Nice thread. Nothing new to add to your lists, but I did want to point out (or re-point, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread), that because the various E92 images were used in multiple other sets, the blank back cards on your list probably can never be conclusively identified as belonging to one of the E92 group of sets.

Even if you discount the E105 Mello Mints as being the source of the blanks, due to their thinness of paper, there are still the E90-1, E101, E102, and E106 cards that share the same images as what is seen on your blank backs list. Each subject on the list has between 1 to 4 possible other sets that the blank back could be from, and this doesn't include the D303 sets (not sure of their thickness) nor the T216's (which I believe at least some are thin).

Always appreciate a research thread like this one...keep the nose to the grindstone!

Brian

Brian, you are absolutely correct that we can't definitively say the blank backs are e92, however I believe there is some pretty strong circumstantial evidence to point to them being so. Below are they various related sets and why they are/are not possible.

E105 - easiest to rule out, different size, thinner card stock.

E106 - glossy stock that frequently cracks, of the blank backs I've seen, none seem to have the glossy stock or crackling effect, multiple confirmed players are not in set such as Dougherty, Davis, McLean

D303 - multiple confirmed players do not exist in the set including Dougherty, Davis, McLean

T216 - there are separate known t216 blank backs, my understanding they were identified based on a slightly different card stock. These were all originally sold through Goodwin and their aite is now down. Also, some players like Crawford, have minor differences in captions which distinguish t216 from e92. The blank back Crawford referenced has the same captioning as the e92

E90-1 - some poses don't exist, Crawford pose is different, Davis is different, etc. See additional note below.

e102 - missing several players such as seigle and mclean

E101 - most likely alternative. The biggest issue I have ruling these e101 is the lack of other print defects that can certainly be traced to e101. While I've not actively looked, I personal don't recall ever seeing an e101 with misfit back, missing color, etc. I also wouldnt be surprised if eventually we determined e101 was a generic printing by the same printer as e92.

E92 - in my opinion the most likely suspect, all players with 1 exception, can be confirmed in the e92 sets. Also the e92 sets are littered with print errors that can be proved to be e92. There are misfit backs, upside down backs, wet on fronts, missing colors, front misfits, etc. Quite simply, the print quality was quite poor. As such I don't believe missing printing the back entirely would be that unrealistic. Given everything else, this is why I point to the e92s as the.most likely suspect.

One final note, all of the above assumes the blank backs are from the same set, which ia not guaranteed. From memory I believe there is 1 blank back that is definitely from e90-1 as the pose is not in any other set. I just can't recall off hand who it was and I don't have a good way to check at the moment.

One other thought that I didn't realize until recently, at least with Davis, there are variations in the print characteristics of the card. By this I mean the colors printed on the front. The blank back i have has the same color.characterics such as the bluish dust cloud as both the blue and red croft candy. Sorry not sure how to post the scan from Flickr using my phone, if some one else wants to grab my scan they can.

The only certifiable E90-1 blank back is the Kraus card in my collection.

Paul is accurate in that he has the only known E90-1 blank back subject (Krause), because Krause is not seen in any other set but the E90-1.

I have removed E105 and E106 cards from the below list due to the points made. The below list shows the possible other sets (E90-1, E101 and E102) that these subjects are in besides the E92 sets.

Chase fielding: E101, E102
Crawford red: E101, E102
Davis sliding: E101
Dougherty: E90-1, E101, E102
Gibson back view: E101
Lajoie fielding: E101, E102
McGraw: E101
McLean: E90-1, E101
Miller fielding: E90-1, E101, E102
Schlei: E101
Seigle: E90-1, E101
Smith: E101, E102
Tinker batting: E101, E102
Wagner throwing: E90-1, E101, E102
Zimmerman: E101, E102

As you can see, besides all these cards being in the E92 sets, they are all also in the E101. With Paul's E90-1 Krause showing that it is possible for E90-1 cards (and thus other sets) to have blank backs, I think we can only narrow things down to the above list, unless there are some recognizable printing differences between sets of the same subject.

