When a proof is a proof

[Leon]

The term "proof" in our hobby is over used about as much as the term "rare". Do a search on ebay, with the term "rare baseball" and it seems like almost everything is rare. Same thing in our hobby with the term "proof". Whether it's an E97-2 (black and white) or a Colgans E254-2 (square), you can count on the term "proof" being used, however incorrect it is. I was able to pick this up from another board member and it fits the term "proof" a bit better than some other coined-phrase cards. Show some other real proofs if you have them? best regards

[DixieBaseball]

I don't own these proofs, but I never get tired of looking at them ! T206 SL Proofs :

[barrysloate]

Jeremy- I find those to be among the most interesting cards in the hobby. I wonder how many other T206 cards were executed but never appeared in the set. I also wonder why those weren't. The artwork looks finished and ready to go, so why weren't they included? Really fascinating stuff.

[DixieBaseball]

Barry - I totally agree and it does make you wonder if there are other T206 Proofs out there that don't exist in the regular production. ( I believe we have seen samples of proofs that are in the actual T206 set, but I may be imagining that... ) - I find the 2 Chattanooga players to be the most interesting since that team didn't make it into the T206 set, but the other teams did...

Good stuff -

[peterb69]

Wow, great stuff. Both seem to fit "rare" & "proofs".

Thanks for the education. I didn't know those intended T206's even existed. That's why I am really enjoying this site since I stumbled onto it in January.

[barrysloate]

Jeremy- agreed on the Chattanooga players. If the team was originally planned to be a part of the SL series, why was it left out entirely? There's a great story to be told about those eight cards.

[Kawika]

Anybody got ID's on these guys? Top row, third from left is Joe Pepe, Montgomery shortstop 1908-1910, brief stint with New Orleans in 1911.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Jeremy- agreed on the Chatanooga players. If the team was originally planned to be a part of the SL series, why was it left out entirely? There's a great story to be told about those eight cards.

Are there any theories about these cards?

[wonkaticket]

The Pepe T206 above is one that I have always loved.

Back when these were sold I wished so much that card was done it's such a great shot!

Cheers,

John

[barrysloate]

Rob- if memory serves, I think Keith O. wrote an article about them. Can anyone confirm this?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Rob- if memory serves, I think Keith O. wrote an article about them. Can anyone confirm this?

Keith wrote an article about the eight Southern League proofs for VCBC. "Eight Men In"

[barrysloate]

Thanks Tim. I don't recall if he had a theory about them, but I do think he came pretty close to identifying all or most of the players.

[Abravefan11]

He did identify them all. If you do a search for Southern League and find the thread I did about Joe Jackson I believe I listed them in a later post.

I don't recall if he had a theory about their exclusion but I will check my VCBC when I get home later tonight if no one else posts before.

[DixieBaseball]

Barry - I have not been able to connect all the dots, but research indicates there seems to be some possible correlation with the time period around Chattanooga team leaving the Sally League (1909 C League Champions) and entering the 1910 (A) Southern Association via purchase by Andrews & Patten of the Little Rock franchise which resided in the Southern Assoc. for years. (1908-Tris Speaker - L.R.) They bought the Little Rock franchise, moved it to Chattanooga and then bumped the team from C League to A League, thus possibly bringing Alcock and Meek into interest for production in the T206 set. Alcock & Meek were 2 of the better players for the Lookouts, but a lot of folks may not know that Al Demaree ended up playing at the end of the season in 1909 for the Lookouts (38 games) and helped push them to the Sally Championship. Al came over from Savannah who was a competitor in the Sally league which created a lot of controversy around the Lookouts winning the League in 1909. (Augusta protested) Somehow moving from the Sally to the Southern Assoc probably pushed these 2 guys into the spotlight, and they nearly were distributed in the T206 set. Demaree is featured in the T210-8 set, but Alcock and Meek are not, so if we could match up the timelines for releases of the T206 SLer's and T210 set, I believe that would possibly give us some answers.

I have never read the KO article, and would love to read it to compare notes if anyone has it.... (I believe Keith also owns these 8 SL proofs, right !?)

