E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[Bob Lemke]

I've been corresponding with a New York collector who is seeking recognition for what he has identified as "shaded-back" variations on (so far) nine different E90-1 cards.

The picture here shows (in red) the areas on which a gray shading has been found on these potential variations.

I'm here to ask you to check your E90-1 backs for such shading. I don't want to name the cards that have been so far identified, so as not to taint the results.

At this point I don't know if this is a legitimate variation, a printing anomaly or a kid with a #2 lead pencil.

If more than one example of the shaded back can be found for one or more of the currently known players, we may have a true variation to consider.

Please post 'em if you've got 'em, or send me a PM or e-mail. Thanks much!

14219

[pkaufman]

Bob, I've seen what you are describing on many different E90-1's over the years. My own opinion is that the effect is due to either over inking or wearing down of the printing plates. Regards, Paul

[ScottFandango]

Bob, I've seen what you are describing on many different E90-1's over the years. My own opinion is that the effect is due to either over inking or wearing down of the printing plates. Regards, Paul



then it would occur in any card, randomly, with equal probability....

when you only find it on specific player cards, it is not random...

true, a different printing plate was used, signifying a separate print run...

[ScottFandango]

wow , just realized Bob posted this yesterday morning.....

crickets..................

[Steve D]

I just looked at all of mine (25 different), and they are all unshaded.


Steve

[Bob Lemke]

I think to confirm their status as true variations, we need to see more than one "shaded" example for one or more of those that are now known.

I know that would be easier with a more commonly encountered set, but surely there are enough E90-1s out there to confirm or disprove this theory.

[caramelcard]

Bob,

I'll try to check my cards when I get home this evening.

Rob

[Bosox Blair]

Hi Bob,

I have 3 HOFers: Young (Boston), Crawford, and Eddie Collins...none shaded.

Cheers,
Blair

[tbob]

Bob- For what it is worth, I went through my entire E90-1 set today and didn't find a single gray shaded back. These cards were purchased card by card on ebay about 10 years from many, many different sellers.
tbob

[steve B]

I checked the few I have, and There were none in about 15 cards.

Steve

[3-2-count]

Bob, I've seen what you are describing on many different E90-1's over the years. My own opinion is that the effect is due to either over inking or wearing down of the printing plates. Regards, Paul



I'm with Paul on this one. I sold my set months ago, and put it together piece by piece just as TBob did and probably had a dozen or so with the shaded area as mentioned.
It always looked like loss of ink to me more than a variation.

[ScottFandango]

look at the baseball in the middle...no ink loss there, and it is clearly different from the normal.....notice how that SHADED areas are always INSIDE the lines and NEVER cross over the lines (which would be indicative of a printing "error" or smudging)

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj227/fandango231/richiebackshaded.jpg

[ScottFandango]

any luck looking at those E90-1 Backs?

[Matt]

Scott - what player is that? It will help with Bob's survey. Also, that's a bit different then what Bob showed above , with several letters bieng partially or completely filled in.

[ScottFandango]

Cant say who that is...yet

true, some of the "B's" are shaded in also...that is less noticeable though...

the baseball shows it the best

[ScottFandango]

more scans please

[brianp-beme]

Will check what I have and get back tomorrow.

Brian

[ullmandds]

I don't know how "big of a deal" this appears...I am an advanced type collector with a bunch of e90-1's...but don't see this as anything groundbreaking. Certainly not as groundbreaking as the ultra rare e94 single/double quotation variation on its backside?

[bijoem]

I would like to see one up close.... but my first guess is that this is nothing more than a print defect and not a purposeful variation.

[ScottFandango]

Joe, wouldnt a Print defect be random? meaning it could happen to ANY card in the set?

how about this.....for a specific print run of the E90-1 series (which we know there are several), they used an older (or different) printing plate to make the reverse...the resulting cards ALL looked a bit different than the first few series backs...is this a print defect? dont think so


Peter, do you have any of these backs?

[bijoem]

Joe, wouldnt a Print defect be random? meaning it could happen to ANY card in the set?

how about this.....for a specific print run of the E90-1 series (which we know there are several), they used an older (or different) printing plate to make the reverse...the resulting cards ALL looked a bit different than the first few series backs...is this a print defect? dont think so


Peter, do you have any of these backs?


no, a print defect wouldn't have to be random.

print spots are print defects - - and they pretty much stick to the same spot on the same card(s). I'm not saying this is a print spot at all.... just giving an example of how a print defect is not random.

most certainly during the printing process you can have a specific problem (a defect) on a specific area of the sheet (or on the whole sheet) / that eventually gets attended to.


on to your point about using different plates.
I would suspect MOST EVERY pre-war card went on press with different plates (edit: meaning more than one press run for each card). A printing plate only has so much usefulness in it. One could only guess how many different plates (of the same card) were used for the e90-1, or the T206 or for say Topps cards.

