About that caramel card proof....

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

O.K. maybe I can post about it without mentioning where it is for sale or include a link to get there, etc.
The uniqueness about the proof is that three (3) proofs to the mystery set have surfaced: a Chance New York AL (which I own), a Davis Cleveland (owned by Keith Olbermann) and the Kling Boston AL. At first glance the proofs appear to be E96s as they have the same rich color and same poses but the team names on the bottom are different. Likewise, these can be distinguised from the so-called E96 proofs which turned out to be pictures of cards which were cut from the cover of a child's notebook. Those "cards" had the same team names as the E96s and I also believe (Frank or Pete correct me if I am wrong here), Davis, Chance and Kling were not included in the cards displayed.
The three proofs were created after the E96 set was issued in 1910. We know this because of the team designations. I believe the date would be around 1914 because that is when Chance appears in the T213 Coupon set for the first time with a NY AL designation. In that same Coupon set, though, Harry Davis is still appearing with an "Athletics" designation so it could very well be closer to the end of the decade, perhaps 1915 or 1916. I am not sure when Johnny Kling was traded to the Red Sox, that would certainly shed more light.
It is the unanimous conjecture of all who have seen these proofs that there was going to be another caramel card set issued and plans were to recycle the pictures of some players, adding new team designations and other players would be added, perhaps a Joe Jackson or other budding superstar. We can only speculate on this, of course. No one knows for sure. What we do know is that these three proofs are authentic, original and the precursors to a new caramel card set which was never issued, for one reason or another.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Johnny Kling never played for the Red Sox, but played for the Braves for part of 1911 and all of 1912.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

The proof clearly says "A.L." which would be the Sox. Maybe there was some plan for him to become a member of the Sox later in his career. Was the Boston Braves the last team he played for?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Here is a link to Kling's stats. He played one more year, 1913 with Cincinnati. Never with the Red Sox.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/klingjo01.shtml

I wonder if these cards could be related to that Ty Cobb that one of the board members (Andy Baran??) had awhile ago. It looked like an E95, but had writing above Cobb's head, similar in style to the T-208 World's Champions set.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

The unknown Cobb used a copy of the e95 card as the source for the lithograph, but it also had his name and team across the dark red background, as part of the lithograph, and you could also see the remains of a red border outside the white border. Totally different issue - probably some unknown caramel card. I'm guessing that at some point someone else will find another card that is similar but has a different player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Well Harry Davis is listed on his proof as a member of the Cleveland team. His one year with Cleveland was 1912 as a player manager. He was with Philly before 1912 and with Philly after 1912. Kling was with Boston in 1912, but the Braves. This could have been one of those typo errors common in caramel and tobacco cards when a player is listed with the AL team instead of the NL team, and vice-versa. This would pin the year of production down to 1912 or 1913. Chance was player manager of the Yankees in 1913 and 1914, so I would guess late 1912 after the season when Chance was announced as manager, or early 1913, before the season when Davis switched back to Philly.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

That would have been nice! Maybe a Walter Johnson in the plans?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

A general statement that Proof's normally have cross-hairs.

[Archive]

Posted By: ....

.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

There was a Philadelphia Caramel Lajoie proof sold on ebay which was later graded by PSA and it didn't have any "cross-hairs" or "printers-proof marks" either.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

So PSA mis-labeled it - what a surprise.

I think the difference between your Kling and the "notebook cover" cards, is that yours is on card-stock and doesn't have the outside border the notebook cards have.

The goldish border was cut off of most of the notebook cards, so they have a rather thin white border. Your Kling was miscut enough that I think that some of the gold border would have shown up if it were actually a notebook card.

There is no law that says a proof has to have cross-hairs, or that it can't have writing.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

deleted at poster's request

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McMenemy

I took a look at all three player's records in "The Official Encyclopedia of Baseball," and all three players, in question, have something in common. Each player was a "player-manager."

Johnny Kling, Boston, N.L. (1912) M-C
Harry Davis, Cleveland, A.L. (1912) M-1
Frank Chance, New York, A.L. (1913-1914) M-1

I would like to offer a third hypothesis.

Rather than being a "proof" or a "notebook cover," could these have originally been part of "scorecards" produced following the end of the 1912 season for the upcoming 1913 season?

I have seen examples of scorecards using previously released cards sets'lithography. Early advertisers frequently created souvenirs that utilized the images of the player-managers as symbolic representatives of their respective teams. Another example of this was seen in the early advertising "fans."

This is my personal hypothesis. Could this be a proof?
Absolutely. Could these be another form of advertising?
Possibly. They are rare and valuable in either case.

Only time will tell!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

....

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

deleted at poster's request

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

1) Is it on card stock or something thinner?

2) Is that the remains of a reddish border around the edges of the card? If so, do the other two have it?

I think both of these questions are important in determining if the card is a proof.

Also, don't put too much stock in what an "expert" says. I took my Cobb to an "expert", prior to the actual purchase, and was told not to buy it. Why? - it "didn't look right". Of course not - unique, never before seen cards don't "look right". Fortunately I had enough confidence in my own ability to distinguish real pre-wwI lithography from fake to make my own decision (although I also had another person who I have great respect for look at it first).

