E90-1s have plate scratches too!

[edhans]

With advance apologies to those who think that T206s are the only set worth discussing, I present a surprising new (at least to me) discovery. I picked up this Demmit on ebay a couple weeks ago. I saw the plate scratch on an E90-1 for the first time. Strange, as I've been collecting the set for more than 30 years.

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/e90demm.jpg

I immediately thought of the remakable work done by Pat, Steve and others on the T206 sheets and wondered if scratches could help unravel the mysteries of the E90-1 distribution. For decades, E90-1 has been thought of as a three series issue; the first in late 1908 to early 1909, the second as 1910 and a third in 1911. This is clearly inadequate to explain the varying levels of difficulty among the cards. I have postulated at least eight separate "printings" with additions, deletions and replacements along the way.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Back to the scratches. I checked my set and dupes (125 cards in total), hoping to find a few more. And I did.

Much to my amazement, the Demmit I already had, had a different scratch.

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/e90demscr.jpg

This is causing me to rethink some of the theories I've been developing. Demmit was either double printed on one sheet or printed on two separate sheets. I also found four others, three of which fit the pattern of scarcity I was expecting:
Gray

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/e90grayscr.jpg
Joss (throwing)

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/e90jossscr.jpg
And Tenney

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/e90tenscr.jpg

These three are less common than most (as is Demmit) and I was not surprised that they could be sheetmates.

I was very surprised at the last subject, Bailey
http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/e90baiscr.jpg

Bailey is among the most common E90-1s, surely in the top five. Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that all of these subjects were printed on the same sheet. There could have been multiple sheets with scratches.

Enough for now. I need two things from the board: 1) everyone drop what you're doing and inspect your E90-1s and report any additions you find; and 2) someone with the time and photoshop skills to replicate Pat's extraordinary t206 analysis and apply it to this wonderful set. Regretably, I have neither.

Looking forward to everyone's comments and suggestions.

[Leon]

Cool research on a great caramel set. I wish I could help, Ed, but I am down to only one E90-1. I do believe I have seen multiple examples over the years with those types of scratches. Thanks for sharing....

[Bliggity]

I just checked my 15 E90-1s, and two of them have plate scratches:

http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah316/dmblau/E90-1%20Scratches_zpst1iqpilh.png

[frohme]

Found two from images of previously owned cards:

* Miller (fldg) - through the bats downwards to right ... also, lower right corner??
* Overall - through "American Caramel Co" downwards to right

For the record - that was 2 with scratches out of 23 cards
 

[Pat R]

That's great Ed. I'm sure no one would be surprised that I'm interested in
this. If you or someone else would like to do some work on this I would
be happy to help.

What I found works best is to make up some sheets like this... ( I made this
in a couple of minutes but it takes more time to make an accurate one)
251599

Then draw the scratch in like I did with the first Demmitt you posted.
251605

You can do this with several scratches and as you find new ones you can see if they fit any
of the spots on either side of an existing scratch. The main reason I find this
works best is all the cards are cut different but this will give an accurate placement of where the scratches should be.

The second Demmitt you posted has two vertical scratches so it will probably
be a good one to start with. I just did a quick check and found this Jennings
with two vertical scratches going in the opposite direction of your Demmitt.
251609

[Pat R]

You already have an opposite sheet mate match.

Mikes Overall is a match to your Demmitt so there's probably an Overall
that matches the Demmitt you posted with the two vertical scratches.
251610

[Luke]

Great thread Ed! I have nothing to add but I'll be following along.

[Troy Kirk]

Great work, Ed! I love research on E90-1, it's one of my favorite sets. Glad to see Pat jumping in, too, really nice work on the T206 scratches. Not many scratches among my cards, but I can add four. The Joss looks like the origin of the scratches, that one is branching out all over.

http://www.moviecard.com/aapics/e90-crawford-det.jpg

http://www.moviecard.com/aapics/e90-joss-port-cle.jpg

http://www.moviecard.com/aapics/e90-mcinnes-phial.jpg

http://www.moviecard.com/aapics/e90-stone-stlal-lf.jpg

[Pat R]

It's way to early to tell but it looks like Troy's Stone and McInnes line up
and possibly Mike's Miller.
251622

The miller has two scratches that would create one next to it similar to this.
251624

[Leon]

there almost looks like one on the left quadrant of this one...unless it's a crease. :)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Stone-St-Louis-/112203691256?hash=item1a1fdc74f8:g:Sh8AAOSw9IpX1Js l

[Pat R]

It looks like the double scratch on Demmitt lines up with both scratches on
this Joss.
251689
251690
251691

[Iwantmorecards77]

Here's my Wallace with a plate scratch..

[brianp-beme]

E90 Scratch fever for all you Doubting Thomas's.

Brian

As an aside...always loved the colors and action pose on the Thomas, but the face is to die for, or more accurately, to die because of.

[Pat R]

251724251725

[edhans]

Wow! Great replies so far! Thanks to everyone who took the time to search their cards. Special thanks again to Pat for the layout. I wouldn't have known how to do that. I think that the sheet may be too large, though. I have guessed at 30 card sheets (5X6), like some of the other small caramel sets. Obviously it's only that-a guess. Some interesting matches and neighbors already. I will have to revisit my theories on the distribution of the set. Please keep 'em coming. My computer time will be limited for the next week or so, but I will follow the thread and post when I'm able. Thanks again!