The players for the proofs are :

Alcock, Meek - Chattanooga (Not featured in the T210-8 series, but both played partial seasons for the Lookouts who are featured in T210-8 series)
Dwyer, Lee, Roth - Jacksonville (Dwyer & Lee featured in T210-1 series) (Roth not featured in the T210 set)
Osteen, Pepe - Montgomery (Both featured in T210-8 Series)
Mayberry - Danville (Featuered in T210-2 series)

*Pictured below is Alcock (Top 2nd from left) and Meek (far top right) This PC is dated 5-17-09 on the back, so the season was only a few months in, and this is why Demaree is not in the PC since he did not join until the last 38 games of the 1909 season. --- Somehow with all of this info, we should be able to possibly narrow down the production dates of the SL Proofs, perhaps !?

[barrysloate]

Excellent research Jeremy, thanks. And you are correct about ownership (I guess it's not really a secret).

[DixieBaseball]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

The Pepe T206 above is one that I have always loved.

Back when these were sold I wished so much that card was done it's such a great shot!

Cheers,

John

Hi John - I share your affinity for Le Pepe... He was a heck of a shortstop by accounts I have read... Here is another pic of the Frenchman, but with an error reverse. The T210 set was very short on error's for some odd reason. Totally baffles me there were not more screw ups on such a large set offering... 640 cards in 8 series, and I can only think of a couple of cards that made it to market with an error (Not counting miscuts with names at the top)

[DixieBaseball]

Originally Posted by Kawika

Anybody got ID's on these guys? Top row, third from left is Joe Pepe, Montgomery shortstop 1908-1910, brief stint with New Orleans in 1911.

David,

Here ya go :
Alcock, Meek - Chattanooga (Not featured in the T210-8 series, but both played partial seasons for the Lookouts who are featured in T210-8 series)
Dwyer, Lee, Roth - Jacksonville (Dwyer & Lee featured in T210-1 series) (Roth not featured in the T210 set)
Osteen, Pepe - Montgomery (Both featured in T210-8 Series)
Mayberry - Danville (Featuered in T210-2 series)

[Leon]

I would have thought at least one person would mention the T212-1 proof strip? It's the only Obak proof I have ever seen. But if you guys have to see T206's then here ya go...my only one (and shown for the thousandth time but still...)

ps....not for sale yet Dan Co.......

[barrysloate]

I know Leon. We ignored your original post, I was thinking about that too. Sorry.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I know Leon. We ignored your original post, I was thinking about that too. Sorry.

That's ok Barry. No worries. Obaks aren't as fancy smancy as T206's.....It's all good.

[Anthony S.]

It's an amazing piece, Leon. I've admired it for quite some time. Congrats on your pickup.

[wonkaticket]

Leon,

Just put the Matty up for sale already so I can buy it!

You're like me with my dog teasing him with beggin strips with that card I'm too stupid to know it's just out of reach because you're not selling. But each time I'm on my hind legs looking up at you when that gets posted.

Cheers,

John

P.S. The Obak strip is insane and so cool!

[mrvster]

Hello All!!

Great thread Leon......your Matty proof i never get sick of looking at, and the "rosetta" stone of a multi-print back i also never get sick of looking at...

anyway, sad to say i have no "official" t206 proofs, only some fine scraps
i know they all have the "cross-hatches" in the borders and are blank backed, so i have none to officially meet that standard(yet), but still looking
i do beleive i have some very neat scraps where appears that they were "experimenting" with the name at the top border like some of the t206 ads suggest



who won the Jacklitsch in goodwin???!! i made a good ol' college try

going to post some i beleive are "pre-production"....and "experiments"..


Peace

Johnny

[mrvster]

please excuse the pics....

[mrvster]

Leon,

not even close to yours not a true "proof"....but my Matty "proof"

thanks Martin!

[T3s]

Here's a real proof.

[T3s]

Here's a real proof.

[BobbyVCP]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Jeremy- I find those to be among the most interesting cards in the hobby. I wonder how many other T206 cards were executed but never appeared in the set. I also wonder why those weren't. The artwork looks finished and ready to go, so why weren't they included? Really fascinating stuff.

I think they got omitted because they did not fit the sheet count. Would make sense they would create more images then needed and then decide later on which they wanted and which they did not. And these being minor league did feel on the cutting room floor.

[philliesphan]

Originally Posted by mrvster

who won the Jacklitsch in goodwin???!! i made a good ol' college try

Not sure. I was the underbidder.

Jacklitsch is one of the few subjects from the T206 set for which there is more than one proof card confirmed. The other one is nicer.