A different press run / and a different physical plate does not make it a purposeful variation. A purposeful variation would come in the pre-press if someone change the artwork that was used for the plates.


Basically what I am saying from the scan (not seeing it in person) - it looks nothing more than a print defect and does not look like an artwork change. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before and will be wrong many many times again.

[ullmandds]

scott...i haven't checked yet...i will try to when i get home today.

[ScottFandango]

is the White Letter Mantle a print defect or a variation?

its both!

many times a Print defect can be considered a variation, especially when they only appear on certain cards....

that is they key here, as Bob suggested....if ANY CARD had the shaded back, it means nothing....when only a few have it (predictably) then, there is something substantial.....

[bijoem]

many times a Print defect can be considered a variation, especially when they only appear on certain cards....



I consider 'print defect' and 'variation' two distinct things.

not sure how the rest of the hobby views the issue - but that is my 2 cents.

[ScottFandango]

what do you consider the white letter mantle?

[bijoem]

what do you consider the white letter mantle?

I can honestly say - I am not familiar with the card.
Other than a brief dabble into the era many years ago (I have a 69 deckle edge set, and a 68 game set, and at one time I purchased some 52 topps commons)...Mantle is way beyond the years I collect.

I don't think I purchased a card from the 50s or 60s in about 25 years or so.

So - the answer is... I have no idea.

But.....
to me it comes down to intent.....
so - if the card company intended to make a change (not just sloppy printing) - I would call it a variation.

[barrysloate]

Mantle was not the only white letter variation in 1969, there were numerous players whose previously yellow names appeared white. Were all these players part of the same sheet? If so, it may just be an inking error. If they appeared in different series, then it was probably a deliberate variation. Unfortunately, I don't remember which players have the white letter variation.

[bijoem]

Mantle was not the only white letter variation in 1969, there were numerous players whose previously yellow names appeared white. Were all these players part of the same sheet? If so, it may just be an inking error. If they appeared in different series, then it was probably a deliberate variation. Unfortunately, I don't remember which players have the white letter variation.



Barry - if there is yellow still on the card somewhere else.... it would indicate an intentional change and not an inking problem.

basically if the yellow is truly missing from the card - it would be missing everywhere not just in one spot (like Jeff's White Chase).

Again... not knowing the card - if there is yellow on the card somewhere else, I would call the 'white letter' a variation.

The e90-1 difference shown in this thread most definitely could be achieved through bad printing / print defect. Taking yellow out of a name but leaving it everywhere else would have to happen with some intent or active effort on someone's part.

[barrysloate]

Joe- absolutely correct, and that is what I was trying to figure out. That's why I asked whether all the white variations were on the same sheet. Then again, all 132 cards would have to be white, and they aren't.

[ScottFandango]

the name is not important...

if there is a difference in the back, there is a difference in the back...

when only certain players have the "difference", it needs to be noted ...

especially it needs to be noted by TPG's labels...

[Jim VB]

Scott,

I'm one of the slower and denser members of this board, but I have taken away four truisms during my time here. For the record:

1. I never argue with Jeff Lichtman in matters of criminal defense.

2. I never argue with Barry Sloate in matters of spelling and grammar.

3. I never argue with Joe D. in technical matters concerning printing.

4. I always argue with Bruce Dorskind (Magna Cum Laude), on everything.

[ScottFandango]

what college did bruce go to>?

[Leon]

what college did bruce go to>?

I dunno what college he went to *(Yale or Ivy or something) but I do know he doesn't like some guy that goes by the name "Archive".

[Rob D.]

Vassar?

[barrysloate]

Scott- I think he went to all the Ivy League colleges...and at the same time! Not easy to do, since they are located in different cities.

And I saw that "semantics" but didn't want to bug you about it.:)

[ScottFandango]

thanks, my wife wasnt here to ask for proper spelling

[barrysloate]

The way you spelled it was closer to "some antics.":D

[ScottFandango]

same player, 2 different backs....

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj227/fandango231/frommeback.jpg

[ScottFandango]

same beater, different backs

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj227/fandango231/tenneyback.jpg

[steve B]

Seeing those last two, I'd have to think Joe D is right. The shaded ones have the look of a dirty plate if they were typography for the backs, and a dry or improperly wiped stone if lithographed. The shading is right where "gunk" would collect on the plate, especially the areas of the s and e of series in the top pair. The lower pair shows the same thing in different ways on both cards.

