CGC M116 "Proof" Grading

[tycobb]

I love when new topics for M116 come up. Great looking cards all ! I’ve shared these on the forum in a previous post. Any thoughts blank backs or advertisement pieces ? These are on thick stock .






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rhotchkiss]

Remember how the 1986 Topps boxes had 4 cards on the bottom of each box and you could/would put them out… will TPGs grade/authenticate those and what do they call them/how? Seems those are analogous to cards cut from advertising pieces

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Remember how the 1986 Topps boxes had 4 cards on the bottom of each box and you could/would put them out… will TPGs grade/authenticate those and what do they call them/how? Seems those are analogous to cards cut from advertising pieces

Yes, PSA grades those. Other TPGs may also grade them, too. I'm not sure about that, though.

The 1986 Topps baseball examples in particular carry the following designation:
1986 Topps Box Panels
[player name]
Hand Cut

The pop report notes the issue as, "1986 Topps Box Panels Hand Cut."

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...hand-cut/50043

[milkit1]

I do not believe these are cut from an ad. There is a minimum of 60 different without the name on the front. The idea that Sporting Life would put none identified players on a sheet of potentially 60 just seems odd and unlikely.
Also the cards have variations - for example some have no name on front and some do. Both blue background and pastel are available in both blank back formats.
The idea of a card being a proof is that the card in question was used for production of the produced card. If these are early production cards wouldnt that in fact make them a proof?
The clearest example for me that these are production cards is the Harry Steinfeldt I picked up years ago. the blank backed card clearly shows the edit of when Sporting Life cleared the word "Cincinatti" from his uniform (as he was with the Cubs in 1910 at time of production). Below is the blank backed card compared to the regular card. The edit clearly shows they needed to update the card for release. This makes the idea that they were on a poster seem very unlikely as well.
My money is on them being early production cards. Whether they can be considered "proofs" or not is rather pointless to me as they are one of a kind early production cards
m116 steinfeldt proof.jpg

m116 steinfeldt card.jpg

[Rhotchkiss]

Thanks Eric!

[Exhibitman]

Most of the oddball set-adjacent stuff is scrap that went out the back door of the factory.

[Leon]

I think there are probably 2 different kind of blank backs we are discussing. Some appear to be on thicker stock and have names printed on front. The others are on a thinner stock, like mine above, and don't have the names printed on them.

And I agree, I wouldn't consider these thinner stock ones proofs, but I could see them being a pre-production run. Maybe they made a sheet and said, WTF, this stock is too thin. Let's go with a thicker stock.
Again, if my belief is correct there are 2 different stocks being talked about. I am not 100% on that.

And Jorge's above could be a 3rd different type as they look different, to me, from the others.

Originally Posted by milkit1

I do not believe these are cut from an ad. There is a minimum of 60 different without the name on the front. The idea that Sporting Life would put none identified players on a sheet of potentially 60 just seems odd and unlikely.
Also the cards have variations - for example some have no name on front and some do. Both blue background and pastel are available in both blank back formats.
The idea of a card being a proof is that the card in question was used for production of the produced card. If these are early production cards wouldnt that in fact make them a proof?
The clearest example for me that these are production cards is the Harry Steinfeldt I picked up years ago. the blank backed card clearly shows the edit of when Sporting Life cleared the word "Cincinatti" from his uniform (as he was with the Cubs in 1910 at time of production). Below is the blank backed card compared to the regular card. The edit clearly shows they needed to update the card for release. This makes the idea that they were on a poster seem very unlikely as well.
My money is on them being early production cards. Whether they can be considered "proofs" or not is rather pointless to me as they are one of a kind early production cards
Attachment 616489

Attachment 616490

[steve B]

Nearly all preproduction runs are proofs
The scenario where they're testing paper is almost the defintion of a pre production proof.

To me these would be a couple things,
Progressive proofs without the name layer. Progressive proofs would be done possibly at multiple points on the way to production. Doing them on thinner stock would be more cost effective.
There would be progressive proofs done during the design phase, and those would have the registration markers.
Another set could and probably would be pulled from the plates/stones just before production to assure the plate or stones were laid out properly.
This is done on a press that's just used for proofing, and pretty much prints one sheet at a time.

"Proofs" is misused a lot, usually to keep things simple, because the details of production and pre production are not necessarily known for sure, and because with modern stuff especially Topps, there was so much proofing going on at different times and in different ways.
Not all blank backs are proofs, and even production cards can be "proofs" of some sort. Like the cards from a make -ready sheet showing evidence of adjustments being made, as a handful of sheets were used to make final adjustments to registration.
Those can also be properly considered as printers waste or scraps, because they served a purpose that was inherently ephemeral, while more traditional proofs may have been retained for some time along side other production items or as a guide to the master plates.

Not to be confused with how "proof" is used in coins, where the proofs are their own production run and what we call proofs is more like patterns.
and even less similar to stamps, where it can mean both pre and post production printings from different sources, and for different reasons. And are variously called "proofs" and "reprints" depending on when and why they were made.

[packs]

I'm glad people are coming around on these cards not being from an advertisement.

These cards do not identify the player. If the purpose of advertising is to alert people to what you're selling, not identifying the players wouldn't help your cause.