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

[G1911]

I think it would be fairly easy to determine general period it comes from with the sheet in hand. I don’t see anything that makes me doubt 1910’s from the scan but these things are always much easier in hand and give much more detail that way. Has anyone here actually handled the sheet? If it’s been known within the hobby since the 90’s then a fair number have probably encountered it.


While I am not certain that it is period I am more questioning whether these are even cards at all. It’s cool either way, but the auctioneer has made a ton of leaps (there’s no evidence this is a Cracker Jack proof, etc.) to try and pump it.

[parkplace33]

Like I said on the other auction post, let's see if this comes back up for sale in the next few months.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it would be fairly easy to determine general period it comes from with the sheet in hand. I don’t see anything that makes me doubt 1910’s from the scan but these things are always much easier in hand and give much more detail that way. Has anyone here actually handled the sheet? If it’s been known within the hobby since the 90’s then a fair number have probably encountered it.


While I am not certain that it is period I am more questioning whether these are even cards at all. It’s cool either way, but the auctioneer has made a ton of leaps (there’s no evidence this is a Cracker Jack proof, etc.) to try and pump it.

They only said theories were floated since it's first sale in 2015. From the description: "Several theories have surfaced to include the possibility it was a pre-proof for the Cracker Jack series of 1914 and 1915 (sheet was also found in Brooklyn area where Cracker Jack cards were produced). Another belief was that it may well have been a proof for the prolific American Caramel (and similar candy issues) of the 1910-15 era."

I don't feel they hyped it all. Imagine if this had been in Memory Lane the other night. An extra 35K for the poetic prose, alone.

I have not seen it and agree would feel better if I had to speak to it being period but they had two different experts do lab tests and Dave Forman also looked at it in 2016.

I think the question is were these prototypes for a set that never got issues, an early version of a some set that is now mainstream or a notebook cover. And to me I am not sure there is any less value to it. If it is period and we never know what it is, I think it is a great item. Kind of shocked it sold for as little as it did.

And so that I do not get attacked, I have no affiliation with the house, the buyer in either sale or the seller in the first sale. These days you have to disclose upfront to potentially save from being stoned by unhappy guys.

[Hankphenom]

So very interesting! I'm 50/50 with a lean toward legit, meaning it's vintage to the images portrayed, whatever they were supposed to be used for. However, by 40 years ago, when it first surfaced, apparently, there were already Peter Nashes and others fabricating pieces to cash in on the collecting boom. It could also be an artistic endeavor, but if so I don't know why the artist wouldn't just make it a finished uncut sheet rather than a proof. More questions than answers with this baby, which would be enough to keep me from betting more than a few hundred bucks of throwaway money on it. But a number of bidders clearly disagreed and were willing to take the plunge.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

They only said theories were floated since it's first sale in 2015. From the description: "Several theories have surfaced to include the possibility it was a pre-proof for the Cracker Jack series of 1914 and 1915 (sheet was also found in Brooklyn area where Cracker Jack cards were produced). Another belief was that it may well have been a proof for the prolific American Caramel (and similar candy issues) of the 1910-15 era."

I don't feel they hyped it all. Imagine if this had been in Memory Lane the other night. An extra 35K for the poetic prose, alone.

I have not seen it and agree would feel better if I had to speak to it being period but they had two different experts do lab tests and Dave Forman also looked at it in 2016.

I think the question is were these prototypes for a set that never got issues, an early version of a some set that is now mainstream or a notebook cover. And to me I am not sure there is any less value to it. If it is period and we never know what it is, I think it is a great item. Kind of shocked it sold for as little as it did.

And so that I do not get attacked, I have no affiliation with the house, the buyer in either sale or the seller in the first sale. These days you have to disclose upfront to potentially save from being stoned by unhappy guys.

It seems pretty clear they are hyping it beyond what the facts warrant, as is, frankly, their job as the salesman. I note they do not raise any 'theories' that do not serve to spike the item. There is no evidence or actual reason whatsoever to think this is a Cracker Jack proof sheet or an American Caramel proof sheet or any evidence at all to tie it to any famous set people like and will pay more for.

I believe the two race-baiting clowns peddling that fake Wagner also got 'lab tests' that said their Wagner is from 1910. I am extremely dubious of this as proof of being period in our hobby with its history and lack of an accurate track record to rely on. The claim from Forman is rather tepid, merely that he did not see physical evidence to contradict the lab report. That's not particularly helpful.

As I said though, my question is more whether these are cards or not. It is quite difficult to authenticate a one of a kind item with nothing to compare to it too, but I don't take for granted it is authentic to the period. It probably is, but I would not conclude this with the evidence available to me right now.

I speak for nobody but me, myself, and I and bear no affiliation to any hobby organization, company, other collectors, blah blah blah blah blah and did not bid and would not bid on said item as I don't want to spend anywhere near 30,000 on a card item. My good sense concludes that while it is a perfectly good decision and wise to spend a few K on a picture of a man if I really like the picture, spending more than that on a picture of another dude is silly.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

It seems pretty clear they are hyping it beyond what the facts warrant, as is, frankly, their job as the salesman. I note they do not raise any 'theories' that do not serve to spike the item. There is no evidence or actual reason whatsoever to think this is a Cracker Jack proof sheet or an American Caramel proof sheet or any evidence at all to tie it to any famous set people like and will pay more for.

I believe the two race-baiting clowns peddling that fake Wagner also got 'lab tests' that said their Wagner is from 1910. I am extremely dubious of this as proof of being period in our hobby with its history and lack of an accurate track record to rely on. The claim from Forman is rather tepid, merely that he did not see physical evidence to contradict the lab report. That's not particularly helpful.

