Help us out bro

Now just wait till the heretofore unknown T207 Cobb turns up.

The Perdue and Gregg do appear to have used the same photo as was used to produce their T207 cards...good spotting folks.

Brian

I'm sure Drew could get to the bottom of this.

What did this end up selling for, if at all?

I stumbled across the listing a few days before the auction and it intrigued me. I didn't get to look into it myself, but it's always cool to see some collective brainpower and legwork to find matching cards.

Read post 21.

Here you go
 

Sale price at bottom:
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...913-lot501.png

Estimated Price Range: ($40,000 - $60,000)
They thought it would go for double of $30,000. :eek:

Old Software
 

FWIW thats the price without the buyers premium. All Hunt results are without it.

Thanks for the screenshot.

It took a lot of emailing to delete my invaluable account a while back, so I didn't want to have to make a new one to check.

30k seems like a decent price... but, I am talking out of my butt on the subject.

I feel much like going to church, this piece takes a little faith and belief on the side of the buyer. I wasn’t a fan when it popped up years ago and I still wouldn’t want to invest hopes and good wishes into my collection. It just seems too simplistic for the purported time period for quality.

That said, these items are so difficult sometimes as they have as much going for them as against them in an argument, so it falls on the belief of the buyer. If they are happy with the purchase then more power to them. It’s just not my bag.

I shake my head... If offered to me for $300 including premium, I'd not buy that.

The seller, the auction house, and the buyer all thought that sheet is genuine and worth exponentially more than what I think. And many of you feel the same. But a few of you have doubts.

It reminds me of that odd Goudey card from years ago, that everyone was praising and admiring as a new find. I posted doubts about the card. And a handful of folks here then gradually posted similar concerns (folks with a right smart of card sense and experience, more than me). And gradually this board's consideration was that that Goudey card wasn't genuine.

With this "sheet," I kinda hope that the sheet goes nowhere for several years, and that eventually a few more are found, some with sufficient provenance that the hobby is satisfied the sheets are genuine. I'm just not there.

That sounds similar to the Dog Food card set including Mantle. Originally only 1 was known for like a decade, but there was a period news article/ad about the set, then in the past 5 years, like 4-5 of each card were located in different locations with different backstories. The grading companies now authenticate that set.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=dog+food

Also from Pennsylvania!

Yeah, its not artistically sophisticated like D304 (1911-1914).

It could be that some of the reasons people don't like it are why it was never produced. Many of these crude(ish) period sets that came with different advertising backs (E92,E101,E102, E104/D359 Etc) probably started out as a printing company trying to sell time on their machines.
They send out sales people with prototypes or samples and see if you can get businesses to either buy the cards you created with just blank backs or you can add their business name for a price. Thats the formula that Felix Mendelsohn (sp?) used for all the 1916-1917 sets at least. Maybe this one never got off the cutting room floor but someone kept the prototype sample.
It could also explain why there are stars included in the player selection, easier to sell to a potential customer? Might be easier to find source photo's of stars as well...just spitballing ideas here instead of the easy "Nah, doesn't look right to me" parroting.

Exactly except this uncut sheet came out of Brooklyn 40 years ago. Was offered for sale both time out of PA, however.

Brunners may have been ugly, but still had a more layered print process than this.i also did not say it wasn’t real, I said I would not be comfortable on faith and no supporting evidence as to period. Did you read it?

Are you personally involved with this item? With 400 posts in 14 years and 6 just on this thread it’s a little odd.

No Justin, I'm not personally involved. I'm just tired of the usual "one take" posts that happen here too often so I thought I'd put some effort into this one. Yes, I had to read the post in order to pull one line out of it that helped me make fun of D304's. Then I left a space to seperate my thought and continued with my effort to discuss this item I find interesting.

(space for seperate thought)

Its funny that someone would have to be "involved with the item" to take interest in it. I'm reminded why I prefer lurking most of the time, so I'll just stick to that from now on...and I've been here for 21 years now, there was a site move in 2009 that changed the dates in everyones bio pages at the time.

I think your idea that the uncut sheet was potentially created by a printer to drum up business is very interesting, and sounds plausible to me. Yes, perhaps no one took the bait as they didn’t find it appealing enough to try to sell. Thanks for posting your thoughts on the subject.

I still think the biggest issue with this piece is whether or not these were baseball cards in the first place. As suggested, I think the idea that these were cards contributed to the perceived value of it. But what if these weren't cards at all? What makes them cards in their present state?