[Pat R]

Wow! Great replies so far! Thanks to everyone who took the time to search their cards. Special thanks again to Pat for the layout. I wouldn't have known how to do that. I think that the sheet may be too large, though. I have guessed at 30 card sheets (5X6), like some of the other small caramel sets. Obviously it's only that-a guess. Some interesting matches and neighbors already. I will have to revisit my theories on the distribution of the set. Please keep 'em coming. My computer time will be limited for the next week or so, but I will follow the thread and post when I'm able. Thanks again!

Ed, I think it might be doable, there seem to be a much larger percent of
scratches compared to the PD150's and they are much easier to spot. I've
found over thirty in a short period of time searching. The biggest obstacle
will be trying to break down which players were together on the sheets.
I'm not familiar that with the E90-1's are there any front miscuts?

Here's a couple more pairs.

Bresnahan/Clement
251759251760

Grant/Hartzell
251761251762

[brianp-beme]

I'm not familiar that with the E90-1's are there any front miscuts?

Here is a front miscut of Thomas catching along with his sheetmate McInnes:

Brian

[Pat R]

Here is a front miscut of Thomas catching along with his sheetmate McInnes:

Brian

Thanks Brian.

Well that's strange. The scratches line up but McInnes should be on the
right for the back.
251774251775
251776

[edhans]

It's two different Thomases, Pat. Roy of Boston is the one with the scratch. Ira is the neighbor to McInnes in Brian's post. I find it interesting because It's unlikely that Roy Thomas and McInnes could be sheet mates. I'm betting we find another subject with a matching scratch to Roy Thomas.

[Pat R]

Thanks Ed, what a dope I am. I didn't even pay attention to the fronts
and I didn't know there are two different Thomases. There is another
scratch that matches Roy Thomas it's Crawford.
251778

[Pat R]

OK I found the right Thomas and it has the same mark on the lower left front as Brian's miscut Thomas.
251785
251786

[Bliggity]

Not my card.

http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah316/dmblau/Stone_zpsef5czzye.png

[Pat R]

That's Great Dan, Thanks.
251829
251830

[edhans]

Great stuff, all. So now we have three neighbors (Ira Thomas, McInnes and Crawford) This is consistent with the scarcity pattern I've observed. The discovery of the double (at least) printed Stone (no arms) refutes my thoughts on the sheet layouts. I have been operating under the assumption that the sheets were formatted similar to the other small candy issues of the era; 25 or 30 card sheets with no duplication. The Stone clearly proves that false. It is, however, consistent with the relative difficulty of this subject, one of the very common ones. Thanks again to everyone. Keep 'em coming!

[Pat R]

Ed, I've found quite a few so far I can send to you in an email or post them
here if you want. I haven't done much work on connecting the scratches
but that's what should help determine how many times the same subject
was used in a row.

I found three different matty's so far but it's possible some subjects
were used on more than one sheet.
251882
251883
251884

I got this Krause scan from your site. It looks like the scratch might branch
off in a couple of directions from the last L in ball if you can take a closer look.
251885

[Pat R]

ED,
I am making a sheet that tracks all of the scratches and found that there's
a Hartzell (Batting) that matches a Grant.
251890251891

And there's also a different Hartzell (Batting) that matches a Gibson (Front View).
251892251894

[edhans]

Pat,
By all means post it in this thread if you'd like. I can't think how I missed the scratch on the Krause. I think I still have that one. Do the second and third Mattys line up horizontally? I continue to be amazed at your remarkable work. Thanks again.

[Pat R]

Pat,
By all means post it in this thread if you'd like. I can't think how I missed the scratch on the Krause. I think I still have that one. Do the second and third Mattys line up horizontally? I continue to be amazed at your remarkable work. Thanks again.

It's hard to tell because the scans are different but it's possible that they line up. When there are more scans collected and the sheets are worked on we
should have a better idea.
251943

Here's a few more matching pairs.

Collins/Donovan
251944251945

Gray/McInnes
251946251947

Phelps/Stone (Left Hand)

251948251949

[Webster]

Ed - great project.

251953251955

[Webster]

251962251963

251964251965

251966251967

251968251969

[Pat R]

Ed,
It looks like Jesse Tannehill might line up with Tenney,
but there is a strip of blue on Tannehill that eliminates
Tenney so it must be another player that matches
the Tenney scratch. Any ideas on players to check for this scratch?
252035
252036252037

[Pat R]

One thing that's going to make it a little tougher is that there are two
scratches through a sheet(s) that are similar.

This Marquard is very close but just a little lower than the Tenney.
252160252161

[edhans]

Pat,
That blue mark on the Tannehill looks like a slightly misaligned color pass. Might be difficult to identify. I did find a Lumley that may correspond. I would consider the two potential sheet mates. Haven't had time to look any further. Hope to do so this weekend. Interesting observation on the Marquard/Tenney scratches. I'm sure I would have missed that one. Thanks again for all your efforts. Happy Thanksgiving.

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/lumley.jpg

[Pat R]

Pat,
That blue mark on the Tannehill looks like a slightly misaligned color pass. Might be difficult to identify. I did find a Lumley that may correspond. I would consider the two potential sheet mates. Haven't had time to look any further. Hope to do so this weekend. Interesting observation on the Marquard/Tenney scratches. I'm sure I would have missed that one. Thanks again for all your efforts. Happy Thanksgiving.

