PDA

View Full Version : E104-1 New Variation?


Archive
01-22-2008, 05:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>I was examining my E104-1s and found these two examples for Dygert. Note the date at the top in one and at the right with the other. A similar variation is checklisted regarding the Thomas card in D359 Williams (but not Rochester), but not for Dygert. Does anyone else have the date at the right for any of their E104-1s?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1200958041.JPG">

Archive
01-22-2008, 05:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>Great find Richard! My d359 shows the date on the right. I hope others will check their collections and see which one they have. I would be interested in knowing which variation is more prevelent and if the same occurs with the d359's as well. <br /><br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/d359dygert.jpg"><br /><br />

Archive
01-22-2008, 05:49 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>On Richard's example to the right, the "C" of Champion is touching the black border; on the left it is lower down. There was some repositioning done as the one with "1910" at the top just looks too crowded. But which one came first?

Archive
01-22-2008, 07:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I would guess that the 'Date on top of the head' version came first.<br /><br />My only reason is - 'over the head' is a crappy positioning for the date. I couldn't imagine taking the type that was positioned to the right and deciding to try to squeeze it in over the guys head. I could imagine someone trying to 'fix' that version and moving the type off to that spot on the right.<br /><br /><br />edit:<br />call me silly, but the period after the year 1910 (in both versions) also leads me to believe that the 'over the head' positioning came first. The period looks like it belongs in the over-the-head version because it is part of a grouping of words. The period is out of place if the 1910 is by itself. But it is there because that block of type was pulled from the top and moved down to the right middle. The person who did this could have easily eliminated the period but did not. But I don't think the period would be there at all if the first spot for the date was the middle right. (I guess its a stretch - but it makes sense to me)

Archive
01-22-2008, 07:32 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>Please show your Dygert e104's or d359's. Here is the other know variations in the set...<br /><br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/e104thomas.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/d359thomas.jpg"><br /><br />

Archive
01-22-2008, 07:41 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My lonely 3 D359's have the date at top....<br />I have no Dygerts....sorry....<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1200966026.JPG">

Archive
01-22-2008, 07:41 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Joe- that makes sense. The top looks too crowded, so they made the decision to air it out and create a little more room. I'll buy it.

Archive
01-22-2008, 07:52 PM
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>my one and only.<br /><br />pete in mn<br /><br /><img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/ullmandds/davisd359fr.jpg">

Archive
01-22-2008, 08:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Ed Hans</b><p>Here's my only D359.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.thecybersource.com/~edhans/d359.jpg">

Archive
01-22-2008, 09:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>What about T208-Cullivan's Fireside? Too scarce to determine if there are variations?

Archive
01-22-2008, 09:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I was digging through my collection of Just So's and T231 Fans cards today and found some remarkable variations. Well, maybe not. You have a remarkable collection, Richard, and I am envious. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Keep the information coming. And if you ever feel like posting scans of some of your cards, I'm sure we'd all love to see them.

Archive
01-23-2008, 07:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Scott Mosley</b><p>Great catch on that Richard!<br /><br />It looks like a definite variation because my D359 Dygert has the date on the top of the card.<br /><br />Scott<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jillmay5/baseball/Type/D359_Rochester_Dygert_Front.JPG">

Archive
01-23-2008, 08:45 AM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>REA's 2004 auction has the Dygert T208 with 1910 next to his head. As Leon's example has it at the top (albeit a different player)it appears theoretically possible it can be found both ways on Cullivan's Fireside as well. Interesting that an issue as obscure and scarce as T208 could have a variation in printing (or were they both on the same sheet?).<br /><br />VCP shows 17 of the 18 cards in the set and has dates both top and side in their photos, which would be a random sampling. Bobby would have to confirm the fronts are indeed Cullivan's (no reason to think they're not) but both show up on VCP.<br /><br />Old Cardboard's example shows date at top, as does Lipset's book (Morgan in both cases). 2007 Standard Catalog has the same T208 as VCP, Thomas date on side. 2005 Beckett Almanaxc has Bender with what appears to be date on top (small picture makes it hard to tell) but also matches VCP. Again, you have to take it on faith the Cullivan's cards are shown and not the other fronts.<br /><br /><a href="http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/163.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/163.html</a>

Archive
01-23-2008, 12:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/thurber51/.Pictures/D359/Mack.JPG"><br /><br />Here is a Mack with the year to the right. I formerly owned Dygert, Lapp and Thomas with the year to the right.