For example, I find it problematic that these baseball cards don't have team identifiers on them. Pretty unusual for a baseball card of the time, isn't it? Can anyone think of another contemporary set that didn't include team names?

Even the low-fi candy sets like Baseball Bats included team names with the images.

T227, T4, The orange borders,
Several sets in the 1920's.

Orange Borders is a set I didn't consider. But T4 is a photographic set and not a baseball card set. The T227 set was a generic sport-based set and not a baseball set. A set released in the 1920s would not be contemporary.

Fine art lithographers do things very much like they were done back then.
The number of colors is whatever was required. Some cigar box labels use more than 12, sometimes much more. T206s were around 8 colors T210 and red suns were only two plus a gloss coat which sort of doesn't count.

Looked at close up, it should be easy to tell. They would be more of a T206 ish image, a colorized black and white halftone. Just not done as well.

My apologies if you took offense, I thought it a valid inquiry with some of the activities on the board in the past week. If you have seen my posts. I would think the one thing I do not do is "parrot" as I try to give honest thoughts and opinions. I can assure you that they have often not agreed with the crowd. I seem to have read too much into that phrasing.

Yes, mine has the same date of 2009 for the change as well, so apologies for underestimating while playing it safe.

If it is a contrary opinion then please have at it as constructive talk is important. I just read your reply as a subtle jab and did not see the reasoning as it was a personal opinion the same as yours and not directed at you at all.

I readily stated it could or could be, but I just felt that a 30k commitment to this being a rare unissued baseball set more than a possible salesman sample or printers proof was not in my personal window. I think that opinion was fair.

Yeah...I do find it sad that even when it comes to cards it seems that humans cannot have differing opinions without it being contentious. Used to be just over religions and politics.

I think the sheet is fascinating. Love hobby mysteries and love to float ideas and theories. Should not lead to animosity though.

A thought I just had, it's a TCMA/Renata Galasso All Time set that never got released. Not necessarily from one of those two, but paper experts opinions notwithstanding I could easily see it being an "indy" 1960's or 70's piece that didn't have MLB permission so they left off trademarked info.

I think it would be fairly easy to determine general period it comes from with the sheet in hand. I don’t see anything that makes me doubt 1910’s from the scan but these things are always much easier in hand and give much more detail that way. Has anyone here actually handled the sheet? If it’s been known within the hobby since the 90’s then a fair number have probably encountered it.


While I am not certain that it is period I am more questioning whether these are even cards at all. It’s cool either way, but the auctioneer has made a ton of leaps (there’s no evidence this is a Cracker Jack proof, etc.) to try and pump it.

Like I said on the other auction post, let's see if this comes back up for sale in the next few months.

They only said theories were floated since it's first sale in 2015. From the description: "Several theories have surfaced to include the possibility it was a pre-proof for the Cracker Jack series of 1914 and 1915 (sheet was also found in Brooklyn area where Cracker Jack cards were produced). Another belief was that it may well have been a proof for the prolific American Caramel (and similar candy issues) of the 1910-15 era."

I don't feel they hyped it all. Imagine if this had been in Memory Lane the other night. An extra 35K for the poetic prose, alone.

I have not seen it and agree would feel better if I had to speak to it being period but they had two different experts do lab tests and Dave Forman also looked at it in 2016.

I think the question is were these prototypes for a set that never got issues, an early version of a some set that is now mainstream or a notebook cover. And to me I am not sure there is any less value to it. If it is period and we never know what it is, I think it is a great item. Kind of shocked it sold for as little as it did.

And so that I do not get attacked, I have no affiliation with the house, the buyer in either sale or the seller in the first sale. These days you have to disclose upfront to potentially save from being stoned by unhappy guys.

So very interesting! I'm 50/50 with a lean toward legit, meaning it's vintage to the images portrayed, whatever they were supposed to be used for. However, by 40 years ago, when it first surfaced, apparently, there were already Peter Nashes and others fabricating pieces to cash in on the collecting boom. It could also be an artistic endeavor, but if so I don't know why the artist wouldn't just make it a finished uncut sheet rather than a proof. More questions than answers with this baby, which would be enough to keep me from betting more than a few hundred bucks of throwaway money on it. But a number of bidders clearly disagreed and were willing to take the plunge.

