Need Help with Identification of Ruth

[pencil1974]

Hi Leon, yes I do have one that is not known but is not on any type of post-1940 paper and definitely not Kodak type of paper. The printing technique is also right for the era. This is industry knowledge of printing and paper not just my idea of what I want to believe or not.

So I would hesitate to say that anything is a reprint without fully knowing the context of how it was made. . I appreciate baseball/collecting knowledge which is great but you are talking a field that I help produce billions of dollars for companies and know the ins and outs of because I have to.

Now if someone wanted to make their own 1/1 item on archival paper, pay for printing plates, press set up and press time and happen to have an original negative to make the artwork from then yes I agree and see where mine could be a reprint but would be probably more expensive than what a reprint is worth. Just simple math it doesn't make sense.

I also know that in my field have a different proofs made that I will pay a lot of money for. I probably have at least 50 Marlboro packs that were made that are 1/1's full functioning packs that are around $500 each to make to make sure that I like the color of sunshine ink or the soft touch. If I don't they never make it to market. 100 years years from now or probably way sooner this may end up in someone else's hands and they will not know what the hell it was or what it was used for as there nothing indicating it as a proof. So if from my point of view as CD I would want to see different options/costs before I picked a direction to go. Not saying mine is a proof or that this is but unless your sitting in the room when the pressman brought it in or sales team/art department or whom ever there will always be open questions.