CGC M116 "Proof" Grading

[brooklynbotter]

Trying to figure out what happened here with my first CGC submission. I sent in a M116 Mordecai Brown "proof" acquired a few months ago via BST. I noted that the card was a proof while submitting, and added an additional note about the Chi Nat marking on the back/missing name on the front.

What confuses me is "questionable authenticity" label. If it was simply something they choose not to slab, I figure they would have refunded me like SGC did a month prior with the same card, or ticked "service unavailable." It seems like they took a quick look at the card, determined it wasn't a standard M116 from the back, and said it was no good. The fact the label they printed lacks any mention of a proof, and the back being what triggered the "QA" designation led me to believe this.

The card traces back to a 2013 REA auction, Mordecai is featured in the first image https://robertedwardauctions.com/arc...walter-johnson
I'm mostly making this post to see if anyone here has had cards from the same lot/collection slabbed. I'm not sure what would lead them to deem the card questionable authenticity, and this is definitely a bit disappointing given the praise their 'expert graders' have received. It is entirely possible I'm missing something, but both the seller and I believe this should've wound up in an Authentic holder.

Photos https://imgur.com/a/VKkkkzp

[sb1]

Likely due to the fact that these are not in fact proof cards, but more likely a sheet that did not receive the black color pass on the front with the names/teams and the back not printed. True proofs would usually have alignment marks on all four borders. Further as indicated in the REA write-up, it's possible they were cut from an ad sheet as well. You will also note they use the term "proofs" in quotations, indicating they were a bit unsure of what they were at the time.

[packs]

I really don't think these cards come from an advertising piece. There are just too many obscure players in the group and without any identifying any of them, I can't see why they'd be included in advertising.

I own the Barney Pelty, for example. I can believe that Mordecai Brown and Walter Johnson would be featured on a ad piece for this set. But I'm not so sure Barney Pelty would be so known that you'd see this photo and know it was him:

[Leon]

With all due respect, the seller and you are probably incorrect.
CGC is correct as it's not a proof and most likely an ad cut. These are also on a bit thinner stock. No way are they proofs and CGC did their job correctly. They would have been completely wrong to grade it.

Originally Posted by brooklynbotter

Trying to figure out what happened here with my first CGC submission. I sent in a M116 Mordecai Brown "proof" acquired a few months ago via BST. I noted that the card was a proof while submitting, and added an additional note about the Chi Nat marking on the back/missing name on the front.

What confuses me is "questionable authenticity" label. If it was simply something they choose not to slab, I figure they would have refunded me like SGC did a month prior with the same card, or ticked "service unavailable." It seems like they took a quick look at the card, determined it wasn't a standard M116 from the back, and said it was no good. The fact the label they printed lacks any mention of a proof, and the back being what triggered the "QA" designation led me to believe this.

The card traces back to a 2013 REA auction, Mordecai is featured in the first image https://robertedwardauctions.com/arc...walter-johnson
I'm mostly making this post to see if anyone here has had cards from the same lot/collection slabbed. I'm not sure what would lead them to deem the card questionable authenticity, and this is definitely a bit disappointing given the praise their 'expert graders' have received. It is entirely possible I'm missing something, but both the seller and I believe this should've wound up in an Authentic holder.

Photos https://imgur.com/a/VKkkkzp

[packs]

What do you think about the player selection for an advertising piece? Rudy Hulswitt is one of them. There are some pretty obscure players in the group for an ad piece.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by packs

What do you think about the player selection for an advertising piece? Rudy Hulswitt is one of them. There are some pretty obscure players in the group for an ad piece.

I think they were players on an ad sheet.
.

[sb1]

As many players that there are in the group might point to it being an unfinished sheet rather than an piece. One could also check all the players and list them by series number, none shown are from the last six series.

[packs]

There are 65 cards and they were issued in series of 12. I think there are probably 7 more cards somewhere or perhaps lost in addition to the original group.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sb1

As many players that there are in the group might point to it being an unfinished sheet rather than an piece. One could also check all the players and list them by series number, none shown are from the last six series.

Except for the different cardstock. Maybe they were a trial run sheet? Until we find more evidence it's all a guess.

[calvindog]

I think a lot of cards are believed to be proofs just due to a blank back, and that isn't the case on most of them.

[Exhibitman]

Sloppy designation is one of my collecting pet peeves. Unless it came from a manufacturer (like the Topps Vault) directly or shows printing guides or marks, or other indicators it is not from the production run, it is a cut or an error or some other interim production item, not a proof.