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/lumley.jpg

Happy Thanksgiving to you too Ed.
I thought a Blue color shift from the grass on Oakes might be a possibility
Too. It's hard to try and line them up with different scans, they get distorted
when you try and resize them.
252167

It makes it a little more of a challenge with the similar scratches but that's ok
I think with some time we can figure it out. The Piedmonts have a couple that are similar and that's why when I got seriously involved in it I decided I need to have the cards in hand for accuracy.

These are all plate scratches. I've added quite a few since these pictures were taken.
252168
252169
252170
252171

[Pat R]

ED, I found a scratch that matches Tenney. There are two Engle scratches so far
and one of them is the same as Tenney.
252202252203

Here's the other Engle
252204

[tedzan]

Hi Ed

You and I have had some interesting discussions regarding E90-1 cards these past 10 years . Glad to hear you still have your set.
I put this 120-card set together in the mid-1990's. In recent years, when the price of the Joe Jax went "bananas", I broke up this
set and sold 77 % of it. Shown below are 10 of the 28 cards I kept.

Anyhow, none of these 28 cards have any of the so-called "plate scratches" on their backs. Not even the slightest trace of any "ink
streaks".

Furthermore, I compared notes with a fellow E90-1 collector nearby in Pennsylvania, who has a complete 120-card set (and approx.
60 dupes). And the only cards in his collection with "ink streaks" are Demmitt, Joss (portrait), Overall, Phelps, Stone (left arm), Jeff
Sweeney & Roy Thomas. Also, he has an extra Joss (portrait) and Jeff Sweeney which do NOT have "ink streaks". Total = 208 cards.

This results to only 3.3 % of this particular 208-card sample with this printing anomaly. In the past 25 years, I have seen many E90
cards, that I would venture to say a larger sample of these cards will yield even a lower percentage. Therefore, can we really rely on
such inconsistencies in attempting to determine a valid sheet layout ?

I don't think so.



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/E90ChaseTinkerWagner50x.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/E90ChaseTinkerWagner50xb.jpg



http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/batwagner.jpg . http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/e90cobb.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/E90Plank12x.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/E90DuffyHartzellBradley.jpg



http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/E90Upp50x.jpg




Incidentally, Ed......your sample percentage (4/125 = 3.2 %) coincides with the sample percentage that I noted above (3.3 %).


TED Z
.

[irishdenny]

Here's One from Mr. Keeler...
The Plate Scratch Runs Across Mr. Keeler's Chest!

Curious...
Does Anyone Else See the # "2"
On the Bottom RiGHT SiDe of His Shirt!?
It's appears in the Black/White Area
To the RiGHT, Under the "Y" From the N Y Insignia...
If You Stare at it, the "2" Comes More ta Life!

Reminds me of the old Cards,
Where they ask You if You can See the Dog in the Picture!?
Can You?

[Pat R]

Here's One from Mr. Keeler...
The Plate Scratch Runs Across Mr. Keeler's Chest!

Curious...
Does Anyone Else See the # "2"
On the Bottom RiGHT SiDe of His Shirt!?
It's appears in the Black/White Area
To the RiGHT, Under the "Y" From the N Y Insignia...
If You Stare at it, the "2" Comes More ta Life!

Reminds me of the old Cards,
Where they ask You if You can See the Dog in the Picture!?
Can You?

Hi Denny,

I have come across a few E90-1's with scratches through the front in my search.
252299

[Pat R]

Hi Ed

You and I have had some interesting discussions regarding E90-1 cards these past 10 years . Glad to hear you still have your set.
I put this 120-card set together in the mid-1990's. In recent years, when the price of the Joe Jax went "bananas", I broke up this
set and sold 77 % of it. Shown below are 10 of the 28 cards I kept.

Anyhow, none of these 28 cards have any of the so-called "plate scratches" on their backs. Not even the slightest trace of any "ink
streaks".

Furthermore, I compared notes with a fellow E90-1 collector nearby in Pennsylvania, who has a complete 120-card set (and approx.
60 dupes). And the only cards in his collection with "ink streaks" are Demmitt, Joss (portrait), Overall, Phelps, Stone (left arm), Jeff
Sweeney & Roy Thomas. Also, he has an extra Joss (portrait) and Jeff Sweeney which do NOT have "ink streaks". Total = 208 cards.

This results to only 3.3 % of this particular 208-card sample with this printing anomaly. In the past 25 years, I have seen many E90
cards, that I would venture to say a larger sample of these cards will yield even a lower percentage. Therefore, can we really rely on
such inconsistencies in attempting to determine a valid sheet layout ?

I don't think so.

Incidentally, Ed......your sample percentage (4/125 = 3.2 %) coincides with the sample percentage that I noted above (3.3 %).


TED Z
.

Hi Ted,
I know your post is directed at Ed but I would like to respond too.

No offense but I don't think you understand the plate scratches. I would be happy to bring some plate scratch cards and meet with you sometime in
the future and have a discussion.

I'm not sure how they occurred but I think it probably happened in the moving
of them in the printing process.

Some of the stones were very large and I have seen pictures from around
that time period where they were stored on racks similar to this.
252301
252302

I'm sure a large number of sheets were printed before the scratches occurred
and only a small number would have the scratches on them. Using this test
sheet I made you can see only 25% of the cards have a scratch (9 out of 36).
252303
So combining this with the number of sheets that were printed before the scratch occurred would result in a low % although I think 3.3% is too low
of an estimate.

I think describing them as inconsistent is incorrect. The great thing about
them is they are very consistent. A scratch on a subject from a particular
sheet position is always in the same place.

