Calling E card experts

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>help from the E-card experts, please :<br /><br />Some of you experts riddle me this:<br /><br />The Bris Lord card was advertised by the seller (going by what SGC had told him) as a D359 Williams with back damage. But if the seller is correct that the damage is not skinning and the card was originally a blank back, why did SGC call it a D359 instead of a blank-back E104-1 with an overprint (as described under E104-1 in the Standard Catalog? Can anyone help with that?<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Tim<br /><br /><br />Here's the auction link:<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5215684999&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5215684999&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1</a><br /> <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Hi Tim;<br /><br />If it's a blank back, then it's an e104-1.<br />If it is a d359, why wouldn't be a Rochester?<br />Robert<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>maybe it's a skinned T208 <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />seriously, i'd guess the graders were sure it was skinned...although the fact that it was not being slabbed may have eliminated the need for definitive identification by sgc...regardless of what was printed on the flip

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Does the E104-1s come with World Champions on top and the 1910 date to the right? I am ignorant about the issue. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Some cards have the overprint "1910" and "World Champions" above the head or to the right of the body, etc. Just depends on the player.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>actually that's a good and obvious point.<br />aren't only a few players found with the overprint in the E104-1 versions

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Colt McClelland</b><p>All 18 of the E104-1 cards can be found with and without the overprint, see this site for examples with overprint:<br /><br /><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bbhtml/bbhome.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bbhtml/bbhome.html</a><br /><br />The versions with the overprint are much harder to find than without.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>i stand corrected.<br /><br />next time i'll open the book <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>According to Pete C's site,<br />Only the blank backs can be found with the "tagline" on the front.<br />The Nadja backs have only been found without.<br /><br />I assume all d359s have the overprinted front.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Colt McClelland</b><p>How is it known that the blank back E104's are in fact Nadja's? It seems logical that they could have been either an "anonymous" set similar to E98's or perhaps just as easily a blank back version of D359 or T208. Anyone know the history on this?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Colt.<br />Good point. I know it's been discussed here before, but I can't find the thread right now. Someone please remind us why Blank backed e104s are referred to as nadjas.<br /><br />Well, what makes the T208s T208s is the back and the same with D359s, so it's more likely (in my opinion) that it's a separate anonymous issue. <br /><br />If e98s were distributed by "old put," than perhaps e104-1s were distributed by "Swift" which is a stamp I've seen on several e104s and only e104s, although of course I'm half-way kidding because there's a big difference between a factory overprint and a stamp (which was probably put on by a collector. At any rate, blank backed issues with similar stamps on separate examples is kind of strange, huh?<br /><br /><br />This is the pic. of the stamp<br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1106244737" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1106244737</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>it's too confusing...these cards should all be avoided at all cost.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>about the Library of Congress website:<br /><br />1)The small number of 1909 Obaks pictured and the ones that were generally hammered, which ought to reinforce in everyone's minds how tough this set is and<br />2) The listing of the E104 set but none of the other caramel card sets of the era like E90-1 through E103.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Tbob makes an excellent point.<br /><br />edited to remove failed attempt at humour.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>To "murcerfan" or anyone else: No, don't avoid items that are questionable, just place common sense over $$$ and you'll be fine.<br /><br />I emailed the seller and when he told me it was blank on the back I knew the D359 tag was a dream feed by dollar signs. <br /><br />As for Colt's question the truth is we don't have any physical evidence that blank back E104 are just that. All anyone has the cards that are known and this is actually one of the questions about e-cards I've held for some time. There are some subtle difference in the name and team copy between E90-2s and E104-2s so if anyone has a D359 WITH the printed back and could send me a scan or just post a clear one, that would be a great help.<br /><br />I'm a little irked this card went low. For some reason esnipe decided to let me down. I wasn't going to pay D359 type numbers but the seller (or current winner-hint, hint, hint) would have done better had my bid gone through.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Mosley</b><p>Hey Pete, <br /><br />Great to see you posting occasionally!<br /><br />Here are some D-359 scans per your request.<br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jillmay5/baseball/Type/D359_Rochester_Dygert_Back.JPG"><br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jillmay5/baseball/Type/D359_Williams_Livingston_Back_Small.JPG"><br /><br />Hope to see you around at the National!<br /><br />Scott<br /><br />Edited to add front scans as well...<br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jillmay5/baseball/Type/D359_Rochester_Dygert_Front_Small.JPG"><br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jillmay5/baseball/Type/D359_Williams_Livingston_Front_Small.JPG"><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>I'm pretty certain that murcerfan was kidding when he recommended that they be avoided at all cost. <br /><br />He wants them all for himself! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Pete.<br /><br />my post about staying away from D359's and the like<br />was in jest...mostly to my pal Colt.<br /><br />will try to be more serious.<br /><br />edited for pic<br /><img src="http://www.sgccardregistry.com/images/cards/Item_145_9810_43.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>maybe Williams Baking realized that they pulled a Dan Quayle on the "Potatoe" spelling and decided to eliminate the back advertising after the first print run...<br /><br />and the E104-1 was born..or would that be D359-3

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Mosley</b><p>Not a bad explanation...<br /><br />I still think the reason you are having such a hard time finding those Rochester cards is because they were all turned in for megaphones... <br /><br />What kid in Rochester would turn down a megaphone over some card picturing a baseball player from Philadelphia? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>maybe them taters made the bread really lousy...I know I've never really been too big on heavy bread..although one might not guess that at first glance <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>