I'm going with a wild guess, and guess that they're either all early series cards where they cut corners to get more made quickly, or last series cards where the wipers were worn, the plates dirty and they didn't bother cleaning the plate or getting a better wiper because they were almost done with the print run and knew there wouldn't be more from the same plate/stone. And I'm leaning way in the directon of the latter.

Steve B

[caramelcard]

It looks to me that they have a random amount (depending on the card) of shading around the borders. Here are three of mine.

Rob


14330

14329

14328

[ScottFandango]

looks like the last one (of the 3) is the only one that is a shaded variation

[bijoem]

Scott....

This is an interesting thread - - and I could sense excitement from you about these "shaded" cards.... but looking at the examples provided by you (especially your post at 7:49pm) - I am pretty confident that this is just poorly printed sheets.

Looking at the White Letter Mantle on eBay....
that is a variation. It is NOT a print defect at all. It was a purposeful removal of the yellow in the name / while leaving yellow elsewhere.

Personally - I wouldn't give this a new designation at all.

I don't mean to quell any enthusiasm.....
But to give an honest reply to Bob Lemke's original post - I don't think this is a legitimate variation.

[ScottFandango]

but what if it only happened in 9 cards?

then what ?

and what if the 9 cards had VERY low Pop reports (sgc and psa) compared to the rest of the set?

would that tell you anything?

thanks for your response

[sox1903wschamp]

Scott....

This is an interesting thread - - and I could sense excitement from you about these "shaded" cards.... but looking at the examples provided by you (especially your post at 7:49pm) - I am pretty confident that this is just poorly printed sheets.

Looking at the White Letter Mantle on eBay....
that is a variation. It is NOT a print defect at all. It was a purposeful removal of the yellow in the name / while leaving yellow elsewhere.

Personally - I wouldn't give this a new designation at all.

I don't mean to quell any enthusiasm.....
But to give an honest reply to Bob Lemke's original post - I don't think this is a legitimate variation.

Not a back guy but for what it is worth, I agree with this point. I checked my Boston AL team set and this one is kind of the only one I see with some shade.

[ScottFandango]

you would call this a poorly printed sheet?>

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj227/fandango231/shadedback.jpg

[ScottFandango]

Not a back guy but for what it is worth, I agree with this point. I checked my Boston AL team set and this one is kind of the only one I see with some shade.


thanks for posting

[ScottFandango]

just out of curiosity, i went through every Ebay E90-1 listing that had a good scan of the back and i couldnt find ONE shaded version....

what happened to those who said they would check their own cards?

whatever you want to call this , the fact is they dont show up often, and they predictably show up on certain cards only....

this isnt over.

[brianp-beme]

I have 16 different cards that have varying degrees of shading. I decided to concentrate my investigation on this by strictly looking at the parallel border lines that surround the card. I have four that are near fully shaded, five that are partly shaded, and seven that are just shaded in spots.

I think the key is that there are varying degrees of shading that are out there. It was mentioned that the only one of the cards that Robert showed in a previous post was the shaded variation...however those other two cards have areas in the border where there is some shading.

I think this spotty nature in the amount of shading dovetails nicely with the idea mentioned earlier about gunk not being cleaned out from the plates...Iggy the hunchback was always getting delayed with sweeping the larvae and dead insects from the printroom floor and neglected to clean off the plates, so runs of cards became progressively 'shaded'. So it is my belief that it is just a lack of quality control, just like cards that are seen with bad registration.

Just to throw out the cards with this 'issue' that I have:

Lots of border shading

Phelps
Overall
Miller
Fromme

Cards with more than half border shading

Marquard
Groom
Gray
Demmitt
Camnitz

Cards with just 'spot' of border shading

G.Davis
Davis
Leach
Keeler Pink
Brown
Bransfield Pink
Willis



Brian

[barrysloate]

To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.

Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.

[ubiqty]

I just looked at 16 new e90-1 cards I recently acquired and only the Phelps has the shading you are looking for. I'll check my others and respond back over the weekend.
Thanks,
Scott (ubiqty)

[caramelcard]

"It was mentioned that the only one of the cards that Robert showed in a previous post was the shaded variation...however those other two cards have areas in the border where there is some shading. "

Thanks Brian. That's what I tried to highlight with my post.

I have a few dozen that have no shading at all or maybe a touch here and there and then those three.