Cuts (often mislabeled as a 'proof'):



Proof (from the mfg or bearing indicia of proof production--stock, marks, etc.):







Original Art (something that PSA often mislabels as a 'proof', most recently with the Cassius Clay Exhibit card original art):





Other Production Materials:



Just to add visual context to the discussion.

[calvindog]

[Exhibitman]

Now that is a nice looking proof, Jeff.

[Leon]

Nice...

Originally Posted by calvindog

And this is not a proof. Blank back and trimmed, I would say.

[packs]

What would you consider a T206 that didn’t have a name or team printed on the front and was blank backed? Would that fall somewhere in between? Or is that considered in the same realm as the typical blank back T206s?

[brooklynbotter]

I appreciate all of the feedback. I was aware of the proof vs. advertisement cutout debate, but that didn't explain to me why they treated the submission like I sent in a standard M116 with a suspicious back. If CGC added a note clarifying their position on what they believe these to be, or ticked off "service unavailable" rather than "questionable authenticity" I wouldn't have brought this up.

Fwiw I believe they were cut from a trial run given the different card stock, pinholes, and blank backs with key info written. I understand that doesn't meet the definition of a proof, but rather something that relates to M116 production. I guess that means it will stay raw

[brianp-beme]

Here is that 2013 REA lot of 65 M116 cards broken down by series:


Series 2 (11- all blue background): Bresnahan, M. Brown, Crawford, B. Donovan, Gibson, D. Jones, Jordan, Leach, H. Lord, Tenney, Thomas

Series 4 (6): Bransfield, Elberfeld, Lennox, D. Miller, Murphy, Heinie Wagner

Series 6 (5): Bescher, Doolan, Hartsel, Hoffman, B. Sweeney

Series 7 (6): Johnson, Kling, Magee, M. Mitchell, Stone, Thoney

Series 8 (6): Bradley, Coombs, Delahanty, Gessler, Griffith, Steinfeldt

Series 9 (10): Arrelanes, Bergen, Dahlen, B. Lord, Lush, McIntyre, McLean, Pelty, Philippe, Sheckard

Series 10 (3): Bridwell, Dougherty, Turner

Series 11 (4): Beaumont, Hartzell, Hulswitt, Murray

Series 12 (3): Berger, Moran, O. Wilson

Series 22 (11): Ames, Archer, Covaleskie, Demmitt, Fletcher, Killifer, W. Miller, Pernoll, Sharpe, C. Smith, Titus


Perhaps this will help someone figure out something. I'm just the typist.


And here are the missing cards from some of the Series that were close to the full amount of 12 in the REA lot:


-Cards missing-

Series 2: Lajoie (blue background)

Series 9: Hahn, Karger

Series 22: J. Walsh


And finally a question for anyone that might know - have any other similiar "proofs/ad sheet cards" been found outside of the ones in the REA lot?


Brian

[brianp-beme]

And here is my type from the REA lot, Charlie Smith.

Brian

[shammus]

Thanks for posting this Hunter and great question!

So has anyone succeeded in getting these cards slabbed in any sort of a "Authetic" holder at any point? I know I've owned one of these slabbed by SGC at point and another by GAI, oddly enough.

I feel like they should be putting these into some sort of an authentic holder even if it's not one pertaining to the m116 issue or a "Proof" itself.

This all seems similar to the concept of an e107 Type 2 I suppose you could say.....it's kinda like the original, but with the different paper stock and other differences, it's clearly something else not a part of the manufactured issue. However, for the e107s, I remember not only did SGC used to slab those, but some of them made it into a numerical holder too! And, the ACC even gave them their own e107-2 designation....heh

[asoriano]

I also have an example from the REA lot. Thin stock.

[calvindog]

Thanks, Adam and Leon for the kind words on the T3 Chase proof (with the Red Kleinow ghost image on the back, but that's for another day).

I'm not sure why SGC and CGC don't grade the ad cut-outs; as long as they're correctly labeled, what's the downside? I suppose they're not cards per se, but I know that SGC certainly has graded notebook cut-outs and schedules, and even the Derby Cigars issue which I believe were simply hand cut from Derby Cigar advertising if I recall.

For the most part, I'd want thin, hand-cut ad pieces slabbed just for their protection. Perhaps it's a slippery slope and that's why they're rejected.

