proof uncut sheet in Hunt's

[DixieBaseball]

It's a beautiful piece! It feels like to me it was a piece done in the late 40's or early 50's in color! My favorite is Hub Perdue in sweater. Great image I have never seen before... Very unusual and interesting piece. If its period, its a good price in my opinion. If it is done 20-30 yrs later, its worth a fraction of that... Just not sure. It still looks great and new poses. My question to the forum is does anyone see a pose they recognize from an old picture?

Is that Frank Baker front on view from this E96 side view? I feel like I am looking at a Philly Caramel Front and Side view. (Front being proof)

[pawpawdiv9]

I PM'ed Leon about this piece earlier in the auction, but held to not 'out' the auction to to learn about what it is from the experts on this board. I bidded on 2 items and got 1 last night (Banks RC) I was watching those Wagner pieces, thinking they were nice.
As for this, the decription said maybe American Caramel or close to it. I too thought maybe one of those Helmar pieces i see often in Ebay. Anyways its a nice vibrant colorful piece whatever it is.
I didnt even know its the only piece with Cobb and Joe together.

[ullmandds]

Regardless of what it is...I don't think the buyer will ever recoup his/her losses on this one!!!!

[packs]

I don't know about this one. Very different from the Universal Toy Novelty panels that have Ruth and Speaker and Walter Johnson. These look like they were meant to be machine cut, since they have crop marks. The novelty cards were meant to be in a panel.

[4815162342]

Due to current sizing contraints for SGC and PSA holders we were not able to have the piece encapsulated but fully guarantee its authenticity as well as the fact that it would be deemed authentic by either grading company should said holders become available

Was there an LOA from both of them stating this?

Edit: Nevermind I just reread that sentence.

[Jobu]

I don't think those are crop marks but rather printer's marks. Crop marks are to guide the cut, as you mention, while printer's marks are to guide the registration to make sure that the image is perfectly registered (i.e., no color shifts). Printer's marks are found on artist proofs so they can see the image as clearly as possible and make any necessary adjustments before production begins and printer's marks are traded out for crop marks. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know about this one. Very different from the Universal Toy Novelty panels that have Ruth and Speaker and Walter Johnson. These look like they were meant to be machine cut, since they have crop marks. The novelty cards were meant to be in a panel.

[nolemmings]

My first impression--beautiful but kind of quirky item. I think it's likely from the 1912 season rather than 1913 as Hunt suggests (assuming it's period), because Harry Davis resigned from Cleveland before the 1912 season ended and Bill Schardt did not pitch in the Big Leagues after May, 1912. Seems to me a 1913 production date would have given ample time to make those changes. I bring it up because Hunt suggests this could have been a proof precursor to the Cracker Jack sets, but a 1912 date makes that a little less likely (also they state it could be a proof for "the prolific American Caramel and similar candy issues of the era", yet those were already circulated by then).

What's strange to me is I do not recall Cleveland or Detroit wearing red, nor does Okkonen show red for any of the surrounding period, yet 5 of the 12 subjects are Indians and Tigers wearing nearly scarlet colored caps and/or socks. Giants also did not wear red caps, yet Marquardt and Otis are donning lids of that color-- BTW, how do you get Roy Otis out of Otis Crandall when there is no player anywhere named Roy Otis and Crandall had been a fairly successful pitcher for a few years? Maybe these traits support the notion that it was a proof not meant for final distribution, although the production values look pretty good for the day and it looks like it's ready to be cut with no further changes.

[pencil1974]

Originally Posted by Jobu

I don't think those are crop marks but rather printer's marks. Crop marks are to guide the cut, as you mention, while printer's marks are to guide the registration to make sure that the image is perfectly registered (i.e., no color shifts). Printer's marks are found on artist proofs so they can see the image as clearly as possible and make any necessary adjustments before production begins and printer's marks are traded out for crop marks. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.

Nope you are right, those are registration marks that they put down when they are doing the color passes. If you look close you can see that the registration is off a little so you can see the lines of the other colors around the black line. On sheets now they put the colors on that are printing on the side, top or bottom of the sheet and the registration marks are more like a crosshair with a circle around them and further away from the actual artwork. I'm a designer and have been doing press checks now for over 20 years so I've seen a lot of proofing sheets.

This to me seems more period to the time of earlier printing since the registration marks are so close to the image and from the looks the paper seems to be period as well. That being said the only way to truly tell would be to have in hand and under a loop and then black light the paper. Just my 2 cents there.

ADDED: It would be nice though if the auction house would give a more detailed scan and close up image to view since its is pretty small on screen its hard to see details.

[Leon]

This from a close hobby friend and as trustworthy as they come- (this is assuming it hasn't changed hands)

"Around the late 1990's, the owner of that uncut sheet in Hunt's consigned it to me for private sale. I made a color photocopy of it and sent it out to about 50 people. Nobody showed a strong interest in it, and most were not sure if it was period. I ended up returning it to the owner. I think we were asking 15K for it. I don't remember who got my mailing but it was obviously all of the heavy hitters I knew back then. ..."



.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Regardless of what it is...I don't think the buyer will ever recoup his/her losses on this one!!!!

Sure he will. He'll just tell potential buyers that he can't go lower than what he paid for it because "that's what [he] has into it."

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Sure he will. He'll just tell potential buyers that he can't go lower than what he paid for it because "that's what [he] has into it."

Right, right...Jeff...I've used that line once or twice myself...just never on a suspect $40K item!

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Right, right...Jeff...I've used that line once or twice myself...just never on a suspect $40K item!

I can't even do that with a $100 item

[Exhibitman]

I wonder what it would look like under a black light?

[edjs]

These remind me of the 1936 Pastels, except for the player names. Could they be a proof for a subsequent set or a rejected prototype?

[Bridwell]

It seems too good to be true. A few things made me think twice about bidding. The images are fuzzy, as if somebody reproduced from original photos, but in slightly lower resolution. There were some techniques where B&W photos were "colorized" with color added on top of a sepia or B&W photo. That could have been done anytime in the last 100 years. The cream colored stock and wear on the back is just what you would use if you were creating something to look old. It's surprising the front is in such mint condition, as if the front was glued onto an older back stock. A lot of B&W photos of the old timers are appearing lately. A lot of new and interesting poses I had never seen before. So these could be unique photos from someone's private collection where they created a fantasy piece. Also there's no connection to a product or advertiser. Lots of questions.