Uncut Proof sheet c. 1913 with Cobb and Joe Jackson in May '24 Hunt Auctions

[nolemmings]

Roy Otis is Otis "Doc" Crandall, as they state in the description.
This item was discussed here years ago:
https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1385155

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Roy Otis is Otis "Doc" Crandall, as they state in the description.
This item was discussed here years ago:
https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1385155

Todd, Thanks so much for providing this info!

So this item was actually being sold for the second time by Hunt Auctions. According to the link provided in the thread from 2015, it sold for $36,634 plus buyer’s premium in 2015, which is less than the $30K plus buyer’s premium it sold this time around..

Leon’s comment from 2015 is fascinating/revealing: “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. ...”"

If Leon’s friend was shopping it around for $15k in the ‘90s, then i guess the seller must have been happy to get $40k at auction in 2015 (assuming it didn’t change hands, etc)

[Beercan collector]

Don’t know if it means anything but it appears The lettering is done by hand ,
The “S”s , “H”s etc are all slightly different , “Gregg” and “Marquard” are way off centered - giving the cards a crude ancient look

[Leon]

I don't know if it's real or not but anytime I see those big stars, in the same unique place, it gives me some pause. Someone needs to invest in some scientifc analysis of the ink, paper and the process used to print it.

.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't know if it's real or not but anytime I see those big stars, in the same unique place, it gives me some pause. Someone needs to invest in some scientifc analysis of the ink, paper and the process used to print it.

.

Probably don't need all that scientific stuff. I was informed earlier that pictures of baseball players can't be reproduced yet in another thread. Somehow we don't have the technology yet.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't know if it's real or not but anytime I see those big stars, in the same unique place, it gives me some pause. Someone needs to invest in some scientifc analysis of the ink, paper and the process used to print it.

.

According to the description: "Lab tests regarding both the ink and paper on which it was printed were carried out by Joseph G. Barabe and Frank J. Romano (both highly respected experts in the field of analyzing historical objects and print, respectively). The Romano findings conclude with production between c.1910-1915 while Barabe concludes the possibility that it could have been produced between 1913-20."

But what gets me is that the description in the current auction says "Due to current sizing constraints for SGC holder we are unable to have the piece encapsulated however it was examined by SGC President Dave Forman in 2016 who states that the no sees “no physical evidence that contradicts the finding of the Barabe And Associates Lab Report.” but the description back in 2015 when Hunt first sold the piece claims "Due to current sizing constraints 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."


Looks like they are walking back the assertion that both PSA or SGC would holder it if larger slabs become available.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

According to the description: "Lab tests regarding both the ink and paper on which it was printed were carried out by Joseph G. Barabe and Frank J. Romano (both highly respected experts in the field of analyzing historical objects and print, respectively). The Romano findings conclude with production between c.1910-1915 while Barabe concludes the possibility that it could have been produced between 1913-20."

But what gets me is that the description in the current auction says "Due to current sizing constraints for SGC holder we are unable to have the piece encapsulated however it was examined by SGC President Dave Forman in 2016 who states that the no sees “no physical evidence that contradicts the finding of the Barabe And Associates Lab Report.” but the description back in 2015 when Hunt first sold the piece claims "Due to current sizing constraints 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."


Looks like they are walking back the assertion that both PSA or SGC would holder it if larger slabs become available.

Both groups of "experts" have been gradually stopping the grading of some things, usually anything they can't get right

[packs]

I would just hesitate to call them baseball cards. How do you know they're cards? I know they have printer's mark for cutting but cutting something up doesn't make it a baseball card by virtue of the square having a picture of a baseball player on it.

I think the intention can't really be determined from this one sheet. They could be part of an advertising piece, a calendar, any kind of print media really. All we know for sure is that the images may have been meant to be cut out. But for what ultimate purpose is impossible to know.

For example, how do you know these weren't images intended to be arranged for a notebook cover? There's just as much precedent for that as there is for baseball cards.