Here's multiple examples of a Seymour scratch.
252308
252309
There are two on ebay right now with that same exact scratch.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206-CY-SEYMOUR-New-York-Giants-Baseball-Card-12R-/401230699389?hash=item5d6b369b7d:g:IkcAAOSw3KFWchu H
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206-CY-SEYMOUR-Batting-New-York-Giants-Piedmont-12R-/172418354767?hash=item2824ef4e4f:g:iz4AAOSwnGJWSo7 F

That Seymour scratch is on this sheet.
252310

Here's the Seymour under that one.
252311
252312

Cicotte is next to Seymour on that sheet and Here's some of them.

This Cicottte lines up with the Seymour's I posted above.
252313
252314

This pair
252315
252311
252316

And another pairing
252318
252319
252320

And there's also a front mark that shows Cicotte and Seymour were next to each other on this sheet.
252321
252322

[tedzan]

Hi Ted,
I know your post is directed at Ed but I would like to respond too.

No offense but I don't think you understand the plate scratches. I would be happy to bring some plate scratch cards and meet with you sometime in
the future and have a discussion.

I'm not sure how they occurred but I think it probably happened in the moving
of them in the printing process.


Pat

I fully understand what you refer to as "plate scratches". I've followed your posts regarding your Piedmont 150 analysis.
Furthermore, when I was a teenager, I worked as an apprentice in a print shop and I am familiar with printing practices.

I respect all the time & effort you have put into your T206 project. However, we are now talking about E90-1 cards. E90
cards were printed by a Lithographic firm in Philadelphia (1908-1910). The T206's were printed by American Litho (NYC)
and it's my understanding that state-of-the-art rotary off-set presses were used to print these cards.

I took the trouble of scanning Ebay's current listing of E90-1 cards. There are 178 unique E90-1 cards listed whose backs
are visible in this listing. Only 7 of these cards exhibit "ink streaks"....resulting in 3.9 %.

The grand total (of this group and the group noted in Post #36) is 386 samples. Only 14 of these cards have "ink streaks"
resulting in a mere 3.6 %.

I repeat: such a limited sampling (plus the varying characteristics of the "ink streaks") of these E90-1 cards certainly does
not make for a reliable (or scientific) method for attempting to determine valid sheet layout, or series structure ?


TED Z
.

[Pat R]

Pat

I fully understand what you refer to as "plate scratches". I've followed your posts regarding your Piedmont 150 analysis.
Furthermore, when I was a teenager, I worked as an apprentice in a print shop and I am familiar with printing practices.

I respect all the time & effort you have put into your T206 project. However, we are now talking about E90-1 cards. E90
cards were printed by a Lithographic firm in Philadelphia (1908-1910). The T206's were printed by American Litho (NYC)
and it's my understanding that state-of-the-art rotary off-set presses were used to print these cards.

I took the trouble of scanning Ebay's current listing of E90-1 cards. There are 178 unique E90-1 cards listed whose backs
are visible in this listing. Only 7 of these cards exhibit "ink streaks"....resulting in 3.9 %.

The grand total (of this group and the group noted in Post #36) is 386 samples. Only 14 of these cards have "ink streaks"
resulting in a mere 3.6 %.

I repeat: such a limited sampling (plus the varying characteristics of the "ink streaks") of these E90-1 cards certainly does
not make for a reliable (or scientific) method for attempting to determine valid sheet layout, or series structure ?


TED Z
.

Ted,
I don't see how where they were printed makes a difference. A scratch is a
scratch and where they were printed shouldn't factor into it.

Neither should the %. If enough scratches are found to connect them and
come up with a sheet or partial sheet layout it doesn't matter how many
cards you have to look through to find them. I have saved scans from quite
a few that are listed on ebay and there are a lot more than the seven you found.

I didn't want to go back and look through all of them but I did look through
a few pages and found twelve but I could only attach nine links.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caram-79-Ed-Phelps-SGC-4-O8694-/272393077080?hash=item3f6be48158:g:pdsAAOSw4shX60q P

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-George-Stone-Left-Arm-Showing-/162292919128?hash=item25c9696b58:g:qgsAAOSwx2dYDj3 P

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Stone-St-Louis-/112211001366?hash=item1a204c0016:g:Sh8AAOSw9IpX1Js l
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-American-Caramel-E90-1-George-Stone-SGC-40-3-/350778690419?hash=item51ac0a0b73:g:lsIAAMXQXZZReKd d

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Addie-Joss-portrait-PSA-4-Vg-Ex-Hall-of-Famer-/122235676281?hash=item1c75d06679:g:3BsAAOSwnDZT99l V
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Hughie-Jennings-Mgr-Detroit-HOF-EX-Grade-/282249593005?hash=item41b76300ad:g:iNgAAOSwKrxUY31 1
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caram-38-Clyde-Engle-SGC-4-N8683-/272393127637?hash=item3f6be546d5:g:e08AAOSwTA9X61y w

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Baseball-Chief-Bender-PSA-7-NM-HOF-/141871246682?hash=item21082f6d5a:g:TWAAAOSwu4BVoUu B
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-E90-1-American-Caramel-Biff-schlitzer-SGC-40-/192036654936?hash=item2cb646cf58:g:vZYAAOSwqfNXj~Q P
I also don't follow what you mean by varying ink streaks, they were caused
by something scratching the surface it's not like someone drew a straight line
through the back plate.