It seems pretty clear they are hyping it beyond what the facts warrant, as is, frankly, their job as the salesman. I note they do not raise any 'theories' that do not serve to spike the item. There is no evidence or actual reason whatsoever to think this is a Cracker Jack proof sheet or an American Caramel proof sheet or any evidence at all to tie it to any famous set people like and will pay more for.

I believe the two race-baiting clowns peddling that fake Wagner also got 'lab tests' that said their Wagner is from 1910. I am extremely dubious of this as proof of being period in our hobby with its history and lack of an accurate track record to rely on. The claim from Forman is rather tepid, merely that he did not see physical evidence to contradict the lab report. That's not particularly helpful.

As I said though, my question is more whether these are cards or not. It is quite difficult to authenticate a one of a kind item with nothing to compare to it too, but I don't take for granted it is authentic to the period. It probably is, but I would not conclude this with the evidence available to me right now.

I speak for nobody but me, myself, and I and bear no affiliation to any hobby organization, company, other collectors, blah blah blah blah blah and did not bid and would not bid on said item as I don't want to spend anywhere near 30,000 on a card item. My good sense concludes that while it is a perfectly good decision and wise to spend a few K on a picture of a man if I really like the picture, spending more than that on a picture of another dude is silly.

Your disclosure was better than mine. Anyway, I hear what you are saying. I have seen some one offs in the hobby in my short time here that in most instances turned out to be legit items after extensive research. I totally accept your skepticism. There are lots of unexplained things out there lacking full stories due to lack of technology or importance.

I think as an auction house, Hunt does a better job than most of providing information rather than hype. To my pov, I feel they were mild and responsible in this write up.

And the two circus clowns having analysis done on their Wags I feel is not a fair comparison to put both of this uncut sheet's experts in the same light but opinions are like assholes...Forman had no vested interestin 2016 and I cannot expect him to do much else than we would do by seeing it having handled pre war issues. I think Dave has likely handled many so his vouching for feeling it is a valid period piece would carry weight with me.

If I had an extra 30K plus to stick into something (since I am not liquidating my retirement accounts for cards) I would have been all over this. Could I use the money in the hobby in a better way, yes, but not sure it would be as interesting as this piece.

I am not familiar with the two named experts herein who found the sheet to be possibly from this period. This methodology doesn't have much (any?) of a history of being used in our hobby accurately and I am a natural born skeptic. Forman's conclusion is in another category, his conclusion is very restrained and not much of a conclusion at all so it doesn't say much as testimony.

I am a big fan of uncut material from this period, and have definitely overpaid for some of it, but I have a hard time justifying a large spend on an item when I don't know what it is. I've bought a number of oddities and unique things in boxing land but never for a lot of money if I could not identify what it is. This piece is really cool, I'm a fan, but I have no idea what it really is and all we have our opinions second and third hand. The only primary source testimony from hobbyists who have handled it seems to be Foreman's conclusion that he didn't notice anything inconsistent with the dating, which isn't must of an endorsement in its restraint from saying much. This could be for some sort of magazine insert, guidebook, notebook, or a host of other things too, if period. The mysteries are half the fun.

With your avatar, you should liquidate your 401K and buy it :).




To our true baseball history experts - is there perhaps a barnstorming or exhibition team/game that ties this list of players together? Just a thought.

Since I did not see it, because I was not a potential buyer, having Forman see it and not see anything inconsistent has value to me. Forman knows more than I do but I would want to see it if I were dropping 30 plus even if I did liquidate the 401K it would be out of my comfort zone.

I looked the bio on one of the guys who tested the piece and was impressed enough. Was not able to find anything on the second guy other than a gynecologist, or something, going by the same name. I am assuming they share the name and this was not the paper expert but as you know, snowman was an expert in at least 12 different fields so anything is possible.

I think if enough time were put in...and maybe it has...some correlation might be able to be made for the players on this sheet. Certainly is an interesting mix that at face value seems to be a clue in itself. Why is it not a sheet consisting of only the biggest names who played at the time?

Gotta run now to find another avatar of a card I can use from another soon to be auctioned mystery sheet.

Just a thought
 

Interesting to see the E-Unc Orange Border set mentioned in discussion of this piece as that is the set that seems most similar in design: colorized photos, last names hand-lettered at bottom rather large, no team designation though, like the Orange Borders, a team name or insignia is visible in most images (only Leach, Laporte, Miller and Steinfeldt in the Orange Borders don't have a team identifier in some way), star-studded array of players including some non-entities. I could easily see this as a mockup for a candy box set c. 1912-3.