This is a neat printing gaffe and we might be able to pin it down to only several, specific cards that have the problem. I'm not sure it needs to be recognized in the SCD, but I'm glad that Scott pointed it out and that we were able to discuss it.

Rob

[ScottFandango]

To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.

Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.


why does have a variation HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE?

it was a mistake at the Press, i know that, they were never intended to be different....

BUT, it only shows up on specific cards, and it is not common...

if it happened only once, or it wasnt predictable, then it means nothing....

BUT ITS PREDICTABLE WHAT CARDS HAVE THIS...


PS....NO CARD, even the SHADED version, have ALL of the areas shaded...they have areas (especially the left border) that usually remains clear...


it must have been an older plate that was worn down, thus the spots that were meant NOT to have any ink, got some....BUT again, this doesnt happen in all the cards, and proves that some were created at different times (separate print run)...

we all know this set was made for a few years and nobody knows the series breakdown....

this could be the first step in deciphering a specific series print run within the set!!!

if this is predictable, no matter what you call it, why cant it be recognized?

wish Rich Klein would chime in (mr errors and variations)

Brian, your on the right track!

[barrysloate]

Scott- it doesn't have to be deliberate, I was just pointing out it was an inadvertent error that was caused by a little ink bleeding. As such, it doesn't strike me as a variation. But that is one area of the hobby where we have vastly different opinions.

To me, the Magie misspelling is a variation, the while the Nodgrass is not. The printers designed a new plate to correct the Magie error; while the Nodgrass was a result of a small foreign substance lodging itself on the plate during the print run. But I know the hobby considers the Nodgrass a bona fide variation.

[ShoelessBob]

Darn...I think I this was one of the "Shaded" variations but somehow it got erased. :D

<a href="http://s231.photobucket.com/albums/ee219/sportsfever1/?action=view&current=IMG_0691.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee219/sportsfever1/IMG_0691.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s231.photobucket.com/albums/ee219/sportsfever1/?action=view&current=IMG_0689.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee219/sportsfever1/IMG_0689.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[brianp-beme]

Typical grading company blunder...that Bridwell pose (as seen with blank back in previous post) does not exist in the E90-1 set. E92 Dockman is a probable contender.

Brian

[ShoelessBob]

Thanks Brian!

I did not realize this was an e92 Dockman. Would it be worthwhile to get re-graded?

[sreader3]

Bob,

I have just two E90-1s [Joss (Portrait), Wallace]--and no shading.

Scot

[brianp-beme]

Not to throw off the E90-1 discussion, but to answer the question on the blank back card...the problem is, this card could E92 Dockman, E92 Nadja, E92Croft's Cocoa, E92 Croft's Candy, E101, E105 (although if it were E105 it would be much thinner stock, and thus easier to pin down), or possibly E106(not sure which Bridwell pose is in E106).

The bigger error that the grading companies continue to perpetuate is their need to designate blank cards such as these as coming from a particular issue, when, because of shared poses between different sets, they can not be accurately pinned down. The vast majority of M101-4 and M101-5, and their associated sets that share designs and photos, as well as the M135 and associated sets are also examples of this (recently saw 'Boston Store' blank backs--how can they know?) haphazard designation by the grading companies.

Brian

[Leon]

Not to throw off the E90-1 discussion, but to answer the question on the blank back card...the problem is, this card could E92 Dockman, E92 Nadja, E92Croft's Cocoa, E92 Croft's Candy, E101, E105 (although if it were E105 it would be much thinner stock, and thus easier to pin down), or possibly E106(not sure which Bridwell pose is in E106).

The bigger error that the grading companies continue to perpetuate is their need to designate blank cards such as these as coming from a particular issue, when, because of shared poses between different sets, they can not be accurately pinned down. The vast majority of M101-4 and M101-5, and their associated sets that share designs and photos, as well as the M135 and associated sets are also examples of this (recently saw 'Boston Store' blank backs--how can they know?) haphazard designation by the grading companies.

Brian

I agree Brian. There is no way the TPG's can know which series many blank backed cards came from. The way I classify them, and a way that is at least standard, is to go to the least common denominator of ACC numbers. In other words if there is a blank backed T206 then I would use it instead of a series with a higher number, same thing on the E cards. If an E card has a blank back, and the front was in the E90-1 series, then that is what I use. It's at least a consistent system and one I would propose to always be used, again, for consistency. regards

ps...with regards to the original question I don't think these shading errors should be documented as true errors but as small print defects....or differences

[caramelcard]

Scott,

You're right. If the shading did tell us something about the production dates or shed light on the issue in any significant way, then this would be important.

