When a proof is a proof

[Leon]

The term "proof" in our hobby is over used about as much as the term "rare". Do a search on ebay, with the term "rare baseball" and it seems like almost everything is rare. Same thing in our hobby with the term "proof". Whether it's an E97-2 (black and white) or a Colgans E254-2 (square), you can count on the term "proof" being used, however incorrect it is. I was able to pick this up from another board member and it fits the term "proof" a bit better than some other coined-phrase cards. Show some other real proofs if you have them? best regards

[DixieBaseball]

I don't own these proofs, but I never get tired of looking at them ! T206 SL Proofs :

[barrysloate]

Jeremy- I find those to be among the most interesting cards in the hobby. I wonder how many other T206 cards were executed but never appeared in the set. I also wonder why those weren't. The artwork looks finished and ready to go, so why weren't they included? Really fascinating stuff.

[DixieBaseball]

Barry - I totally agree and it does make you wonder if there are other T206 Proofs out there that don't exist in the regular production. ( I believe we have seen samples of proofs that are in the actual T206 set, but I may be imagining that... ) - I find the 2 Chattanooga players to be the most interesting since that team didn't make it into the T206 set, but the other teams did...

Good stuff -

[peterb69]

Wow, great stuff. Both seem to fit "rare" & "proofs".

Thanks for the education. I didn't know those intended T206's even existed. That's why I am really enjoying this site since I stumbled onto it in January.

[barrysloate]

Jeremy- agreed on the Chattanooga players. If the team was originally planned to be a part of the SL series, why was it left out entirely? There's a great story to be told about those eight cards.

[BobbyVCP]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Jeremy- I find those to be among the most interesting cards in the hobby. I wonder how many other T206 cards were executed but never appeared in the set. I also wonder why those weren't. The artwork looks finished and ready to go, so why weren't they included? Really fascinating stuff.

I think they got omitted because they did not fit the sheet count. Would make sense they would create more images then needed and then decide later on which they wanted and which they did not. And these being minor league did feel on the cutting room floor.

[T3s]

Here's a real proof.

[Clutch-Hitter]

???



Cards with the “+” symbol

1. Sisler - Rice
2. Baker -
3. Bancroft
4. Schalk
5. Judge
6. Burns
7. Milan
8. Schang
9. Bodie

Card Without the “+” Symbol:

1. Cadore
2. Hornsby
3. Rice
4. Mays
5. Konetchy
6. Groh
7. Bagby
8. Johnson
9. Cobb
10. Ruth
11. Doyle

[Bridwell]

Getting back to Leon's original question...

To me, a proof is a pre-production printing that the printer uses as a test. The printer is checking the lining up of the plates and colors. Proofs would never have been intended for distribution to the public. They would be shown to the designer for one last look, prior to production.

Miscut cards, missing colors or bad registration errors are usually not proofs. Anybody else have thoughts to help define?

[Bridwell]

In the famous T206 Wagner proof strip, Bowerman looks more like a waiter than a baseball player. Somebody may have looked at that design in 1909 and said "add something to his uniform so people can tell he's a baseball player!"

Thus the final version of the card has the collar colored in, and the B on the jersey. Just one reason why proofs are needed.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

???

My guess on these Big Heads is that the cross hairs were for alignment purposes. They don't have the characteristics I think of that are a true proof, imo. I am lacking Cobby and Ruth to complete that Big Head set (one of very few "sets" I have collected) and have seen some cross hairs on a fair number of the cards...including some of these....

[Clutch-Hitter]

Very nice FKW!
_____________________

That makes sense Leon. It crossed my mind when I thought back to Matt's theory on the Big Head set last year, specifically how it appeared to be tied to the W516 sets somehow, reversed images and all. If this was correct, it would pre-date the W516 set as we thought, maybe a template.

Have the cross-hairs been found on any other strip card issue, or any issue for that matter? And, are the cross-hairs usually found on proofs?

Not my cards:

[E93]

Leon,
Just a friendly reminder to give me a call when you get tired of that ugly Matty proof.
JimB

[E93]

Though this one is not mine, I thought I would throw up the scan for further discussion on unissued T206s. To my knowledge this is the only one other than the Southern League Eight that was not issued.
JimB