Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>Millerhouse</b><p>At risk of bursting a bubble from a poster in the recent auctions acquisition thread, I firmly believe that the thin, square black & white cards bearing the same photos as the round Colgan's Chips are not, in fact, proof cards of any kind but are, instead, a separate set from an unknown issuer utilizing the same photos as Colgan's. My reasons for believing this are many.<br /><br />First, they are simply available in far more collectible quantities than acknowledged proof cards. Over the years, I have been able to amass 75 different (and a fair number of duplicates) from a number of different sources.<br /><br />Second, they have been checklisted as a separate set for more than thirty-five years. My recollection is that Egan's seminal checklist book on pre-war candy and gum cards from the late '60s included them as a separate issue. While this is far from conclusive, the fact that someone nearly forty years ago was able to track them down in the sort of quantity that I've managed to acquire since then suggests that they are available from varied, publicly available sources, unlike the typical proofs that have appeared in large batches from single sources.<br /><br />Finally, and to me the clincher, the so-called proofs, at times, depict less than what is included on the Colgan's cards and frequently depict the bust shots of the players with the same sort of rounding occasioned by the shape of the Colgan's. This suggests to me that these are not the precursor of the round cards -- and, hence, proofs for the round Colgan's -- but that, instead, the pictures used on these square cards were taken from the Colgan's cards.<br /><br />Because they contain no identifiers other than the names of the players, we may never know the source of them. However, the suggestion that they are E254 "proofs" just doesn't hold up. I suspect that they were issued as inserts on their own by an issuer using Colgan's images. And, for want of a better term, I think they're more appropriately referred to "square 'Colgan's.'"<br /><br />I'd be most interested in hearing the views of others on this.<br /><br />Dan

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>Robert Edward Auctions LLC</b><p>I agree. Here is what we wrote in the catalog description for a group of Square Colgans:<br /><br />For more than thirty years, due to the natural desire of collectors to have a name by which to refer to them and a real interest in identifying the issue, these cards been referred to as Colgan's Chips "proof" cards. The square Colgan's Chips cards are, in fact, not really Colgan's "proof" cards. This unusual issue is obviously related to Colgan's Chips, and they do feature the same portraits as are found on E254 Colgan's Chips, but little else is known with certainty about them. It is our belief that these are a candy issue unto themselves, which was obviously produced in connection with the Colgan's set, but probably issued by a different company. Because of hobby tradition, unless the true issuer is ever identified by newly discovered advertising or a package design, these will probably always be known as "Colgan's Chips proofs."

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I agree completely. No way they are proofs. Just like no way are the E97 black and whites proofs. For any grading company to continue to label them that way (even though guides might reference them that way) is wrong, imho. So many times it's easy to take the short way and not do the homework. I too believe it is a seperate series from everything I know today...I think they are still cool cards...but definitely not proofs....best regards

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>Millerhouse</b><p>And, for the record, I totally agree with you, Leon, regarding the black and white E97s -- for many of the same reasons that I set forth regarding the square "Colgan's."<br /><br />Dan

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>From the several that I have owned/own I have been always been intriqued by the small area of paper loss about 2/3 up on the reverses. Was this an attachment point to a product? Some have postulated that they were once part of an ad piece.<br /><br />I would also have to agree that they are not proofs but definitely related at least indirectly to the Colgan's issue.<br /><br />I would have to assume that if the origin was ever discovered prices would increase. Feel free to disagree, but they are more difficult to locate than any of the Colgan's (E254/E270) issues but probably not quite as tough as the Ju-Ju drums.

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My guess, concerning the aforementioned paper loss, is that a large quantity of the Square Colgans were in an album and taken out. There are other precedents like this too...such as the E121 type Herpolsheimers in which every single known one has/had writing on the back...regards

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>Mark Macrae</b><p>Dan......Your points are well researched, thought out and phrased & I agree with your position. I've collected a similar quantity as you have. A question I would pose for you & readers.... Have you ever found any from 'outside the hobby' in the possession of the original owner or family that collected them ?..... If you have, did you 'interview' the family as to what they may know about the issue or the region that they were originally collected in ?...This is one of the VERY few issues that I have personally acquired all of the examples in my collection from 'inside the hobby'. In the case of the other Colgans' issues, I've brought more than five thousand into the hobby, many from the Northern California area (One of the original marketing areas for Colgans). These would include Tin Tops, Red borders and (mostly) Stars of the Diamond..... I'd forgotten about the reference to this issue in Rich Egan's "E" card handbook, but I checked this morning & you're right (No surprise). As Rob points out, many collectors demand that a set be 'named'. Until a point in time where we have more supporting evidence, they will probably continue to be improperly labeled as proofs..... Mark

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p>Is there a CC 'Proofs' checklist (full or partial)? I may have a trimmed one (Pfeister)and wonder about the dimensions/what they look like.<br /><br />OCB doesnt list this issue.

Colgan's "proofs"
 

Posted By: <b>Millerhouse</b><p>I'd be interested in Mark's take on the rarity of these vs. the Colgan's/Ju Ju Drums issue raised by John S. My take on it is that they are, indeed, less difficult to find than Ju Ju Drums, much harder to find than the "Stars of the Diamond" Colgan's and maybe a bit easier to find than "Tin Tops" Colgan's, which I've always found to be quite difficult. To Mark's question about their location, I believe that just about all of mine have come from hobby sources, albeit spread out over a number of years.<br /><br />As to the issue, also raised, regarding back damage, very, very few of mine exhibit this. My guess is that, because they are the size and texture of postage stamps, many people have mounted them with stamp hinges, leaving the sort of mark on the backs that are sometimes seen. It's just a guess, but not a bad one, I think.<br /><br />Dan