Do not know much about the orange borders set but that is interesting - Did notice a similarity - use of the full name of some players ( Ty Cobb , Sam Crawford) and just the last names of others

About that 1910 paper...

If that printed piece is authentic, and the paper dates to 1910 (I don't know that nailing it down to that precise year is possible), then I can envision that a 1910 printing date is possible.

However... let me get onto ABE Books, give me time to find a folio hardcover book circa 1910... It'll be highly likely that there will be end pages that are !9" tall by 12" wide, and the end pages will most likely be blank. I could then print cards on those thick end pages depicting circa 1910 players. That printing could happen in 1910, 1980, 2010... no telling when, although I suspect that if the printing was less than a few months ago that could be detected. I concede that I don't think there are many options available today to successfully create lithography as lithography was in 1910. But then we don't really know that the sheet has that printing quality. On that sheet, I initially thought of the proof centering lines, and the splotches of various colors, as something to decoy the casual observer into assuming that it's authentic.

My point is that to merely test a sample of the paper, forsaking other testing options, doesn't result in sufficient information that really proves much of anything definitively.

Having said all of that, I still think it could be genuine. But it just doesn't look right to me.

I really don't think you can print on vintage paper and have it turn out the way you're envisioning. I see it all the time in the autograph world. A person buys old stock paper, signs with old ink, but it still doesn't look right because it's not new paper anymore. It doesn't absorb ink the same way and it ends up being blotchy, usually a tell-tale sign in the cut world.

It's why people opt to use pencil instead when trying to pass cuts.

hmmm...learn something new everyday.

.

Is avoiding pencil cuts not as common as I thought? I'm extremely wary of cuts in general but I thought avoiding pencil cuts was pretty common in the autograph realm.

Not an autograph guy, but I assume that it would be tempting, and just too easy, to change a Babe Pinelli or Babe Herman into a Babe Ruth.


Brian (let this not dissuade helpful replies)

Looks like the pack-issued (lol?) version fixed the spelling.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4a866fa4dd.jpg

I'd never seen a non-proof version of these cards. I like the look of the non-proof version with Hughie spelled correctly.
To me, this gives slightly more credence to the idea that these are legitimate cards.

The below description says the card "has been nestled for decades in an advanced collection". I wonder if there are any other non-proof versions of the cards out there.
https://bid.hugginsandscott.com/bids...?itemid=223653

Maybe the "advanced collector" could provide some details?

I assume he’s dead. But would be nice to have some more details, for sure.

Interesting the vast amount of changes made between theoretical proof stages.

- Correct coloring (basic)
- Spelling correction (basic)
- Background stadium focus added
- The cap logo has changed and perhaps the cap from brim up entirely
- Vast detail improvements, particularly shown in the head. The eyes and
mouth seem completely different. (was the full head replaced to answer
both?)

Some of these changes at a better level than Topps was doing for trades in the 70's add even more questions for me on this item. I am flummoxed and just waiting for someone to add some interesting info.

I will say, the slight wet ink transfer on the new discovery single does show more than a few created, whenever that occurred.

I trust this is a joke.

Lots of people don't avoid pencil, especially when it comes to very rare, obscure vintage players. Sometimes, you don't have much of a choice if you don't want to go another 20-30 years before even seeing another example which may or may not be more attractive.

Personally, pencil has never, ever been a deterrent if I am interested in a piece. If I'm confident in its authenticity, then I'm fine with pencil, provided that a pencil autograph would work for me in that instance. Would much rather have something signed in pencil than in taped-over ink.

Not an autograph collector, but I have had some people tell me they prefer pencil for display pieces (flats logically) as there is little to no chance of fading as there is with ink. Perhaps, that is a very small segment of collectors per this thread.

While that preference due to that logical reasoning has actually never come up in any of my conversations, it makes perfect sense.

Like Cobb's penchant for green ink, the poet John Greenleaf Whittier was known for a similar love of purple. He was much more famous many generations ago, and his autograph was widely collected and prized. He was a very willing signer and correspondent, so there still exists a ton of holographic material to this day. The items signed in purple ink were extremely susceptible to fading due to UV exposure, which ultimately faded some pieces to oblivion. If there's a twisted upside, it's that Whittier's unimportant material has really tanked in desirability in the ensuing century, and with it, much of the value. People just don't care about poets and poetry like they used to.

Emily Dickinson bucks this trend, and her holographic scraps are still coveted and expensive to this day. Hilariously, she preferred to write in pencil!