[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Actually Bob I took every consideration in account. Neither you nor Olberman (I'm assuming) have any evidence these are proof cards of any kind. Some points:

1) The "E95s" and "E96s" on the notebook covers are not of the same lightweight paper as these proofs.

- All that meaning that your cut-out didn't come from a notebook cover. Nothing more. Are you saying there are no other possibilities? Look at Mastro catalog from April 2004 - Lot 1211. E95 art was used and being the cover to a writing tablet. The cover stock would be thicker then the paper stock. Just look at kids notebooks today, the same is still true. Mastro says it's "circa 1911". Hmmm, 1913 is very close 1911 making it within the range of what "circa" means.


2) The "E95s" and "E96s" have team listings identical to those of the E95 and E96 set.
3) These cards show the 3 players with teams other than those listed in the E95 and E96 sets.

- So if another company bought the rights to the art for use on a scorecard they would look silly listing a player with an old team. Stands to reason they would update team names for a sports related item.


4) If you examine the years these 3 players were associated with the teams listed, you'll see that it doesn't correspond with the years the caramel card sets flourished and were issued....

- Bob, the fact that they came fom another year just proves they are came from the Philadelphia Caramel Co. As you know, I kinda collect this stuff and the Philadelphia Caramel Co. was cheap. The only new art they used was the baseball and boxing sets. Their card sets that feature non-Baseball themes uses artwork from card sets that were issued in the 1880s by Allen & Ginter. The Indian sets, the Animal sets - ALL reissued artwork. What a better way to save money then to use 20+ year old art (read: cheaper rights) and then make money of the art you paid for in 1909-1910 by selling the rights in the future for other peoples projects so you are right about your point but there is NO EVIDENCE that what the tobacco companies did is the same as the candy companies will do. How silly do you think a candy company would look using art from another candy company for cards that were issued only 3-4 years in the past.

5) I still think the most telling factor is the paper used.

- Like I said, a cover being on heavier stock then the pages inside in nothing new. It isn't always done, some producers are just cheap. I know this and anyone in the printing field knows what I'm talking about.



"We'll never 100% positive, that I know. I put the Kling on ebay but it didn't hit reserve, thanks in part to naysayers on this board who trashed the idea of it being an uncatalogued proof, giving their opinions without ever having seen the cards in person. I guess in retrospect I am glad it didn't sell, it is a one of a kind item and I'm glad to have it in my collection. I dare anyone to find a Chance New York with the green background portrait pose on ANY card, or on the cover of ANY notebook or used for ANY artwork purpose. Until that happens, there is no evidence the cards are NOT proofs."

- You dare us? Them are fighting words Bob. I dare you to be big enough to admit you're wrong should one be found. And what are we supposed to do differently because you are a forum user? Look critically and logically at OTHER peoples offerings but if it comes from someone here we should just look the other way? That would make us EXACTLY what the scum in the hobby thinks we are here.

C'mon Bob, don't you think that I, more than most would LOVE the fact that a proof from an e-set exists? Prove that card, the Kling, the Davis are authentic "proof" cards and when one comes to auction believe me, set your reserve, it will sell.