So, what does it tell us?

I agree that a variation is something that was intentional, but it doesn't matter if this is a variation or not if it reveals something about the set.

Have you been able to identify any patterns? Have you found more than one example of the same player with the shading?

Rob

[JamesGallo]

Well I checked over 50 different E90 cards and none of them were shaded. That being said unless they can be pinned down to a specific group then I think it was a dirty plate or something like that.

James G

[ScottFandango]

Well I checked over 50 different E90 cards and none of them were shaded. That being said unless they can be pinned down to a specific group then I think it was a dirty plate or something like that.

James G


That is my point, it can be predicted which cards have this shading....

for instance, all of the "common" cards have no shaded version....

if you see the card on Ebay, its probably not shaded...

the sHADED cards all are Lower Population cards...

this is very Significant in my book....

so dont even look at the H Jennings, the SUmmers, Tinker, Lajoie, Baker, Mathewson, Young, wallace, crawford, j jackson, chase etc....these "commons" dont have shaded versions...

[ScottFandango]

Scott,

You're right. If the shading did tell us something about the production dates or shed light on the issue in any significant way, then this would be important.

So, what does it tell us?

I agree that a variation is something that was intentional, but it doesn't matter if this is a variation or not if it reveals something about the set.

Have you been able to identify any patterns? Have you found more than one example of the same player with the shading?

Rob

yes and yes...

[ScottFandango]

is it a "variation" if one players cards predictably comes in both shaded and non-shaded versions?

for instance, when a player has a shaded version, they also have a normal version....

if the player ONLY had a shaded version, then this would have no significance..

but when you can hold 2 cards of the same player next to each other, and one back is shaded and the other is normal, this has significance....

Again, if EVERY card in the set had a shaded and regular version, it would have no significance...BUT not every card does!

[edhans]

I looked at each of my 99 E90-1s (93 diff, 6 dupes). Found only two with the shading, both Fromme. The shading is not identical on the cards. The other Cincinnati players (Mitchell, Bescher, and 2 Siegle's) do not have the shading. I'm inclined to agree with the majority that it's not a variation, just a dirty or worn plate. As Scott points out though, if we could establish definitive patterns it might help to solve the elusive mystery of e90-1s series.

[ScottFandango]

confirmed here also...

Fromme is one!

not a dirty plate, but a DIFFERENT plate....

a dirty plate would leave smudges on the inside AND outside of the lines...

no smudges are found on the shaded variation...in fact they are quite "clean"

[ScottFandango]

"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought." --Albert Szent-Gyorgi

thanks Ted for this quote that puts things in perspective..

[bijoem]

scott - there are a many ways this could happen on press through poor quality control..... or simply during the initial setup (make-ready) for the run.

for instance.... all one has to do is run too much black ink (or not enough water) and you will achieve that plugging in (you call it shading). If a pressman saw that the black was running heavy, he would have adjusted and kept running. What you see is the bad printing that was fixed.

This is not a variation.

no matter if is on just one card, some cards, or all cards - this is a print defect..... as the issue can happen on the entire sheet or on a specific part of the sheet.


As far as printing plates....
and your mentioning "DIFFERENT" plate....
I mentioned this before -

Printing plates only have so many impressions in them.
I don't know the number of sheets that could be run off by a plate in 1910ish.... but I would bet it wasn't more than 10,000 sheets - probably less.

To compensate for the short life span of printing plates - multiples of the same printing plate are produced.

So.... for just about any mainstream card we collect - - there were MANY plates created for the same card. As plates outlived their usefulness, a pressman would take off the bad plates and put on the new (but same) plates.

[ScottFandango]

so i will use the word VERSION instead

SHADED VERSION....


only certain cards have the shaded Version....


better?

[bijoem]

Scott....

I think the thread is awesome.

And I love the observation.


you really could call this anything you want.

I was just trying to be a constructive participant of the thread.

[ScottFandango]

Scott....

I think the thread is awesome.

And I love the observation.


you really could call this anything you want.

I was just trying to be a constructive participant of the thread.

i appreciate it! you are the expert on printing and this discussion is great!



how about this....some cards have a Regular version and a shaded version....is that not true?