[irishdenny]

Hi Denny,

I have come across a few E90-1's with scratches through the front in my search.
252299

Well Patrick...
Didn't Take You Long before You Found "The Dog"! :)
In Regards to Collecting E90-1 w/ Plate Scatches,
Seems THeY FiND me more Often
THaN I FiND THeM!

I Guess we Need ta Move OVaR...
Cause Here Come the T206 Guys ;)

WHaT Do You Make of the "2" oN Mr. Keeler's Card?
JuST Curious ta See if There are Any Who MiGHT Have an Opinion oN'em!?

As Always...

[edhans]

Hello Ted,
I was anticipating you'd weigh in on this thread, though I'd hoped your reply would be a more constructive one. I don't know if we'll ever be able to present a hypothetical E90-1 sheet from the scratches. Pat, as usual, has done some terrific work and we already have several dozen examples, including neighbors and matches. We've found evidence of double (or more) printing on a sheet, which surprised me considerably. At this point we lack the double name and ghost images that have helped advance the T206 research. We've only been at a week, and I remain hopeful that more evidence will surface, perhaps in a form we little expect.

Reconstructing the sheet; or sheets, obviously; wasn't necessarily the ultimate goal of the project. My goal was merely a deeper understanding of the manner of distribution of E90-1s. It has been obvious to me for years that the long-held three series theory is woefully inadequate in explaining the varying levels of difficulty among the cards. A chance observation on a recent acquisition set us off on this voyage of discovery.

Could I impose on you (or your friend) to post scans of the cards with scratches? I'm expecially interested to view the Demmitt to see if it matches any of the two we already have. Two of the finest E90-1 sets in existence reside right here in Western New York (mine is not one of them). I need to get those two to check their cards as well. And I hope that other evidence will continue to arrive, so we can advance this little project.

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed so far; and expecially to Pat, whose work I continue to view with amazement. Keep 'em coming!

[Pat R]

Ed, Here's a scratch that's on three different subjects.
252396252397
252398

This Bender is one of only a few that has a left to right scratch, most of the
scratches are right to left.
252399

[Leon]

It seems the only reason where something is mfg'd would be important will be if we can find the press that had the scratch or are able to put a sheet together by locating it? But generally I would agree that where a card is produced doesn't really help with where they were located on a sheet. Those scratches might help though....

Ted,
I don't see how where they were printed makes a difference. A scratch is a
scratch and where they were printed shouldn't factor into it.

Neither should the %. If enough scratches are found to connect them and
come up with a sheet or partial sheet layout it doesn't matter how many
cards you have to look through to find them. I have saved scans from quite
a few that are listed on ebay and there are a lot more than the seven you found.

I didn't want to go back and look through all of them but I did look through
a few pages and found twelve but I could only attach nine links.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caram-79-Ed-Phelps-SGC-4-O8694-/272393077080?hash=item3f6be48158:g:pdsAAOSw4shX60q P

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-George-Stone-Left-Arm-Showing-/162292919128?hash=item25c9696b58:g:qgsAAOSwx2dYDj3 P

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Stone-St-Louis-/112211001366?hash=item1a204c0016:g:Sh8AAOSw9IpX1Js l
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-American-Caramel-E90-1-George-Stone-SGC-40-3-/350778690419?hash=item51ac0a0b73:g:lsIAAMXQXZZReKd d

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Addie-Joss-portrait-PSA-4-Vg-Ex-Hall-of-Famer-/122235676281?hash=item1c75d06679:g:3BsAAOSwnDZT99l V
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Hughie-Jennings-Mgr-Detroit-HOF-EX-Grade-/282249593005?hash=item41b76300ad:g:iNgAAOSwKrxUY31 1
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caram-38-Clyde-Engle-SGC-4-N8683-/272393127637?hash=item3f6be546d5:g:e08AAOSwTA9X61y w

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E90-1-American-Caramel-Baseball-Chief-Bender-PSA-7-NM-HOF-/141871246682?hash=item21082f6d5a:g:TWAAAOSwu4BVoUu B
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-E90-1-American-Caramel-Biff-schlitzer-SGC-40-/192036654936?hash=item2cb646cf58:g:vZYAAOSwqfNXj~Q P
I also don't follow what you mean by varying ink streaks, they were caused
by something scratching the surface it's not like someone drew a straight line
through the back plate.

[tedzan]

Hi Ed

Sorry, that I interjected my opinion. After all the years we have known each other, we have had some meaningful discussions on this Candy set.
But, my post appears to be causing problems; and, possibly alienating our friendship.

But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).

Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.

[edhans]

Ted,
Please understand that your posts in this thread in no way diminish my esteem for you as a collector or a friend. I apoolgize if my reply to you was interpreted in that way. Your experience and knowledge are a great resource in the hobby, and will be for many years to come. I invite you to keep an open mind as we progress in this venture and, of course, to add anything you feel might add to our knowledge. As i said previously, I have no idea if we'll be able to reconstruct an entire sheet or sheets, but we already have discovered several interesting and heretofore unknown facts about the configuration of the sheets and thererby a few clues as to the distribution of the set.

Warmest Regards,

Ed

[Pat R]

Ed, Here's another three subject match.

252443252444
252445

Fred Mitchell matches Joss Pitching.
252492
252493

[steve B]

But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).

Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.

Ted makes some interesting points, some more interesting than others.

The percentage of cards showing marks from plate scratches or streaks is currently fairly low. This could be from a few things. It could be that collectively we've only looked at/for them for a brief time. Pat has pointed out a couple of the other limiting things. In comparison to the P150's there are fewer scratches so fewer cards from a sheet will be affected. And when the scratch happened will have a lot of bearing on the percentage found. I think it's simply too early to draw much of a conclusion from that percentage.


