Archive
03-08-2009, 01:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Kenneth A. Cohen</b><p>This is probably basic stuff for seasoned E collectors - but I'm curious as to why E94 is not considered "anonymous" - as there is no company identification. How was it identified as George Close Candy? And why would the company go to the effort and expense of producing a card set, then not putting their name on it?
Archive
03-08-2009, 01:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Sometimes the E94s are found with an overprint on the back.<br><br>Mr. Lipset identifies 7 different overprints, most of which mention George Close Co. For this reason the issue has been associated with Close.<br><br>Mr. Lipset's Encyclopedia of Baseball Cards is a wonderful resource. Although a bit dated, its depth has not been met since publication. Volume 2 deals with early gum and candy cards. Well worth the purchase price.<br><br>FW
Archive
03-08-2009, 02:10 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I think it probably should be considered anonymous since the overprints only show up on about 1% of all E94s. My guess is that it was produced and used by a lot of venders and George Close was the only company that put an overstamp on them.<br>JimB