[ScottFandango]

How come then, say the Fromme, has regular versions and shaded versions, BUT NOTHING IN BETWEEN...

wouldnt it be a slow progression from clean to dirty? havent found that... I havent seen any Frommes that have "just a bit if shading"..has anyone?>

[ScottFandango]

The Mystery of the E90-1 Series' is how i found the shaded versions...

for 100 years, nobody knows what E90-1 cards were made in 1909 versus 1911....i have been trying to find details that may give us clues...

this may be the first CONCRETE evidence for a specific series.....

trying to think why it happened is the wrong direction to go....

thinking of what we have in front of us , and what it tells us, is the right direction

[bijoem]

How come then, say the Fromme, has regular versions and shaded versions, BUT NOTHING IN BETWEEN...

wouldnt it be a slow progression from clean to dirty? havent found that... I havent seen any Frommes that have "just a bit if shading"..has anyone?>


It would not have to be a progression from clean to dirty.

You may find varying degrees of shading, but it is not necessary that you do.

Also - I am guessing after the pressman noticed the bad sheets, he thumbed down the lift and threw out the bad sheets. He may not have grabbed all of them - so we are left with some bad sheets that found their way into cutting and distribution.

Its all just guessing.

I have no idea what the quality control was at the print shop.

[bijoem]

this may be the first CONCRETE evidence for a specific series.....



that is cool stuff - and I would guess looking through print defects / oddities / and miscuts one could start putting a puzzle together.

[steve B]

Very cool stuff and fascinating too. A few thoughts now that we're a bit into this.

I guessed earlier that the shaded ones were from a late print run, where maybe they cut corners and didn't clean or replace the plates. I'm still leaning towards this. Especially if all the shaded ones are cards that are harder to find.

So what's the list of shaded cards? Does it match with the list Brian had?
There were 16 there, which is a nice number for a sheet, but doesn't divide into the 120 card set all that well. 12 or 24 works better. The list had a few that are shown in the 2010 standard catalog as being commons, but I know of at least one mistake on that list.

I think in that era they would have used actual stones rather than plates. The stones lasted a bit longer if I recall things properly.

And like Joe D said, a dry stone or plate would give the shading effect just like a worn plate. I think the dry stone/plate is more likely. All the shading is in small areas that the water would evaporate from more quickly.

Steve B

[ubiqty]

I went through all of my 117 e90-1 cards and the only ones with shaded areas as you are looking for are Phelps (posted earlier) and Tenney.
Thanks,
Scott.

[ScottFandango]

thanks for checking!

those 2 are confirmed!

[judsonhamlin]

In looking through my 67 E90-1's (finally), the only two that are convincingly shaded (most obvious in the baseball) are Irwin and Schlitzer. I also noted what appear to be minor variances in the lettering of "BASEBALL SERIES" across the top of the card.

[ScottFandango]

Not a back guy but for what it is worth, I agree with this point. I checked my Boston AL team set and this one is kind of the only one I see with some shade.


is that the back of Schlitzer?

[ScottFandango]

Bob, is it a coincidence that out of the 300 E90-1 cards for sale on ebay right now, there are ZERO Shaded back variation cards for sale...

there are no R Marquard, J sheckard, R demmitt, Tenney, H wagner batting (ALL SIMILAR RED BACKGROUNDS) for sale!

there are no Bob green , hooks wiltse, Froome, Roy Thomas (all Blue green with mountains) for sale!

this is no coincidence....it is because these shaded back cards were one of (if not the last) series produced for the E90-1 series (also the rarest)..

you cannot call it a "printing error or defect" if it only appears in certain cards, that happen to be the "tougher" cards also....it would be a "random printing error" IF it occured in ALL or MOST cards, which it in fact DOESNT....IT NEVER IS SEEN IN THE COMMON CARDS....again, It IS NEVER SEEN In The ComMon Cards!!

so, it may appear on the surface (no pun intended) that this "shaded back" variation that I discovered is a printing mistake, but in fact it reveals one of the more rare print runs that occured between 1909-1911....just use the cards for sale at this very moment as a hint....

especially fun is if you line these "shaded variations" up next to eachother, they all look very similar, YET look AMAZINGLY different to the rest of the set!

Enjoy this 100 year old discovery, a gift from me to the collecting World!

