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!

Pencil is a great medium for the reasons listed, but my understanding and avoidance of pencil comes from not being able to tell when a pencil signature was applied. A pencil signature signed today on century old paper will have the same characteristics as a contemporary pencil signature. But when it comes to ink, applying new ink on old paper causes all kinds of flaring in the ink transfer that you don't see in pencil. Seeing a lot of flaring on a supposedly old signature is an indication it was added later and may not be original.

True, but that's where personal knowledge and the confidence in it has to come into play. Or, like so many new(ish) people in the hobby, one can choose to never learn anything for themselves and simply buy the slab.

My comments were about the general rule of thumb. I'm not suggesting anything about TPG opinions or anything like that. Only that pencil can be applied to old paper and it can be difficult to determine if the signature is a day old or 100 years old.