[atx840]

I've had this one for 15+ years and from the limited research on it I don't think it is anything special, let alone a proof.




Now this guy

[tycobb]

Originally Posted by atx840

I've had this one for 15+ years and from the limited research on it I don't think it is anything special, let alone a proof.




Now this guy

Super nice Titus Chris !! Is your Thomas on thin or thick card stock ? I have several that are thick stock .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rhotchkiss]

I don’t know much about the printing process, but the two proofs I own have markings on the borders

[notfast]

I wonder if CGC would slab these type of cards as ad/banner cutouts if asked.

[packs]

I've poked around and found several old auctions for advertisements similar to this one. They were all printed in black and white and the players are identified as well:

https://goldinauctions.com/lot-16007.aspx

I've seen window advertising like this Goudey display as well. Full color cards but again the players are identified:

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/Scar...-LOT52584.aspx

Cracker Jack original advertisement also identifies the players:

https://www.milehighcardco.com/spect...-lot44519.aspx

My opinion is that these are unfinished cards that were cut from original sheets. Whether that makes them proofs or something else in between, I do think that is the most likely origin of them. The lack of player name and team name indicates that to me.

[brooklynbotter]

I contacted their customer service trying to figure that out. I don't think there is more evidence for the ad cutout theory than the "proof"/trial run, so it would be weird in my opinion if they did.

CGC is also responsible for ebay's authenticity guarantee. I don't intend to sell mine, but would these get rejected if sold on ebay?

Originally Posted by notfast

I wonder if CGC would slab these type of cards as ad/banner cutouts if asked.

[G1911]

There is a 0% chance these are proofs. They have none of the characteristics of a proof and all the characteristics of being cut from an ad, display piece, or similar. People just like to claim proofs for any oddity they have as a proof is more desirable and valuable than a piece cut from an advertisement or something else. A thinner stock is indicative of a cut.

A proof card is often impossible to tell from an a card on an unfinished sheet. Large crosshairs (if you look very closely, you can see small crosshairs or remnants on a lot of old cards, like much of T218-1) are a clear indica of a proof, but only for proofs from certain alignment stages. There are other proofs that don't have them, but separating these from cards made during general production on a sheet that was unfinished and abandoned are often difficult to separate. For example, the below T220 sheet is a proof stage sheet. We know this from the office backstamp on the reverse, the misspelling in a card that was never issued that way, and is also indicated by the layout with the 2 super short prints having more cards here than are known to exist otherwise. Proofs are typically on the correct stock.

Cards from unfinished sheets often have missing elements, and/or are handcut. A lot of upside down wrong backs are in this category, missing color passes (for the ones that aren't frauds with colors removed by alteration or light), and other defects. Some of these cards bearing a subset of characteristics are probably actually from the proofing stage as not all proofing stages bear direct indica of that stage.

Cards cut from an advertising piece, like a poster or a banner or a store display often exhibit different formatting, are usually on a different and thinner stock, and are often found together in a quantity but otherwise extremely scarce for many issues (album cuts are much more common). Attached are some T68 examples and T96 examples, the only ones known. The T68's feature some design changes. The source pieces varied heavily, cards in advertising are not limited to the biggest name subjects and some were large and featured a large number of cards or even all of them.

These M116's are not proofs whatsoever and a grader is 100% right to reject them as such. I don't see why they couldn't be graded A and noted to be ad cuts.

[Leon]

Great cards. I think there is a good chance that your M116 is a real, blank backed M116, as it looks a little different and appears, from on screen, to be on thicker stock.

Originally Posted by atx840

I've had this one for 15+ years and from the limited research on it I don't think it is anything special, let alone a proof.




Now this guy

[tycobb]

I love when new topics for M116 come up. Great looking cards all ! I’ve shared these on the forum in a previous post. Any thoughts blank backs or advertisement pieces ? These are on thick stock .






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rhotchkiss]

Remember how the 1986 Topps boxes had 4 cards on the bottom of each box and you could/would put them out… will TPGs grade/authenticate those and what do they call them/how? Seems those are analogous to cards cut from advertising pieces

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Remember how the 1986 Topps boxes had 4 cards on the bottom of each box and you could/would put them out… will TPGs grade/authenticate those and what do they call them/how? Seems those are analogous to cards cut from advertising pieces

Yes, PSA grades those. Other TPGs may also grade them, too. I'm not sure about that, though.