The question of what sort of press produced the set is a good one.

If they were produced on a then fairly cutting edge rotary offset press that used metal plates it opens up a lot of complications. The plates at the time were expensive and not simple to produce. http://sites.tech.uh.edu/digitalmedia/materials/3350/History_of_Litho.pdf
I don't see a mention of them being saved for reuse, but it's possible they may have been as it was a fairly common thing with the stones. (Some were saved, others were resurfaced for reuse)

If the plates were saved, they would be just as likely to be damaged as a stone. That damage might be different, as different accidents happen to large, inflexible heavy things than happen to light flexible things that happen to also be large.
Diagonal streaks aren't all that likely on a rotary press. And consistent diagonal streaks are even less likely. Streaks parallel to the direction the sheet travels are likely, but these marks are not parallel to either a sheet run sideways or vertically. And a diagonal layout for rectangular objects would be really odd.
Rotary offset plates can get scratched, just as stones can. I have a 1981 Fleer card with a nice red line from a plate scratch, and I'm very sure a rotary offset press was used.

So to some extent the type of press used and how the printer handled the plates does matter. If plates weren't typically saved, consistent diagonal marks on series separated by time would most likely indicate a stone rather than plates.
Another possibility would be the printing of various groups of fronts in different quantities either at the same time, or consecutively - group 1 Monday and Tuesday, group 2 Wednesday........with the backs printed last. I think that's unlikely, especially as one group typically shows flaws from dry or worn plates. (Using plates to include stones for simplicity)


Even if the marks are indeed streaks, they're consistent enough to give us an idea of what cards were next to each other.

There are fairly consistent streaks on more modern cards, once the rate the sheets were fed at got high enough static electricity became a problem, and the solution was dragging a string much like tinsel along the sheets being fed into the press. With proper drying in between colors, they shouldn't happen, but on a lot of 50's era cards they're common.
I don't think the presses of the era, even rotary ones had a high enough rate. But some part of the press being loose might cause a streak.
Personally I believe these are too consistent to be anything other than plate damage. Scratches most likely, but if it was a rotary press they could also be cracks, which would explain why they're less common.

All in all, they're worth studying.


Steve B

[Pat R]

Hi Ed,
I haven't posted all of the scans that I have yet but here is a list of the scratches from all the input so far. There are 60 different scratches on
49 different subjects.

Bailey
Bender
Bresnahan - matches Clement
Chance
Chase 2
Clarke (Philadelphia) - matches Grant and Hartzell (Batting)
Clement - matches Bresnahan
Cobb - 2 (two different scratches)
Collins - matches Donavan
Crawford - matches Knight and Roy Thomas
Criger
Demmitt 2 - matches Overall
Donavan - matches Collins
Engle 2 - matches Tenney
Gibson (Front View)
Grant - matches Clarke (Philadelphia) and Hartzell (Batting)
Gray - matches McInnes
Hartzell (Batting) - matches Clarke (Philadelphia) and Grant
Howell (Follow Through)
Howell (Wind-up)
Jennings
Joss (Portrait) 2
Joss (Pitching) 2
Keeler (Pink Background)
Knight - matches Crawford and Roy Thomas
Krause
Lajoie - matches Marquard
Lumley - matches Mathewson
Marquard - matches Lajoie
Mathewson 3 - Matches Lumley
McInnes - matches Gray
McQuillan
Miller
Mitchell, Fred
Mullin
Phelps 2 - matches Stone (Left Hand)
Schlitzer
Stone (Left Hand) - matches Phelps
Stone (No Hands) 2
Summers
Sweeney (New York)
Tannehill, Jesse
Tannehill, Lee
Tenney - matches Engle
Thomas, Roy - matches Crawford and Knight
Thomas, Ira
Tinker
Wallace

[frohme]

Hey Pat

Your list here doesn't include the two I added back in post #4 in the thread, BTW.

--
Mike

[Pat R]

Hey Pat

Your list here doesn't include the two I added back in post #4 in the thread, BTW.

--
Mike

Thanks Mike,

I made the list from the scans I had and I missed the two you posted.
I went through the thread and found a couple of more I had missed
and I made the corrections.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).
Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.

Ted makes some interesting points, some more interesting than others.

The percentage of cards showing marks from plate scratches or streaks is currently fairly low. This could be from a few things. It could be that collectively we've only looked at/for them for a brief time. Pat has pointed out a couple of the other limiting things. In comparison to the P150's there are fewer scratches so fewer cards from a sheet will be affected. And when the scratch happened will have a lot of bearing on the percentage found. I think it's simply too early to draw much of a conclusion from that percentage.


The question of what sort of press produced the set is a good one.

If they were produced on a then fairly cutting edge rotary offset press that used metal plates it opens up a lot of complications. The plates at the time were expensive and not simple to produce. http://sites.tech.uh.edu/digitalmedia/materials/3350/History_of_Litho.pdf
I don't see a mention of them being saved for reuse, but it's possible they may have been as it was a fairly common thing with the stones. (Some were saved, others were resurfaced for reuse)

If the plates were saved, they would be just as likely to be damaged as a stone. That damage might be different, as different accidents happen to large, inflexible heavy things than happen to light flexible things that happen to also be large.
Diagonal streaks aren't all that likely on a rotary press. And consistent diagonal streaks are even less likely. Streaks parallel to the direction the sheet travels are likely, but these marks are not parallel to either a sheet run sideways or vertically. And a diagonal layout for rectangular objects would be really odd.
Rotary offset plates can get scratched, just as stones can. I have a 1981 Fleer card with a nice red line from a plate scratch, and I'm very sure a rotary offset press was used.

