proof uncut sheet in Hunt's

[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. ..."



.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Leon

"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. ..."



.

Pretty much says it all.