What is special about this unique obsolete proof?

Berny

Do you see anything odd/strange about this nice proof? There was only one of these in the 1990 Christies auction.

sellitstore

The placement of the imprint is a bit unusual but not for this printer-DUB&S. The vignette may be unique to this note, too.




Somehow I think that Berny has spotted something else.

mp3j

vertical boats?

tomtomtomtom

Originally posted by: mp3j
vertical boats?

That just tells you that the steamboat can go both upstream and downstream.

TigerTrader

I really have no idea but many of the design elements seem slightly askew from one another... maybe that is just because of a multi step process to create it...

Berny

Maybe a remainder will help?

TigerTrader

Well it probably wont help me but I am looking forward to being educated later...





The only difference that I see in the two is that the remainder has "Printed by ? Rogers?" along the left inner margin... so, perhaps the proof was missing this...

Slasher

"Printed by Rogers" is not seen on the proof.

sellitstore

Yes, the Rogers imprint isn't on the original proof note but Berny didn't ask what the difference was between the two.



The remainder isn't helping except for telling us that it isn't something particular to the proof example and not the remainder.

gsalex

I stared at both notes for quite some time, but nothing particularly unusual stared back.

Berny

Originally posted by: sellitstore

Yes, the Rogers imprint isn't on the original proof note but Berny didn't ask what the difference was between the two.



The remainder isn't helping except for telling us that it isn't something particular to the proof example and not the remainder.

The Rogers imprint is not important.



The proof itself tells the story.



The remainder helps to illuminate the story of the proof.

Berny

Originally posted by: TigerTrader

I really have no idea but many of the design elements seem slightly askew from one another... maybe that is just because of a multi step process to create it...

Getting warm!

sellitstore

Tiger Trader is right about the design elements being slightly askew but that's not unusual in itself. Impressions from individual dies comprising vignettes, end panels, borders and counters are transferred onto a working printing plate and these elements don't always align exactly. The remainder sheet shows some minor touch up of this slightly sloppy work around the borders of the right vignette and probably in a few other places as well. But Berny is looking for something that is illustrated by the proof sheet alone and I'm not seeing it yet.

Berny

My own raw scan of the OP note:

TigerTrader

I still don't know but I appreciate the education from all...



Your scan makes it look like the ship on the right was pieced together with its grey background extending under the 50 counter above and below..? Also from your scan the ships look different, one being lighter and the other darker... I do not know what that may indicate if anything...

uzuiwek

I know! It's actually a $2. Heck of an error, there, Berny!

Berny

Originally posted by: TigerTrader

I still don't know but I appreciate the education from all...



Your scan makes it look like the ship on the right was pieced together with its grey background extending under the 50 counter above and below..? Also from your scan the ships look different, one being lighter and the other darker... I do not know what that may indicate if anything...

Do these help?

element159

So the right side vignette is an inkjet print pasted onto the note.

sellitstore

Yup, the right end panel vignette has been replaced.

The difference in color is much more evident on the second image of the proof that Berny posted, and conclusive in the close up of the vignette.

Berny

As I already said, the proof was unique in the 1990 Christie's auction of the ABNCo archive proofs. It was mounted (and still is mounted) on card stock with the right vignette missing. It was not uncommon for the ABNCo to remove vignettes from proof notes for layouts of potentially new notes.



In hand the note looks pretty nice. Most of you did not seem to see the problem in the scan. The right vignette is darker (blacker) than the rest of the note. The xeroxed vignette was inserted (and glued) to the mounting card. As TigerTrader indicated this insertion was not perfect. Running your finger over the xeroxed vignette, one can easily tell that it is not engraved. The xeroxed vignette is also thinner than the rest of the proof, which your fingers can feel. The high resolution scans reveal the "dot" aspects of the xerox copy over the line engravings.



In this case there are some known issued notes and remainders. For other cases, the damaged proof might be the only note of its kind! Many times these proofs sell for around $100. Sometimes we pay more than $100 for just a vignette.



So how do you feel about this type of restoration? Would you buy one?



We have discussed similar cases of redrawn edges and repaired notes.

gsalex

If the note represented a hole in my collection and was unique then yes I would buy it, although I'm not sure I'd be a strong bidder.



So if I'm understanding your description, there was a piece cut out of the proof and a modern photocopy was glued into its place. I guess the real question is whether it's more desirable in its original state or repaired like this. If I were exhibiting, I think I would leave it, but include an explanation.