[drc]

My mind is fuzzy, but I sort of recall Mastro or Lelands or someone auctioning off a large Burke collection which included all sorts of stuff. Perhaps proofs came from there.

As Mark touches on, photographers make proofs just like card makers do. They are test photos or pre photos made before the finished product. Anyone who had a home darkroom or took a darkroom class in high school made proofs, even if they didn't know at the time those unfinished photos are called proofs.

Also, as Mark touches on, perhaps the ad photos were called proofs as they were the same images used to make the baseball cards. Burke made the DiMaggio and other images into many photos sent all over the place. I've never seen for auction the actual photos Goudey used. Presumably, you would know they were the actual Goudey photos because they had a Goudey stamp on back and/or are are known to have come with the company. Many of the photos for the Exhibit cards are known to be the actual photos, as it is known they came from the President and owner of Exhibit Supply. I won in auction a bunch of the Exhibit photos and it included a detailed signed letter from the President along with a certificate from the company-- which is known as good provenance. Plus the the collection included original printing documents and notes, including the removed and added (short printed) cards and the complete set checklists, some of complete checklists unknown to the collectors at the time. It was clear the photos were the genuine Exhibit photos.

With photos, provenance is of bigger importance that with baseball cards. Knowing that a photo came from the Baseball Magazine auction or the estate of a Sports Illustrated editor is helpful. This is particularly true of photos that weren't distributed to the general public like Topps cards. Luckily for photo collectors, many photos have the provenance stamped on the back. An original Babe Ruth photo with an ACME Newspictures stamp on back is telling you "This photo came from ACME Newspictures," and ACME Newspictures is good provenance for a Ruth photo. With a famous photographer photo with no stamping or marks, other documentation or knowledge of where it came from is important. If it is known this unmarked photo came from the files of the magazine the photographer worked for, that would would support other evidence that it is genuine.

As I mentioned, I've never seen the ad nor pic of the photos, some I'm offering no specific info or insight on the photos in the add.