The 1986 Topps baseball examples in particular carry the following designation:
1986 Topps Box Panels
[player name]
Hand Cut

The pop report notes the issue as, "1986 Topps Box Panels Hand Cut."

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...hand-cut/50043

[milkit1]

I do not believe these are cut from an ad. There is a minimum of 60 different without the name on the front. The idea that Sporting Life would put none identified players on a sheet of potentially 60 just seems odd and unlikely.
Also the cards have variations - for example some have no name on front and some do. Both blue background and pastel are available in both blank back formats.
The idea of a card being a proof is that the card in question was used for production of the produced card. If these are early production cards wouldnt that in fact make them a proof?
The clearest example for me that these are production cards is the Harry Steinfeldt I picked up years ago. the blank backed card clearly shows the edit of when Sporting Life cleared the word "Cincinatti" from his uniform (as he was with the Cubs in 1910 at time of production). Below is the blank backed card compared to the regular card. The edit clearly shows they needed to update the card for release. This makes the idea that they were on a poster seem very unlikely as well.
My money is on them being early production cards. Whether they can be considered "proofs" or not is rather pointless to me as they are one of a kind early production cards
m116 steinfeldt proof.jpg

m116 steinfeldt card.jpg

[Rhotchkiss]

Thanks Eric!

[Exhibitman]

Most of the oddball set-adjacent stuff is scrap that went out the back door of the factory.

[Leon]

I think there are probably 2 different kind of blank backs we are discussing. Some appear to be on thicker stock and have names printed on front. The others are on a thinner stock, like mine above, and don't have the names printed on them.

And I agree, I wouldn't consider these thinner stock ones proofs, but I could see them being a pre-production run. Maybe they made a sheet and said, WTF, this stock is too thin. Let's go with a thicker stock.
Again, if my belief is correct there are 2 different stocks being talked about. I am not 100% on that.

And Jorge's above could be a 3rd different type as they look different, to me, from the others.

Originally Posted by milkit1

I do not believe these are cut from an ad. There is a minimum of 60 different without the name on the front. The idea that Sporting Life would put none identified players on a sheet of potentially 60 just seems odd and unlikely.
Also the cards have variations - for example some have no name on front and some do. Both blue background and pastel are available in both blank back formats.
The idea of a card being a proof is that the card in question was used for production of the produced card. If these are early production cards wouldnt that in fact make them a proof?
The clearest example for me that these are production cards is the Harry Steinfeldt I picked up years ago. the blank backed card clearly shows the edit of when Sporting Life cleared the word "Cincinatti" from his uniform (as he was with the Cubs in 1910 at time of production). Below is the blank backed card compared to the regular card. The edit clearly shows they needed to update the card for release. This makes the idea that they were on a poster seem very unlikely as well.
My money is on them being early production cards. Whether they can be considered "proofs" or not is rather pointless to me as they are one of a kind early production cards
Attachment 616489

Attachment 616490

[steve B]

Nearly all preproduction runs are proofs
The scenario where they're testing paper is almost the defintion of a pre production proof.

To me these would be a couple things,
Progressive proofs without the name layer. Progressive proofs would be done possibly at multiple points on the way to production. Doing them on thinner stock would be more cost effective.
There would be progressive proofs done during the design phase, and those would have the registration markers.
Another set could and probably would be pulled from the plates/stones just before production to assure the plate or stones were laid out properly.
This is done on a press that's just used for proofing, and pretty much prints one sheet at a time.

"Proofs" is misused a lot, usually to keep things simple, because the details of production and pre production are not necessarily known for sure, and because with modern stuff especially Topps, there was so much proofing going on at different times and in different ways.
Not all blank backs are proofs, and even production cards can be "proofs" of some sort. Like the cards from a make -ready sheet showing evidence of adjustments being made, as a handful of sheets were used to make final adjustments to registration.
Those can also be properly considered as printers waste or scraps, because they served a purpose that was inherently ephemeral, while more traditional proofs may have been retained for some time along side other production items or as a guide to the master plates.

Not to be confused with how "proof" is used in coins, where the proofs are their own production run and what we call proofs is more like patterns.
and even less similar to stamps, where it can mean both pre and post production printings from different sources, and for different reasons. And are variously called "proofs" and "reprints" depending on when and why they were made.

[packs]

I'm glad people are coming around on these cards not being from an advertisement.

These cards do not identify the player. If the purpose of advertising is to alert people to what you're selling, not identifying the players wouldn't help your cause.