So to some extent the type of press used and how the printer handled the plates does matter. If plates weren't typically saved, consistent diagonal marks on series separated by time would most likely indicate a stone rather than plates.
Another possibility would be the printing of various groups of fronts in different quantities either at the same time, or consecutively - group 1 Monday and Tuesday, group 2 Wednesday........with the backs printed last. I think that's unlikely, especially as one group typically shows flaws from dry or worn plates. (Using plates to include stones for simplicity)


Even if the marks are indeed streaks, they're consistent enough to give us an idea of what cards were next to each other.

There are fairly consistent streaks on more modern cards, once the rate the sheets were fed at got high enough static electricity became a problem, and the solution was dragging a string much like tinsel along the sheets being fed into the press. With proper drying in between colors, they shouldn't happen, but on a lot of 50's era cards they're common.
I don't think the presses of the era, even rotary ones had a high enough rate. But some part of the press being loose might cause a streak.
Personally I believe these are too consistent to be anything other than plate damage. Scratches most likely, but if it was a rotary press they could also be cracks, which would explain why they're less common.

All in all, they're worth studying.


Steve B

Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tedzan View Post
But consider this....Including your data (125/4 "scratches") we have a total of 511 samples of E90-1 cards with only 18 examples of "ink streaks".
This results in a mere 3.5 % with this anomaly from this large sample of cards. And it's considerably less percentage than the T206 Piedmont 150
data that Pat has analyzed.
Therefore, the remark by some here...."what difference does it make" what printer (or machinery) was used to produce these E90-1 cards, is very
naïve (if not uninformed).
Anyway, I hope as you do that this survey may provide us some ideas of how the various series of this set were printed (1908 - Summer of 1910).

This is a question you and I and others on this forum have discussed ever since I posted this E90-1 thread in March 2006......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89941


Take care......I am choosing to refrain from any further inputs to this thread.

TED Z
.



Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

American Caramel printed by American Litho....sounds plausible. Four years is a flash in the pan!! Now a ten year old thread and we're talking...

[steve B]

Hi Steve,

I think Ted misinterpreted what I said. I certainly think it's important how they were printed I was referring to where they were printed.

In a few days it will be four years since you started the PD150 plate scratch thread. I have been tracking them through ebay and most of the
auction houses since then and I can say without a doubt that so far the E90-1's are showing up at a higher %.

If you look at past sales on cardtarget many of the E90-1's have sales with back scans in the single digits for a subject. On the other
hand the majority of PD150 subjects have over 100 sales with back scans.

I'm not sure if it has been established which company in Philadelphia printed the E90-1's but if it was George Harris and sons
which I believe was the largest lithographic printer there at the time they were owned by American Lithograph.

I've just been looking for info on George Harris and sons, and not finding much. I'm wondering if they were in any way related to the Harris automatic press company that made the first commercially successful rotary offset presses?
Some of that companies records are in the Smithsonian, and accessible to researchers. http://sirismm.si.edu/EADpdfs/NMAH.AC.0928.pdf

I did find an interesting bit. Harris company did make 2 color presses at least as early as 1908. I've suspected for some time that at least T206s if not other cards were produced on 2 color presses. https://books.google.com/books?id=C73Lt4uYUV4C&pg=PA902&lpg=PA902&dq=harris+automatic+press+company&source=bl&ots=OVYS8hambA&sig=2uMMz1OOKrwlpaKIYzOfPX9yBWo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirm8r599jQAhXD6YMKHbfLCKU4ChDoAQgcMAE#v =onepage&q=harris%20automatic%20press%20company&f=false Page 902 if the link doesn't go directly.


It's interesting that the E90 scratches are more common than T206 scratches, but not too surprising now that I think on it a bit. Shorter overall press run, and for P150 probably some previous fairly large press runs, so if the scratches happened mid run, they should be a bit more common in comparison.

It's very interesting to me if ALC owned Harris. But the reason is a bit far afield for this thread.

Steve B

[irishdenny]

Gentlemen,

According to VCBC #35 April 2003 Article on E90-1's,
Hobby Veteran Mr. Mark Macrae tells us that E90-1's
Were Also Printed oN the West Coast via Corporation
Hand Shaking. The Process is Explained
On the Last Page of the fore mention'd Article I've Included!

So Maybe the Scratches were produced on the West Coast!?

Also...
Obviously The Article has a few areas
THaT have BeeN Updated Since it's Published Date.
One in which Mr. Jackson's Cards Price has Completely Over~Taken
Mr. Mitchell's Cincinnati Card.
Another of Course, is which Cards are Actually More & Less Available.
Which is another Topic All Tagether ;)

(My Apologies fir the State of the Articles Viewing,
IncreasiN Your Zoom Level Should Bring it Back to a Readable Existence!)

[steve B]

That's interesting.

I read it as co-marketing rather than production, but I suppose they might have been produced on the west coast and inserted there. More of a licensed production produced locally in a non-local market.

