-20-2003, 12:20 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>TBob,<BR><BR>I recall this subject being discussed once before and I believe it was decided that there was no such thing as an "enamel" proof for 1933 Sport Kings (I think the previous card in question was a 1933 SK Tunney). Also, it appears that this card may have been hand-cut on the top and bottom but machine cut on the left and right sides.
Archive
07-20-2003, 12:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Whether or not to buy really comes down to the seller's asking price. If the Chance actually is a genuine proof, the $395 price is probably a bargain. If the Chance is a blank back cut from a sign, it's an interesting odditie, but the $395 is probably asking too much (though a M116 fiend might still spring for it). Since the rule of thumb is that when in doubt assume something is not a proof, the asking would be too steep for my tastes.<BR><BR>It's kind of like when someone asks me, "Would you buy that?" My answer is, "Depends what the price is."
Archive
07-20-2003, 04:14 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>I agree with Patrick. I would guess that the Chance came from a complete sheet that was cut. Besides the advertising poster that he mentions, I also know of the existence of at least one complete set in sheet form. I'm sure some on the board know of others.
Archive
07-21-2003, 12:53 PM
Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>Has anyone ever seen a true M116 proof and if so, did it have the "crosshairs" markings in the borders?
Archive
07-21-2003, 01:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>The answer to that is not so straightforeward, because if a real proof popped up without the cross-hairs (which begs the question: How do you make a hare cross?), at least half the people on the board would say it couldn't be a proof because it didn't have the cross-hairs.<BR><BR>Personally, I have not seen M116 proofs with cross hairs, but that's just me and no doubt you follow the cards closer than I and better count the number of cross hairs that have come up for sale. I would think for a better opinion on the matter, you would want to email someone like Rob Lifson or Kevin Struss. If neither of those guys are aware of M116s proofs, they likely have never come up for sale (the proofs, not the guys).
Archive
07-21-2003, 01:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>I wish to point out that genuine proofs for Pre-WWII baseball cards are exceptionally rare. I bet there's almost as much original art (painting, photos) for standard Pre-WWII cards as there are known and unarguable proofs. If it weren't for the T3 and T206 finds, genuine proofs would be like hen's teeth. So, for many issues, when you are your friends don't remember seeing a proof, it's often because there aren't any.
Archive
07-23-2003, 09:35 AM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>Bob - it sounds like no one's seen an m116 with cross-hairs. If such cards exist, and with blank backs, it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to believe those to be proofs, and the "non cross-hair" versions would be something other than a proof (perhaps scrap or poster cut-out).<BR><BR>The cross-hairs were used to line up colors, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some card issues might not have used cross-hairs for the proofing process.