1952 Bowman - Blank Bank or Proof?
 

In my ongoing quest to put together a nice mid-grade 1952 Bowman set, I thought it would be fun to add a Proof to my collection. I recently purchased a 1952 Bowman Billy Johnson "Blank Back" card pictured here:
Attachment 328694

Now obviously that is not authenticated as a PROOF, but only an authentic "Blank Back". So my question is, are all Blank Back 1952 Bowman cards technically a Proof? If NOT, then what are they, just a print defect?

The seller of the card (who was a good, reputable seller, with fast shipping whom I would do business with at any time) conjectured that SGC may now be labeling all proofs now only as "Blank Back" with a grade of "Authentic" because proofs are typically cut from a larger sheet...hence the "Authentic" label. The same seller also had another 1952 Bowman with a blank back in an OLD SGC holder that identified the card as a PROOF, and gave a numerical grade. It was the seller's opinion that the two cards had identical characteristics, which led him to believe that SGC now authenticates blank back cards only as "Blank Back" Authentic cards instead of Proofs with a grade. Does anyone have any insight in to this, and whether my Blank Back card is an actual proof?

For reference, here is a picture of the other card in the old SGC holder labeled Proof. I do not own this card, but am showing for reference. Thanks to anyone who might have information to share!

Attachment 328695

Topps Vault has sometimes offered cards with blank backs labeled as proof cards. And some blank cards, like the 67 Maris as a Yankee, the 77 Robinson as an Oriole, or the the Topps 1984 Encased or head fully in the box cards, would all seem to be legitimate proofs since they differ from the finally issued cards. Sometimes proof cards are also unfinished or missing some ink.

But I think without some direct provenance or tell tale markings it would be virtually impossible to distinguish a true proof from a blank back misprint. Perhaps others will have better insights.

Without a distinct design difference there is no way of knowing if it is really a proof or just a print error/incomplete card. I personally think labeling them as blank backs are the proper thing to do.

Yes, I guess that makes sense. However, If it was just a print defect, why not give it a grade? Well, unless there was evidence of trimming. I suppose it’s possible someone could find a blank back and trim it. I’d be curious if anyone out there has (or has seen) a 1952 Bowman blank back in a new SGC holder that DOES have a numerical grade?

At any rate, I really do enjoy the card. Got it for a reasonable price, and having an authentic card in my set with a blank back at least provides a conversation piece. Just one more reason this is a fun and interesting hobby!

I believe both PSA and SGC have gone back and forth over the years on applying numerical grades to these type cards and/or just calling them authentic. I’ve seen both instances over time of examples slabbed both ways. I don’t think there’s any way to tell if it was a proof card or just a regular issue card that didn’t get the back portion of the card as long as the front is the same as a regular issued card (even if thetoppsvault says it was a proof; think they’re just speculating and/or have a wide definition of what Is considered a proof).

The blank back card you’ve purchased is both unique and cool!

It is a great card and I personally would not worry about the labeling on the slab.:)

You have to realize there are several ways people got blank back cards. Some actually came in packs that accidentally got packaged before someone noticed the error. Some come from people dumpster diving. Some come from employees stealing them. Some people got lucky and actually purchased them directly from the factory.

As a 30+ year error collector I would guess close to 75% of blank back/front and wrong backs are cut from sheets someplace other than the factory. I have had SGC give me # grades on wrong backs but they are factory cut I got directly from the manufacturer.

correction...77 Jackson not Robinson as an Oriole.

😱 I stand corrected