Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
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.