Also, remember the PSA guys are supposed to be experts but they graded the notebook Lajoie as a "proof". That was, in my opinion, one of the stupidest errors they've made.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Hey Folks,
I had Elliot delete the posts where I was using 3rd party information. Bob is correct that that should not be done. NOW, with that being said, and with collecting in mind, I (myself) do have some questions on this/these cards. I am sure there are a few caramel folks that could help too...Pete?-where are you on this?.....but my questions are:

1. If it is authentic why not send it to SGC or PSA and have them authenticate it?
2. What kind of card stock is it on? Scott made reference to it but when I woke him up a few minutes ago (sorry about that) he didn't know where he got that info from.
3. What are those colors around the borders, specifically the right border? Looks like it could have some other paper it was attached to, of a different color..
4. If Keith O. said he thought this one, and his are real, I would like a little more info on that..

You guys know more than I do, AND if this IS an actual proof then that is wonderful....I would love to be able to hold (and smell) the card to get more of an idea on my own.....
best regards....

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

With regard to the type of stock the card is printed on, it is similar to the E97 black and white proofs, thinner and lighter than regular card stock. It is, like the Chance and Davis, and much different than the stock used for those infamous notebook covers which display E96 cards. From what I have seen of those, they are connected by ornate artwork, as Scott indicated. This card has none of that and has definite borders of white all the way around. I am not sure what the thin red line is on the very edge of the right border which runs vertically. It could be the next card on the proof sheet, but that is mere speculation.
As far as why I did not submit it to PSA, SGC or even Beckett, I guess there are two reasons:
1) I have never been very big on grading card companies, as most of my collector friends can attest. I have in the past and will in the future bid on graded cards if the card inside is desirable, but I have always felt that there is just too much subjectivity in the grading of cards submitted, not only in the grades themselves but in the identity of the submitter. I have had several of the "big boys" in the collecting community tell me that I need to let them submit cards for grading rather than do it myself, when I have consigned cards to auction houses, because the cards can get better grades. This has happened more than once and regardless of whether this is true or not, it certainly reinforced my feelings about the grading companies in general.
2) I could have gone ahead and simply had the card graded to establish "authenticity" as an E96 proof and have been done with it, but it isn't an E96 proof.
This is a unique proof card, in my opinion and those of others who have seen it. I will never part with the Chance which, by the way, is displayed on Pete's tremendous caramel card webpages, by far the most informative and useful tool for caramel card collectors. Pete displays it without any speculation one way or the other as to what it is or might be.
As far as the provenance of the card, your guess is as good as mine. I bought the card as an "E96 proof" the same time I bought several E97 proofs which are the b&w cards universally accepted as proofs from that set. I guess it is possible that when the proof was made, the printer inadvertently added the wrong caption and that is why is was discarded. But would the printer have made the same mistakes on the Davis and Chance cards? Very, very unilkely. I'll stand by my original theory, that because of the team designations this was intended for a set never released. Maybe more proofs will appear from this set, who knows? To me it is an interesting puzzle which probably will never have an answer. I am not aware of amy other caramel card proofs floating around the hobby so it is tough to make a comparison. If it doesn't sell, fine, I'll put it back in the safe next to the Chance. I might even make an overture to acquire the Davis at some point and own all three if the owner is willing to part with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom L.

The top grading companies are good at spotting altered or counterfeit cards. They are even experienced with some of the rare card sets, having handled more of the really rare issues than most other people.

However, they probably won't be able to contribute anything on something obscure - possibly unique - like Bob's card. I know first-hand that even the most reputable grading companies still rely on hobby reference books and outside experts (such as Mastro) on really tough questions. The only people who probably really know this type of thing are guys like Lew Lipset, Marc Macrae, and maybe two or three other guys with decades and decades of vintage card experience. And even they probably won't know for sure.

My own opinion is that Bob is probably correct in his assessment of the card. I have some of the notebook cards, and there is no variation from the regular issues whatsoever. There would have been no reason for any of these types of products to use an "original" card, when they could just as easily have used one of the regular card fronts already produced. I think this is more in line with the T-206 proof cards that were never issued (as discussed in Lipset's Encyclopedia), even though they don't have the hash marks. Pete Calderon could probably shed light on the hash mark issue, but I would expect that there are potentially multiple places pre-production where cards would have been printed without those marks.

Just my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

That and $.99 will get you a cup of coffee.

[Archive]

Posted By: vorthian

Reading what Tom L. had posted, it reminds me of an experience I had about a year ago at a show.

I submitted a 1928 Yuenglings Ty Cobb to Beckett for their "raw card review." When I returned, I was told that they didn't know the issue that well and would have to bring it back to Dallas to have the head-grader look at it. Interesting that the head-grader wasn't at the show...

For my troubles, I was given a free shipping voucher. Perhaps it would make a great stocking stuffer?