E-Unc. Ty Cobb slabbed by GAI.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

We discussed this particular card on Leon's board before he took over here. The scans were too big to post, so I have posted a link to the card. I promised I would let everyone know when the card was slabbed, so here it is.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5217118288&ssPageName=ADME:B:LC:US:1

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Very cool card. This is sort of close to advertising your card on the main thread but I think it's such an unusual card it stays. This is one of the times there is one of those gray area's when I just have to try to do what's best for the board. Also, the fact you are a very frequent contributor weighs on my decision...and it is definitely on topic..I agree that I think it's cut from an advertising piece.....take care

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

Not to pick on the seller, but how is this considered a card?

I can understand a strip card being a card since it was meant to be cut out or cards like posts etc, where the intention was for kids to cut them...

But this " card" appears to have been cut out of a larger piece, maybe an advertaisement panel or some type of cover for a notebook, or something of that sort.

Dont get me wrong i would love to own it as it appears to have been cut long LONG ago and its probably beyond rare.

I just think its a baseball item rather than a card itself.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

on page 70. Also, we have no idea what W555's and other strip "cards" were actually cut from (boxes, posters etc.). So, it does fall into this category of a "card" the same as W555's and other strip cards. Also, it is common card size. I have seen major auctions describe the images cut from Cracker Jack posters as "cards". At least this Cobb is the same size, thickness and from the same stock as other period caramel cards. Also, it is not one of those Philly Caramel "proof" cards that were cut from a notebook cover that are being sold as cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

We all wrestle with our own definition of what constitutes a baseball card. One of my favorite definitions is to give the authority up to the "card's" original owner.

It appears clear to me that independent of the source of Scott's card, its original owner valued it as such.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

GAI doesn't claim it's a card, Elkins does. Based on other items I've seen GAI slab, I don't see why they would have a problem slabbing notebook-cover pictures, or the thicker stock item Tbob had.

[Archive]

Posted By: BcD

do you mean those E-96
'proofs" ???

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

both appear to be derived from Philadelphia Caramel cards (E95 baseball and E79 boxing) and both have different chunks of the ad on the back. I don't think it is caramel, though--the ad looks like it is for a chain of candy/soda shops. Given the fact that the ad loses all utility once cut down, I'd think that the sheet was not initially meant to be cut up, like an advertising poster or A17 page, or Dan's cards that SGC refused to grade. That said, it does look like the collecting community is accepting these items as cards, as in the case of Dan's items.

Given the uncertainty over its origins and its apparent status as a piece of something larger that may not have been meant to be cut up, I am surprised that Global would slab it as an uncatalogued E issue. Des this mean that they would slab a cut from an A & G album page or CJ poster, as to me it would be dangerously close to slabbing a cutout from a Whitmans or Spalding guide and we all seem to deride those "Huffenstein's" Monster items. Of course, that (re)opens the entire philosophical issue of whether there is really an appreciable difference between slabbing such an item accurately described and slabbing a page from a Spalding guide accurately described, what is it, and why is it a problem. And before everyone jumps on me about "now you are taking Huff's side", no, I am opening up the idea of where to draw the line. Should we be concerned if a slabbing service says tomorrow "hey, let's authenticate magazine ads since some people like and collect them"--which they do? Could they perhaps slab or authenticate a Harper's woodcut or a leaf from Edwards' 1895 boxing book (which is often found cut up because the large-sized leaves from the book look so great framed; I have one in my office)?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

You state that you do not see why GAI slabbed the Cobb "E-Unc.". It was YOUR book that Mike Baker went by when slabbing the card. On page 70 of YOUR book, YOU state these are E-Unc. cards YOURSELF!

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

But my post was unclear. First, let's deal with the overarching issue of whether the item is a card. I said "it does look like the collecting community is accepting these items as cards", so I don't see a contradiction, since I think they are cards and based on the pieces of the card backs I think they are uncatalogued E cards. What got me was your designation of the card as a "caramel" card in the auction title and twice in the auction description, which is what I took issue with and is not what the slab says (it says E card advertisement). I did a lousy job of specifying that.

What I wrote in the book was "The subject matter appears to be candy or confections so I suspect it was part of a promotional device for a candy and ice cream store or manufacturer." I said that because the words "cream" and "fruit flavors" are on the card back of the Jeffries card I saw. That is different from saying it is a caramel issue. The back of your card similarly does not mention caramel, but does mention chocolate and jellys. How you get to caramel from there is unclear to me, but since "Caramel" implies that the item was issued by one of the caramel manufacturers that issued the very valuable classic E cards, in using the term "caramel" in the title of the auction and twice in its body I assume that caramel collectors are the market you were trying to tap. I'd really like to see a full sheet of them with the ad back intact before saying more than "candy and ice cream" since we still don't know who issued them. GAI designated the card as an uncatalogued E advertisement, accurately IMHO. They don't mention caramel either.

