1933 goudey proof question

[milkit1]

After seeing the goudey proofs in legendary I pulled out this Joe Judge that I have. I always thought it was a proof but the strange thing is the card has a back to it unlike the legendary ones. Can anyone tell me if this is indeed a proof? It is missing the copyright in the bottom left corner. Big league chewing gum is barely visible. The back looks like any other goudey.

judge.jpg

bigjoejudge.jpg

[milkit1]

are the answers being held out til Legendary ends or does nobody know? I guess the real question is are there proofs with actual backs?

[drc]

For all of trading cards, proofs are usually blank backed, but some can have backs. It's often hard to tell the difference between a proof and printing error, and most such printing variations you find in a shoe box or garage sale will be the printing errors. If you aren't sure, chances are it's a printing error not a proof. That's playing the odds. However, as T206s show us, printing errors can have value too.

[glchen]

I purchased this Joe Cronin card a couple months ago as part of a larger lot, and I saw that it says "Proof" on the flip. The auction did not highlight that this card was a proof, and it looks like a normal Goudey to me. Does anyone see why SGC may have added Proof to the flip? Thanks!

[fkw]

on the Cronin, I think SGC just messed up and printed the wrong flip. They have the #63 Proof noted because they have graded them before...

ie. http://sports.ha.com/common/view_ite...7&Lot_No=81141
I would call this Cronin in link above and also the Joe Judge missing ink, both printers scraps, and not true proofs.

The real R319 proofs are far different, they will have design or card number changes, ie #106 Durocher wrong number, #110 Goslin name on 2 lines, #123 Russell dark cap, #123 Sewell wrong number, etc.

[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)

[glchen]

Thanks, Frank, for looking at the card. I'm pretty sure SGC messed up the flip also.

[milkit1]

Damn! Oh well. On a related note if the winner of that lot would sell my the Joe judge that would be much appreciated