[fkw]

I agree Brian. There is no way the TPG's can know which series many blank backed cards came from. The way I classify them, and a way that is at least standard, is to go to the least common denominator of ACC numbers. In other words if there is a blank backed T206 then I would use it instead of a series with a higher number, same thing on the E cards. If an E card has a blank back, and the front was in the E90-1 series, then that is what I use. It's at least a consistent system and one I would propose to always be used, again, for consistency. regards

ps...with regards to the original question I don't think these shading errors should be documented as true errors but as small print defects....or differences


wish they would have put E90-1 on this blank back McLean :) ......the E90-1 McLean is one of the toughest in the set (high book is $5,000).
IMO all the blank backed cards like these are E92s, even though this could be a E101 as well :)
http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1909e92blankmcleansgc10.jpg

[edhans]

Scott,
I applaud you for your research and effort, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions. Some of the "confirmed" subjects with the shading are common E90-1s; In particular Keeler (pink), Wagner (bat), Harry Davis, and Miller. In fact none of the cards mentioned should be considered among E90-1s rarest. Until we find a Mitchell (Cin), Walsh, Duffy, Shean, etc. we can't conclude that only the rarest (last series) of E90-1s were printed with this "variation". It is incredibly unlikely that the 28 or so subjects mentioned in this thread were printed on the same sheet. For instance, I believe G. Davis to be a card which was discontinued early and Willis obviously a much later issue (note the trade during the off season after 1909). No way they were printed on the same sheet. I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest that this is just a printing anomaly that occurred on multiple sheets.

[ScottFandango]

" Ed you said "in now way were these printed on the same sheet.." why are you so sure about this?

wouldnt the artists and American Caramel Printing executives use one artist (and therefore noticably simialr styles)

the RED background cards with the shading all look VERY Similar, and are dfiferent than anyting else in the set...why assume these similar cards (sheckard, marquard, wagner batting, demmitt, tenney) were printed in different print runs....to me is seems obvious (and intuitive) that they would have all been made at the same time (also the color red is very VERY similar in all these)

i think we need to step back and take a look at the artwork and background color of this set...it may reveal more than you think....

hint hint...all the know rarities have a textured colored background not found in any other cards , again suggesting simialr style and colored cards were made together.

[edhans]

To a certain extent, the styles play a role in the "series" of E90-1. There are several other variables that are more important. I think the same artist was responsible for most of the artwork. It doesn't necessarily follow (and can't possibly be) that all of his work was released all at once.

I'm not sure what you mean by "textured colored background", but I again disagree with the contention that background colors found on the rarities can't be found on commons. I'll cite just the two examples that come quickly to mind: Duffy/Chase (and several others) and Walsh/Dygert. There are others.

Of course, I'm not certain about the G. Davis and Willis cards. One really can't be certain about most things regarding E90-1. But an examination of their playing records make it very unlikely that they were produced at the same time.

On the surface of it, the five cards you mention could have been printed on the same sheet. But how then do we account for the discrepancy in rarity? Demmitt and Tenney are significantly more difficult than Marquard and Sheckard and miles tougher than Wagner (batting).

[ScottFandango]

marquard and wagner may be more available because they are HOF's..but those red cards i feel, have the same degree of toughness....

why arent there any SHADED backs for sale out of the 300 on ebay?

as for the rare card TEXTURED background..i think its very easy to see....use the peaches graham as an example, also the bemis, ed walsh, gibson back view, and Mclean, although different colors, they all have the same (speckled/textured background)...its clearly different than the other 100 or so cards....scans would help i guess..

the lobert also shows this textured/stippled/speckled style

[edhans]

No way Tenney and Demmitt are as common as Wagner and Marquard. The ratio is probably something like 10:1.

There aren't any shaded backs on ebay because they're scarce. That doesn't mean that any card with a shaded back is a difficult subject. The four examples I cited in an earlier post are proof of that. None of the cards "confirmed" in this thread Are among the most difficult in the set. And several, most notably the Keeler (pink) are rather common.

Now I understand what you mean by "textured". I refer to them in today's modern terminology as "pixilated". Those subjects include Mitchell (Cin), Sweeney (Bos), Graham, Gibson (back), Young (Cle), Duffy, and a few others I'm sure. Interestingly, there are cards from other series done in this same style; notably E92 Collins and E90-3 Schulte. Bemis, Walsh and McLean are not examples of this style. And yes, all of the above E90-1s are quite scarce.

[ScottFandango]

looking at my walsh noww and it looks pixilated to me...just like the peaches....the light yellow makes it more difficult to see however....

we are getting somewhere now....im telling you. al the raritites in this set have textured backgrounds that are very different from all the other cards ...that is the biggest hint that art style and ink color/tone means something...add in the fact that some have rare shaded backs, and it even makes more sense

[wrapperguy]

Was not interested in this thread when it came out last year but have since begun collecting the set and am only a few cards away. Cards with shading are Butler, G. Davis, Fromme, Irwin, Miller, Richie, Schlitzer, Scheckard, and Thomas batting. Will leave it up to the scholars to determine any significance.