Changing gears entirely, my philosophical question relative to the decision to slab this particular card was not meant to dig at your card but was meant as an effort to use your card as a rhetorical device for discussing the decision to slab or not slab other cut items. I think that issue very much needs revisiting (like the album items, magazine ads and Harpers wood cuts I mentioned) and I would like to hear some views on it.

If my views have now been accepted by Mike Baker, all I can say is "Cool" and "Don't I get a royalty?". Since I now wield influence, all I can say to everyone else is "Send my your cards, send them now, send them all."

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

As far as I am concerned, they can slab anything and everything...

as long as they are ACCURATE and use FULL DISCLOSURE on the slab label.

I have no problem with a magazine photo getting slabbed...

as long as GAI puts "Page 15, Reach Guide 1892" on the label.

In fact, I would rather have these crappy things slabbed and properly identified instead of incorrectly identified as "CARDS" by some illegitimate grading company (ASA).

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Croft's Cocoa cards, Mello Mints, G&B Gum, Colgan's Chips, Ju-Ju Drums, etc. etc.????? B/C they were issued with "Goodies" (or cut from candy boxes or what not). These issues (and others) fit into the accepted "Caramel" or "E" card designation. They CERTAINLY are not tobacco issues. To put it simply - A card does NOT have to be issued with CARAMEL to be considered a CARAMEL card!

Also, near the end of your article regarding these "cards" on page 70 of your book, you state: "Based on the foregoing, I am designating these as uncatalogued E cards.". YOU stated these are "E" cards. Every true vintage collector knows "E" cards are commonly referred to as "Caramel" cards (even though some were issued with gum or other "Goodies").

YES, I have stated this as a "Caramel Card". However, Adam, YOU did first in your boxing card book! I am only going by what Ben told me and the information I gathered reading your book.

For the record, I would like to state this: Some people might find a reason to bitch and whine about my listing - that is fine (and their right). HOWEVER, I have done more to find out what this card really is and have it slabbed correctly than Scott Forrest when he sold his blank-backed version or Ben when I traded him for this example. I was the one who pulled my eBay auction when I first listed this item and did NOT relist it until the card was slabbed! This cost me over $20 in listing fees alone - not counting the grading fees. I am CERTAINLY not trying to sell a page out of a Spalding guide as a card or mislead anyone in any manner whatsoever! If you don't like how the item is listed, even though I have went above and beyond the call of duty, then don't bid. In fact, you don't even have to look at the item on eBay if it pisses you off to do so. Like I have stated in the past, I am a collector and sell items to buy others I want. If the card does not sell, I will be happy to keep it. I am NOT trying to unload something I don't like or tying to sell it as something that it is not! That is enough ranting for now, as the people who seem to have a problem with the listing are ones that never deal with me any way. The people with whom I deal KNOW that I am honest and would NOT mislead anyone (and these are the people whose opinions matter to me any way)!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

<<HOWEVER, I have done more to find out what this card really is and have it slabbed correctly than Scott Forrest when he sold his blank-backed version or Ben when I traded him for this example.>>

If you tell us often enough what an expert you are, maybe you'll eventually believe it.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The "E" designation stands for "early candy issue". The "R" desigantion stands for "recent candy issue". Goudeys have an "R" designation becuase Burdick started cataloging cards in the 1940s.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Or, do you just like tuning in to this forum to aggravate true card collectors? If I remember correctly, don't you live in GA? You like to make fun of me being from the South - the last I checked, GA is further South than VA (and Sherman didn't burn us to the ground)! Also, I have never claimed to be an expert. This is why I bought Adam's book that had an article about these cards (which is useless now that Adam doesn't remember calling them E-Unc. cards - guess that was a waste of $40 or so).

Jay, I used the term "Caramel" to describe early "E" cards. If you are under the impression that I am the only one who refers to early "E" cards as "Caramels", please visit Pete's website at www.caramel-cards.com. Pete IS an expert on caramels (along with your pal - BCD of course). BTW - I never mentioned the "R" issues - don't really collect those.

Too bad Scott Forrest is back after his short hiatus from being mad b/c he found out two forgeries slipped by his "expert" eyes!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

Scott,

My comments were not personal and I am sorry if you thought i question your integrity.

