Can anyone prove this is a "proof" ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2765943783

I have seen a few of these and I kind of doubt they are proofs (I think that Ben has one too). But now I know that if I get GAI to grade them as "proofs" they will sell for big $$.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I don't have an image of the regular card, so what's the difference. Is it just the blank back, or is there also difference to the front?

[Archive]

Posted By: B. Hodes

David - Someone once told me that they were cut outs from an advertising sheet or something...

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

It kind of reminds me of the blank backed M116 I bought in a holder, slabbed as a "proof." I assumed that was what it was, having never seen a blank backed M116 Sporting Life before until I bid on and won an actual M116 proof, which is not only blank backed but is black and white. I think this card is merely blank backed and I am very surprised they slabbed this as "authentic" and a "proof," when they (GAI) rejected my slabbed blank back on a cross over stating that it couldn't be graded because it had been "trimmed." (DUH) I guess they never thought to merely autheticate it. Sheesh...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

My answer is that just as it is wrong to assume that every blank backed & handcut card is a proof, it is wrong to assume that everyone was cut from an advertisment.

I would want to talk to the relevant person(s) at GAI and see why the labelled it as a proof. He may have worthwhile reasons and keen understanding that convince me. As no one from any grader has ever attempted to contact me (Except for Roy Huff who inquired about the quality of the pictures in a Babe Ruth book I had for sale), such commuication is unlikely.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

I had one of these on ebay about a month ago. It is not really a proof, but it is not cut from an ad poster either. The card had the correct thickness and was on the proper paper, it was just blank backed. My guess is that somebody cut up some printers scrap some years ago and the individual cards have made their way around the hobby.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

A note about GAI grading. I once submitted at the Ft Washington show a 1959 Bazooka with full borders for the GAI quick grade. It was neatly cut with square corners and straight edges. I had just bought a handful and the grading was only like $3 a card. When I went to pick up the card, they returned it to me as trimmed. It was clear, just from the look on the guys face, that he had no idea what a 1959 Bazooka card even was. My response was "No kidding" if it was not trimmed it would still be attached to a box of Bazooka Bubble Gum.

I found in humerous that even though they didn't know what a 1959 Bazooka card was, they still kept my $3 grading fee for looking at it.

I have not had this problem with SGC, but otherwise it seems to me that once these grading companies get outside of the mainstream run of the mill cards, they are completely lost.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Sounds reasonable, Scott. My rule of thumb on proofs is: when in doubt, don't call it a proof (because it likely isn't). However, I would be willing to listen to GAI's reasoning.

I have to comment(in jest, mind you): Who's the dumb one? The grader who knows nothing about Bazooka cards, or the person who pays this grader $3 for his opinion on Bazooka cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Good point, however it was not really their opinion on authenticity or the actual grade that I was seeking, it was just that little label with the number and grade that is often worth multiples its weight in gold, that I was after.

Its sad, but a fact of life, that in the online world, if you really want to max out on high demand or high condition cards, they need that slab.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Look at ebay #2766028356.

If they thought the T205 was a proof then why didn't GAI call this card a proof?

Just for the record - the T205 isn't a proof.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Pete pointed out to me two years ago that we (meaning me and some others) were using the word "proof" too liberally. Most items that people call "proofs" are actually printers scrap, this included.

The intriguing part is trying to guess why the original sheet didn't make it to production (didn't get printed on the back and cut). Could be for a variety of reasons - if you held this card next to a production version you might find a mistake, but you might not.

Pete - any ideas as to why we find cards that are blank-backed but otherwise look perfect?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

It has to be, it is labelled that way by a very knoelegable professional who's only service is too assign grades to cards so they must know exactly what they are grading!

Great post Scott Gaynor! I have said it before, WHY DON'T THE GRADING SERVICES HIRE SOMEONE THAT KNOWS SOMETHING OR JUST STICK TO TOPPS AND BOWMAN JUNK.

[Archive]

Posted By: Donald Johnson

Check this one out. Is it a proof?http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2765305925&category=31719

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I don't know about old times. But in modern times, the card companies would accidentally insert blank backed cards into packs. I've pulled one (Oscar Gamble) and I'm sure others here have as well.

Also, if you've ever seen a progression proof set (color tests of the cards), the final card is often exactly the same as the regular card except with a blank back.

Without knowin the history of the card, it is practically impossible to tell the difference between a from the pack blank back and one of these final progression proofs.

Lastly, I've owned uncut blank front (yes, front) sheets (still have a pile of them in my basement, acting as a table top for other things), and I have cut them down. Mind you, I cut them down to more palatable panels and not singles. And my scissors and papercutter cuttting would not be mistaken for factory cuts (My cutting is only slightly better than my spelling). And, as I have way too much time on my hands, I have invisiably marked all the panels to help identify future skulldugery.

From a pesonal standpoint, I think there is way to significance given to proofs in the trading card hobby. I like proofs and all, think they're neat and do give a premium to proofs (especially ones that are clearly identified as proofs, with strong history). But given the exact same card (handcut, blank backed), if it's called a 'proof' the hobby treats it like royalty, and if it's called a 'cut from sign' or 'scrap' it's treated like a dog terd.

In the end, if one can't tell if it's a proof or a scrap or a cut from sign, it's still the same thing in your hand and the owner shouldn't pull a muscle because no one can tell him whether or not it's a proof.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

That's a 'scrap' (printing mistake/throw away). Commonly, the proofs will be blank backed (which gets us back to the circle that a blank back doesn't mean a card is a proof) ... Again, the rule of thumb is: when in doubt, assume a card is not a proof, as it likely isn't.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I wish to point out that there isn't a requirment that everything has to to have a definite label. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know," or "I think it might be a proof, but that's just my guess."

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Not all blank backs are proofs, but all proofs do have blank backs, so the T206 Knight is definitely not a proof.