[ScottFandango]

ebay hasnt seen a roy thomas batting in 4 months...

a sneaky tough card...

[ScottFandango]

G davis, pink keeler, and irwin i would like to see scans if you could.... all others u mentioned i agree and have example myself...

again, whenever a card is seen in a shaded version, it ALWAYS is seen also as a clean regular version....but interestingly BOTH versions are tough....

i stand by my assessment that no shaded versions are found in a COMMON card....

hint hint....LOOK FOR CARDS WITH MOUNTAINS IN THE BACK...that was an artistic touch that was added later to add more drama to these cards......interestingly, there are very few if any MOUNTAINS in T206 cards.....


E90-1 backgrounds blow away T206 backgrounds!

might the E90-1 American Caramel set have the most diverse, colorful, unique and interesting collection of backgrounds of any pre war set?????

[ScottFandango]

you said "Some of the "confirmed" subjects with the shading are common E90-1s; In particular Keeler (pink), Wagner (bat), Harry Davis, and Miller"------- NONE of these are CONFIRMED BY ME or anyone else..it was posted these had a "touch" of shading which is not the same...

just went over this entire thread, i see no evidence of Keeler Pink or davis shaded...

Brian made a post on page 3 were he listed some of his cards that had a "touch" of shading...the keeler pink was listed there....this does not mean it is a variation....

ED, what cards do you think CANT be shaded version because they were too common?

Just curious, thanks for your response!

[ScottFandango]

just checked the PSA pop report again,and it sure confirms the shaded versions!

cards found with shaded version

group A (solid red background, action posses )

Richie 10 on the Pop report, yes only 10!!!
Sheckard 11
Tenney 11
Demmitt 11
Pastorius 12
Marquard HOF 22
Wagner batting HOF 28

amazingly similar pop reports!!!! shows how rare and tough these cards are ...raise your hand if you are surprised to see the pop reorts on these are less than those listed rarities below!!!!

as a comparative reference to KNOWN rarities:

mike mitchell 18
peaches graham 18
larry mclean 11
hans lobert 12
ed walsh 20
H duffy 16

(joe jackson 58)

my discovery may change the way we look at E90-1 RARITIES...[Peaches graham are so numerous, i need a RICHIE! POP 10..and maybe i can get a shaded version Richie!! POP 3]
this is fun!

[ScottFandango]

Confirmed Group B (Blue and green background with mountains)

roy thomas 14 pop only!!!!
wiltse 15
froome 17
schlitzer 14
camnitz 16
groom 13

Again all VERY SIMILAR POP NUMBERS that are far less than the COMMONS which many have over double and triple the amount of graded examples....

If one of these shaded cards in groups A or B had a POP report dissimilar to the others, then that could blow a hole in the theory...BUT since they have uncanningly similar POP reports, it supports my theory.....


comparative pop reports:
summers 43
Bailey 36
f clarke 42
h howell 39
mullin 38
hartzell 34
sweeney 36
criger 32

HOF's
Cobb 114
Lajoie 54
wallace 52
joss portrait 59
bender 44
HR baker 58
jennings 57
mathewson 66
cy Young 55

ED, i dont agree with your assessment that Wagner batting or marquard are "common" ...they have half the amount of graded cards of most other HOF in this set (1/3 less than many)...they are actually 2 of the rarest (POP wise) HOFs found in this set! Known HOF toughies Tris speaker has pop report of 14, and Cy Young Cleveland has 16 POP report...so POP 22 is in the ballbark of these known HOF rarities!!!!

in this set, HOFers are graded about twice as often as a similar non HOF counterpart...this appears true on the POP report and on the Group A shaded cards (wagner and marquard have almost exactly double the graded version of sheckard, demmitt, tenney, pastorius)

it all makes perfect sense !!
wow im having fun!
can anyone join me?

[Ladder7]

A few Hof's here. None shaded.

Question for Scott., Have you tried decaf?

[ScottFandango]

I think to confirm their status as true variations, we need to see more than one "shaded" example for one or more of those that are now known.

I know that would be easier with a more commonly encountered set, but surely there are enough E90-1s out there to confirm or disprove this theory.



Ok Bob, i have obtained mutliple examples of the same card with shading on the back...

challenge to the board: if its a random printing error than surely someone would have a shaded version OF A COMMON CARD FROM THIS SET...

Please , anyone, show me a common card with shading, because in 4 years of searching, i cant find a common with shading.....interesting no?

[ScottFandango]

i now drink decaf!

i still love this topic though!