I like fact that you had it graded and I wish you good luck on the sale.

Wether it is a "card" or not i still think its a very neat item.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Scott E, my post wasn't really directed at you, but aimed more at the crowd that doesn't know the ACC designations that well and how they were derived. Even in the 80s when ACC designations were commonly used, most people had no clue what the letters really stood for.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

make up your own answer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

We have seen evidence of three Cobbs of similar type and I think eventually we'll be able to determine the source of these cards, as well as the Jeffries. For those who are unfamiliar with the discussions, here are a couple of threads.

Elkins, I didn't mean to leave you out - I just simply couldn't find anywhere where you had contributed previously to the discussion. But I don't doubt you've done research. Let us know what you've found.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1095859724&lp=1115416545

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1104469088&lp=1104552919

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

It is one of those items I truly don't care if it sells or not. If so, I can use the money for other purchases. If not, I will throw it in with the rest of my Cobbs.

Jay, I guess the misunderstanding was my fault - I apologize. I simply have a habit of calling ALL "E" cards "Caramels" (Even though my favorites were issued by a company selling Cocoa).

Forrest, basically all the research I have done (besides examining the card very closely under 10x magnification front and back is from Adam's book and other vintage collectors.

I will say that I believe (and again, I have no way of knowing 100%) it is from an advertising trade card. Also, just want to say again that I was never trying to deceive anyone by calling the card a "caramel".

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Adam, could you email a copy of that page out of your book? I'll order the entire book, but I'm anxious to see all the research Elkins did.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

that I did more research than Forrest did when he purchased two reprints!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

...such as yourself and the fake e95 Cobb, although collectors worth their salt wouldn't be fooled by such an item. The real issue is what we do after we realize they are reprints. In my case, I ate two real photo postcards that I never examined closely - when told they were fakes, I put them away.

In your case, you pawned off a fake lithograph on an unsuspecting customer, and then refused to give a refund. There was quite a bit of ruckus on the board over your behavior. Any caramel collector will readily agree that modern reprinted color lithographs are incredibly easy to spot, even without that 10x loupe you use for your "research". But again, the issue is with screwing customers after you sell them a fake reprint. I realize that you have a large customer base on this board and I feel that they are probably safe for the most part since you now send your cards to grading companies. I don't normally agree that it is wise to get all cards slabbed, but in your case I think it's very necessary.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Here they are Elkins. I'm only doing this because it is evident that I'm not going to get a response from Frank Ward about this. Here are front images of the '70s reprinted RPPC, and another photo that was sold as "1930-ish" but is also probably from the '70s. If anyone, out of curiosity, wants back images, just email me. BTW - these are two of the nicest reprint Ruth photos you'll ever see, and I'm quite happy with them - just not $240 worth. And no, I won't be putting forgeries back on the market, so don't ask.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I did get fooled once (not twice like you). The card came to me in five or six top loaders taped together. It was still taped in those top loaders when I sold it on eBay and shipped it, as the seller I purchased it from had 100% feedback and I didn't think there was a need to look the card over.

You are also correct that I did not give a refund to the buyer. It was around six months after the sale. I always gave refunds back then if the card was returned in the original holder with my address label unbroken on top to make certain nobody could switch cards on me (which this one was not - so, I had no way of knowning 100% it was the same card). Since, I have decided to get almost all the cards I have in my collection graded, so that way all sales are final and I don't have to worry about someone e-mailing me six months down the road telling me a company would not grade a card for whatever reason and want to return it (or another card claiming to be it).

Also, the reprint was purchased when I first started collecting caramels. YOU act like YOU are the king of cards (although I don't even think you collect them any longer - just aggravate people who do and sell Cracker Jacks you have graded to make sure they are real on eBay to your large customer base for 10% of book). However, you purchased not one, but TWO reprints - AND YOU DID TRY AND SELL THEM, BUT WAS CAUGHT BY THE PLACE YOU TRIED TO CONSIGN THEM TO!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

That's some soft-shoe you do...stutter, stutter, divert...stutter, stutter, divert.

addendum - if anyone else has questions or comments about the Ruth photos, please email me. I have no intention of participating in any more of these Elkins emasculations.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

When the one with the company name turns up we are going to solve a lot of the mystery of this issue.

Scott F: I can't--it isn't laid out that way. Once it goes to print the whole damned thing is converted to a PDF by the printer. I can fax or snail mail you a copy of the page if you like. LMK