Just like tobacco cards and blank backs being seen in all the major sets, my guess is that E90-1, E101 and E102 could possibly be the source of these blank backs.

Everybody have fun trying to figure all this blank back action out!

Brian

Here's a McGraw blank back from Goodwin. It says T216 on the holder, but I bought it as a non-advertisement card for the back run. In other words, I don't need any more blank backs for my back run. It sort of looks like a T216, I guess...

my approach is different for my miller run...I feel it is not complete without both the e92 and the t216 bb's...just my preference.

Then again, the front captions are different...Pitt for e92 St Louis for t216.

Disclaimer...the e92 posted is not mine!

Pete, do you also have the Crawford T216 blank back?I can't remember if it is you or someone else.

i do believe i do!

in retrospect i wish I bought them all!!!!

If I remember correctly there is a space in the c. f. that distinguishes it from the e92/e101 example shown above.

that I am NOT aware of?

You have an extended dance mix going with the Miller run. I would call my McGraw run a radio edit run. Plus, McGraw was mostly NY Giants thru the e and T card series, so the captions I assume are all the same for McGraw.

First off, great work on these back combinations, DJ!!

As for the T216 McGraw, does it have a glossy front? I would go with the Goodwin assessment because (as you and most others probably know) there were a lot of T216s he sold from a find, which were hand cut and blank backed.

Here are some I used to own, mostly from that find...

http://luckeycards.com/pt216x6miscutsfinal.jpg

Leon, yes the McGraw was from that same sale I think. The Gibson you had has similar scribbling on the back to the McGraw. I don't recall the backstory of the find. Looking at the card, I thought it also looks like an e106 with the gloss. Anyway, I'm glad I was able to get it at auction when I did.

just in...
 

SGC labeled "A" and they designate it on the flip "e101"

Blank backs
 

Chase is by far the most common Blank back

Here is the other blue Croft's Matty.

Nice combo there. I need me a blue back again!@

Just to add a bit of salsa picante to this potboiler, I hold an E92 Chase blank back PSA 7. But PSA, in their infinite wisdom, has labelled the flip E92 Crofts Candy. How did the grader deduce the blank-backed card he was examining was intended to be a Crofts Candy? Too much glue in the grading room? Oh PSA, you continue to disappoint.

You would think if a card was a blank back they would not differentiate what type they thought it was. Something like E92-Unc might be applicable.

Or how about a E92 Chase blank back? How do these people think?

Or the grader could have simply graded the card E92 blank back. There are others known. Too much of a stretch, I guess.

Blank back Knight.

Bump, updated the lists with my Bender and Bryan's Knight. Anything else to add?

Great thread! DJ, thanks for bumping indirectly- this will serve as a direct bump. DJ’s list already confirms a blue Crofts Cobb and Nadja Cobb, but there are no pics. And a tango eggs for good measure - same front so why not

Cool
 

Cool Ryan...used to own one of those...Jerry

Nice cards, Ryan. Love those backs!

Thanks Leon

Jerry, you probably owned at one time a fair percentage of all the rare stuff that gets posted here!

Thanks
 

Thanks Ryan...believe me your collection takes mine out in the parking lot and beats the crap out of it...Jerry

Had a board member ask me today if certain cards were known, so figured I would update and bump this thread. I know a number of blank backs have come up for sale in the past year or so and I haven't updated them so if anyone has additions to add to/remove from the lists please let me know.

I don't see the Bender white cap blank back listed on your original post.

Confirmed picture in Leons post #64 of this thread.

And yes, I would love to overpay somebody for that card if they own it.

EDIT: NVM, I've been made aware that is a T216 blank back (I'd still like to buy it though).

Phil, yes, that is my understanding as well and the reason I did not include it. This thread gives some clues on the differences between E92 and T216 blank backs: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=198503