As I said though, my question is more whether these are cards or not. It is quite difficult to authenticate a one of a kind item with nothing to compare to it too, but I don't take for granted it is authentic to the period. It probably is, but I would not conclude this with the evidence available to me right now.

I speak for nobody but me, myself, and I and bear no affiliation to any hobby organization, company, other collectors, blah blah blah blah blah and did not bid and would not bid on said item as I don't want to spend anywhere near 30,000 on a card item. My good sense concludes that while it is a perfectly good decision and wise to spend a few K on a picture of a man if I really like the picture, spending more than that on a picture of another dude is silly.

Your disclosure was better than mine. Anyway, I hear what you are saying. I have seen some one offs in the hobby in my short time here that in most instances turned out to be legit items after extensive research. I totally accept your skepticism. There are lots of unexplained things out there lacking full stories due to lack of technology or importance.

I think as an auction house, Hunt does a better job than most of providing information rather than hype. To my pov, I feel they were mild and responsible in this write up.

And the two circus clowns having analysis done on their Wags I feel is not a fair comparison to put both of this uncut sheet's experts in the same light but opinions are like assholes...Forman had no vested interestin 2016 and I cannot expect him to do much else than we would do by seeing it having handled pre war issues. I think Dave has likely handled many so his vouching for feeling it is a valid period piece would carry weight with me.

If I had an extra 30K plus to stick into something (since I am not liquidating my retirement accounts for cards) I would have been all over this. Could I use the money in the hobby in a better way, yes, but not sure it would be as interesting as this piece.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Your disclosure was better than mine. Anyway, I hear what you are saying. I have seen some one offs in the hobby in my short time here that in most instances turned out to be legit items after extensive research. I totally accept your skepticism. There are lots of unexplained things out there lacking full stories due to lack of technology or importance.

I think as an auction house, Hunt does a better job than most of providing information rather than hype. To my pov, I feel they were mild and responsible in this write up.

And the two circus clowns having analysis done on their Wags I feel is not a fair comparison to put both of this uncut sheet's experts in the same light but opinions are like assholes...Forman had no vested interestin 2016 and I cannot expect him to do much else than we would do by seeing it having handled pre war issues. I think Dave has likely handled many so his vouching for feeling it is a valid period piece would carry weight with me.

If I had an extra 30K plus to stick into something (since I am not liquidating my retirement accounts for cards) I would have been all over this. Could I use the money in the hobby in a better way, yes, but not sure it would be as interesting as this piece.

I am not familiar with the two named experts herein who found the sheet to be possibly from this period. This methodology doesn't have much (any?) of a history of being used in our hobby accurately and I am a natural born skeptic. Forman's conclusion is in another category, his conclusion is very restrained and not much of a conclusion at all so it doesn't say much as testimony.

I am a big fan of uncut material from this period, and have definitely overpaid for some of it, but I have a hard time justifying a large spend on an item when I don't know what it is. I've bought a number of oddities and unique things in boxing land but never for a lot of money if I could not identify what it is. This piece is really cool, I'm a fan, but I have no idea what it really is and all we have our opinions second and third hand. The only primary source testimony from hobbyists who have handled it seems to be Foreman's conclusion that he didn't notice anything inconsistent with the dating, which isn't must of an endorsement in its restraint from saying much. This could be for some sort of magazine insert, guidebook, notebook, or a host of other things too, if period. The mysteries are half the fun.

With your avatar, you should liquidate your 401K and buy it .




To our true baseball history experts - is there perhaps a barnstorming or exhibition team/game that ties this list of players together? Just a thought.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am not familiar with the two named experts herein who found the sheet to be possibly from this period. This methodology doesn't have much (any?) of a history of being used in our hobby accurately and I am a natural born skeptic. Forman's conclusion is in another category, his conclusion is very restrained and not much of a conclusion at all so it doesn't say much as testimony.

I am a big fan of uncut material from this period, and have definitely overpaid for some of it, but I have a hard time justifying a large spend on an item when I don't know what it is. I've bought a number of oddities and unique things in boxing land but never for a lot of money if I could not identify what it is. This piece is really cool, I'm a fan, but I have no idea what it really is and all we have our opinions second and third hand. The only primary source testimony from hobbyists who have handled it seems to be Foreman's conclusion that he didn't notice anything inconsistent with the dating, which isn't must of an endorsement in its restraint from saying much. This could be for some sort of magazine insert, guidebook, notebook, or a host of other things too, if period. The mysteries are half the fun.

With your avatar, you should liquidate your 401K and buy it .




To our true baseball history experts - is there perhaps a barnstorming or exhibition team/game that ties this list of players together? Just a thought.

Since I did not see it, because I was not a potential buyer, having Forman see it and not see anything inconsistent has value to me. Forman knows more than I do but I would want to see it if I were dropping 30 plus even if I did liquidate the 401K it would be out of my comfort zone.

I looked the bio on one of the guys who tested the piece and was impressed enough. Was not able to find anything on the second guy other than a gynecologist, or something, going by the same name. I am assuming they share the name and this was not the paper expert but as you know, snowman was an expert in at least 12 different fields so anything is possible.

I think if enough time were put in...and maybe it has...some correlation might be able to be made for the players on this sheet. Certainly is an interesting mix that at face value seems to be a clue in itself. Why is it not a sheet consisting of only the biggest names who played at the time?

Gotta run now to find another avatar of a card I can use from another soon to be auctioned mystery sheet.