I have a Bransfield T206 proof -- don't have the scan handy and am typing from an airplane :-)

[tbob]

[QUOTE=Leon;875938]I would have thought at least one person would mention the T212-1 proof strip? It's the only Obak proof I have ever seen. QUOTE]

Outstanding Leon! I am incredibly envious

[rhettyeakley]

Leon, great proof sheet that I too have admired. The best thing about it (which isn't obvious when you first see it) is that all the images are reversed--most obvious with the "SF" on the jersey!
-Rhett

[Jay Wolt]

Craig that T3 Harry Coveleski proof is awesome
such a vibrant crisp image, looks almost 3-D

[sbfinley]

Leon, that is an awesome pickup. As for the SL proofs, what is the back story to them.
When did they come up for auction?
Where did they come from?

[DixieBaseball]

Leon,

The Matty Proof speaks for itself - Gorgeous card that I never get sick of looking at, and the strip to me is incredible in its own right, as you get possibly the only proof out there, but you get the whole strip as a bonus baby... You always seem to land the cool stuff ! I know, I know... You were born that way.

JJ

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I don't recall if he had a theory about them...

Here is the section of Keith's "Eight Men In" article which he gives some of his thoughts as to why the 8 proofs were not included in the T206 set. Without going into a long post I'll just say that I don't agree with several points in this section of the article. I do however have great respect for Keith as a collector, researcher, and writer.

[barrysloate]

Thanks Tim. What points do you disagree with?

[Abravefan11]

If I am understanding his points correctly I disagree with the following:

"In short, these six men would've been headline-makers in the Southern Association and South Atlantic League early in 1909, and would have been ideal choices for a mid-season supplement to the regional cards already issued, most of which depict the stars of 1908."

First I believe the 48 Southern League players included in the set, as well as the 8 proof cards were selected in early 1909 prior to or just after the seasons starting for the Southern Association and South Atlantic League. Note Dwyer is depicted with Jacksonville and was traded to Columbia in early July.

Second concerning the "mid-season supplement", 34 of the 48 that did make the set were first issued in August and September of 1909 as the seasons were wrapping up. The additional 14 cards along with the other 34 were printed in the first run of the 350 series in very late 1909 or early 1910. As I have said these 14 were not a supplement to the first 34 printed but part of the 48 decided on in early 1909.

[Clutch-Hitter]

???



Cards with the “+” symbol

1. Sisler - Rice
2. Baker -
3. Bancroft
4. Schalk
5. Judge
6. Burns
7. Milan
8. Schang
9. Bodie

Card Without the “+” Symbol:

1. Cadore
2. Hornsby
3. Rice
4. Mays
5. Konetchy
6. Groh
7. Bagby
8. Johnson
9. Cobb
10. Ruth
11. Doyle

[Bridwell]

Getting back to Leon's original question...

To me, a proof is a pre-production printing that the printer uses as a test. The printer is checking the lining up of the plates and colors. Proofs would never have been intended for distribution to the public. They would be shown to the designer for one last look, prior to production.

Miscut cards, missing colors or bad registration errors are usually not proofs. Anybody else have thoughts to help define?

[Bridwell]

In the famous T206 Wagner proof strip, Bowerman looks more like a waiter than a baseball player. Somebody may have looked at that design in 1909 and said "add something to his uniform so people can tell he's a baseball player!"

Thus the final version of the card has the collar colored in, and the B on the jersey. Just one reason why proofs are needed.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

???

My guess on these Big Heads is that the cross hairs were for alignment purposes. They don't have the characteristics I think of that are a true proof, imo. I am lacking Cobby and Ruth to complete that Big Head set (one of very few "sets" I have collected) and have seen some cross hairs on a fair number of the cards...including some of these....

[fkw]

This is either a "Proof" (prototype), or a new set?? (R340?)

Ive shown it a few times, but maybe some of you havent seen it yet or even have one. Ive never seen another.



differences from the common R309-1...
nearly 1/2" wider and taller because of extra green border
green name plaque instead of gold
much clearer image quality and contrast
different easel on back
hole punch (smaller than a normal hole punch and cleanly cut through thick stock)



1st image is a common R309-1, the second image is what was described as a proof of the R309-1 (sold in 2005 REA)


If anyone has info or seen another please let me know.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Very nice FKW!
_____________________

That makes sense Leon. It crossed my mind when I thought back to Matt's theory on the Big Head set last year, specifically how it appeared to be tied to the W516 sets somehow, reversed images and all. If this was correct, it would pre-date the W516 set as we thought, maybe a template.

Have the cross-hairs been found on any other strip card issue, or any issue for that matter? And, are the cross-hairs usually found on proofs?

