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.

[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!

[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