1933 goudey proof question

[Leon]

First of all I am not sure about the proofs in Legendary. To me, proof cards should usually have printers lines, no back and rarely a name on them. I guess there are different stages of proofs too. I consider this Matty exactly what a proof type card should look like. The term "proof" is way over used in our hobby.

[E93]

Leon,
Just let me know when you tired of the ugly Matty.
JimB

[milkit1]

it seems liek a lot of errors on my Judge though. Missing ink, missing copyright.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by milkit1

it seems liek a lot of errors on my Judge though. Missing ink, missing copyright.

Sean. Although I have no idea if your card is a proof or not, I will point out that the copyright is printed in black and you card seems to be missing that pass of ink. So, assuming your card is "only" missing ink and not a proof, it makes sense that the copyright would also be missing since the color of ink missing is the color the copyright is printed in.

[milkit1]

good point. The red is gone as well.

[Leon]

Sean- I think I would probably refer to your card as printers scrap and not a proof. Just my opinion on that one. Neat card btw.

Jim- It was in auction at one time. All you had to do was bid more than the other guy (it wasn't me at that time). I kind of like my incomplete Matty, thanks much. BTW too.....it was great being able to spend so much time chatting with you at the National. best regards

(just re-read FKW post.....he and I usually think quite alike....now that is scary)