Not my cards:

[E93]

Leon,
Just a friendly reminder to give me a call when you get tired of that ugly Matty proof.
JimB

[E93]

Though this one is not mine, I thought I would throw up the scan for further discussion on unissued T206s. To my knowledge this is the only one other than the Southern League Eight that was not issued.
JimB

[Jaybird]

This is the stuff that really gets me going. Beautiful cards. Thanks for posting and sharing the knowledge. I love reading about all the behind the scenes stuff.

Nice strip, Leon. Your strip makes me think... If someone had cut that strip apart, the middle cards wouldn't have the telltale crosshairs. Of course, they would still be reversed but wouldn't be quite so easy to spot.

Just makes me think a treasure hunter could stumble upon one.

[steve B]

The crosshairs are usually registration marks. Nearly every multi-color printed item has them on the paper before trimming to final size. Plus a lot of other marks.

The ones on the T206 proofs seem to me to be more layout oriented. In other words, marks used to make sure the location of the corresponding colors were exactly lined up on the stone. Once the stone was considered finished, they'd be erased from the stone.

To me proofs are fascinating. They show a portion of the entire process for making the final product. Some places do a lot of proofing. Topps has a vast array of different sorts of proofs. Some for the design pahse, some for the production phase. A lot of the final lining up Bridwell mentioned is done on the press with the regular production plates or stones. The sheets produced can be either nearly perfect or truly horrible. The shop I worked for usually had it near perfect first time, and perfect in less than 10 sheets. They also did nearly no proofing, any that I saw were photographic developed from the final sheet of negatives.

Not prewar, but here's one that crosses that proof/regular card boundary.


This is from the corner of what's called a "make ready" sheet. The magenta is printed a bit low. At the lower right are a couple lines that are registration marks. They should be printed right on top of each other. The torn top right corner is the special part. In order to keep the make ready sheets separated from the ones that will become releaseable product we used to tear off a corner of one sheet as a marker. Apparently Topps did the same thing. You can see the blue of the batting helmet printed onto the torn surface. It's not bleed through, as the card is printed on a surfaced board stock. The surfacing prevents the ink from soaking in, which keeps the image crisp.

So it's a production card, on the production material, printed from the same plates. But it's also partly a proof, since it was used to test the press adjustment. (Plus it's got the wrong back, printed lower than the front)
I'd like to think they went back and did a bit more adjusting. The shop I worked for would have considered this unacceptable registration. But I've seen enough 82 Topps to know better.

Steve B

[rp12367]

Steve B...Thanks for the insight on the printing process.

[Ease]

Originally Posted by rp12367

Steve B...Thanks for the insight on the printing process.

+1 Great info. Thanx!

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by steve B

The crosshairs are usually registration marks. Nearly every multi-color printed item has them on the paper before trimming to final size. Plus a lot of other marks.

The ones on the T206 proofs seem to me to be more layout oriented. In other words, marks used to make sure the location of the corresponding colors were exactly lined up on the stone. Once the stone was considered finished, they'd be erased from the stone.

To me proofs are fascinating. They show a portion of the entire process for making the final product. Some places do a lot of proofing. Topps has a vast array of different sorts of proofs. Some for the design pahse, some for the production phase. A lot of the final lining up Bridwell mentioned is done on the press with the regular production plates or stones. The sheets produced can be either nearly perfect or truly horrible. The shop I worked for usually had it near perfect first time, and perfect in less than 10 sheets. They also did nearly no proofing, any that I saw were photographic developed from the final sheet of negatives.

Not prewar, but here's one that crosses that proof/regular card boundary.


This is from the corner of what's called a "make ready" sheet. The magenta is printed a bit low. At the lower right are a couple lines that are registration marks. They should be printed right on top of each other. The torn top right corner is the special part. In order to keep the make ready sheets separated from the ones that will become releaseable product we used to tear off a corner of one sheet as a marker. Apparently Topps did the same thing. You can see the blue of the batting helmet printed onto the torn surface. It's not bleed through, as the card is printed on a surfaced board stock. The surfacing prevents the ink from soaking in, which keeps the image crisp.

So it's a production card, on the production material, printed from the same plates. But it's also partly a proof, since it was used to test the press adjustment. (Plus it's got the wrong back, printed lower than the front)
I'd like to think they went back and did a bit more adjusting. The shop I worked for would have considered this unacceptable registration. But I've seen enough 82 Topps to know better.

Steve B

Great information, Steve.