Nothing like additional complications :D

Steve B

[edhans]

Apologies to all for my recent absence from this thread. I've been looking in periodically, but haven't had time to thoroughly review all the excellent work done so far. I hope to be able to do so this week. Here are four additional subjects courtesy of a fellow board member:

Jennings

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/jenningsrev.jpg

Phelps

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/phelpsrev.jpg

Schlitzer

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/schlitzerrev.jpg

And Stanage

http://www.monkberry.com/~edhans/stanagerev.jpeg

Hope to check back in soon.

[Pat R]

Hi Ed,

Here's a Dooin that is listed on ebay. I couldn't copy the larger scan.
http://www.tonyetrade.com/ImageViewer.aspx?Size=O&PhotoID=3208&CompanyID=1

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-E90-1-Amer-Caramel-Red-Dooin-VG-SGC-40-/381876147796?hash=item58e9979654:g:gXQAAOSw5cNYR0Z n
I'm pretty sure it matches Stone (left hand) and there's a different Stone (left hand) that matches Phelps for a possible triple of Stone/Phelps/Dooin.

I enlarged the image but that makes it blurry so I drew a line where the scratch
is. The Dooin also has a break in the bottom left border in the same place as
Stone.
253367
253366

[Leon]

Nice legwork, Pat.
Nuances and print patterns are neat...

[irishdenny]

Seems We Have 3 Scratches Thru the Bat!

Pat R's 3rd Mr. Mathewson, Mike's Mr. Miller Fielding & my Mr. Stone's(LHV)!

I Wonder if We Keep Studying these if we Would Eventually be Able to Figure Out Weather THeY Came From the East or West Coast Produced Cards!?
Or at Least Separate the Production SiGHTs!?

I do Believe THaT Mr. Mark MaCrae 's Deep Due Diligence has brought ta LiGHT
Sum Really Cool Evidence! (imho anyways)

[Pat R]

It's been 1 1/2 years since the last post in this thread but here are a
few new ones to add to the list.

319586

319587

319588

319589

319590

There are two new chase scratches

this one

319591

and this one which is also an exact match with a new Clarke scratch

319592 319593

319594

some of the scratches are hard to see with the smaller scans
you can veiw larger scans using this link all of the newer scratches
are at the end of the album.
https://imageevent.com/patrickr/e901platescratches?n=0

[tiger8mush]

These are my only two E90-1s with plate scratches. Both are Tannehills, I have a couple others without. Sorry, doesn't appear that these are new additions to your list :(

[Pat R]

New one in Scott's auction a Groom that matches one of the Mathewson's
and one of the Stone (left hands).
329412
329413329414

[Pat R]

Here's another new scratch a Heitmuller that's in the LOTG auction.
It's an exact match with the Tannehill Rob posted a couple posts up.

333660

333661

[clydepepper]

Great thread Ed! I have nothing to add but I'll be following along.

I really don't have anything to add either, but I can't resist asking if all the scratches smell the same? :rolleyes:

,

[OLDBILL]

Although not very savvy about the T206's, are the scratches just on the backs? If so, is this related to the fact that just the fronts were coated during the lithography process?

[steve B]

Although not very savvy about the T206's, are the scratches just on the backs? If so, is this related to the fact that just the fronts were coated during the lithography process?


For both T206s and E90's, the scratches found so far and studied just happen to be on the backs.

They were printed from stones, which weighed a lot being 2-4 inch thick pieces of limestone. A bit of debris could scratch the stone, leaving an area that would now hold ink.


It's probable that the scratched ones were mostly backs for a few reasons,

The back stone got used for a much longer time- as we've seen, on multiple different front sheets.

Being single color, and an ad, the scratches probably didn't merit redoing the whole stone. A scratch creating a line of color on the front might have. (Plus, there were at least 6 front stones)


Not all front problems got fixed, and it's probable that each position can be identified. Generally a scratch will correspond with any flaws found on the front. A real find would be a front with a flaw that doesn't have the scratch on the back. That would mean that that particular exact subject/position was printed both before and after the scratch happened.

Pat would know better, but I don't think any have been found.

[judsonhamlin]

Joss pitching plate scratches

[Leon]

Nice info on the process...

For both T206s and E90's, the scratches found so far and studied just happen to be on the backs.

They were printed from stones, which weighed a lot being 2-4 inch thick pieces of limestone. A bit of debris could scratch the stone, leaving an area that would now hold ink.


It's probable that the scratched ones were mostly backs for a few reasons,

The back stone got used for a much longer time- as we've seen, on multiple different front sheets.

Being single color, and an ad, the scratches probably didn't merit redoing the whole stone. A scratch creating a line of color on the front might have. (Plus, there were at least 6 front stones)


Not all front problems got fixed, and it's probable that each position can be identified. Generally a scratch will correspond with any flaws found on the front. A real find would be a front with a flaw that doesn't have the scratch on the back. That would mean that that particular exact subject/position was printed both before and after the scratch happened.

Pat would know better, but I don't think any have been found.

[OLDBILL]

Yes, thank you Steve B! I was originally thinking that the front coating might have made it less vulnerable to scratches than scratches on the back. Although your explanation certainly seems the best, I was also thinking that the scratches might have occurred when the back pages were not cleanly lifted/removed/slid off the print plate.

Bill

[steve B]

That sort of mark does happen, but it's less common. Those are also usually inconsistent. They may be in the same general area, but hardly ever the same. I have some on modern cards, but not on older ones.

The stone would be dampened, inked, then it prints to a rubber roller that is what actually touches the sheet. Lots of stuff can happen there too. Like cracks in the rubber if it isn't changed when it needs to be. But those show as white lines. (It's also very uncommon. )