Evidence of E90-1 being printed before E102
 

A recent thread showed me that not all collectors understand what the first Caramel Issue was...it was the E90-1 American Caramel set issued in 1908...

Simple evidence proves this...
1. John Butler last played in 1907! Surely they wouldn't have made a e90-1 card of a common player after he didn't play an entire year! This card was made in spring 1908.....there are other examples that show e90-1 were from 1908

2. Dave Shean E102 was traded by Philly to Boston on July 16 1909 and he appears on Boston in his e102 so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the E102 set to have been made in 1908...this card was made in 1909

The Cobb rookie baseball card (not a team card or postcard) is e90-1

Founding fathers understood
 

Thus the ACC designation of 90 coming before 102....

It was known that a caramel issue was made in 1908 but for some reasons the TPG ignored the (correct) ACC designation and placed their own (incorrect) dates on the slabs....

CaramelMan: "Thus the ACC designation of 90 coming before 102...."

ACC designations aren't in chronological order.

Based on the team rosters printed on the back of the E91-A, these cards were was issued circa Summer 1908.


Based on several trades of players in the 1st series of the E90-1 set, this series was issued circa Winter of 1908.

The Cy Young (Boston AL) is certainly evidence of this 1908 date.


TED Z

[QUOTE
Simple evidence proves this...
1. John Butler last played in 1907! Surely they wouldn't have made a e90-1 card of a common player after he didn't play an entire year! This card was made in spring 1908.....there are other examples that show e90-1 were from 1908[/QUOTE]

They did the same thing with Seigle. The inclusion of these two subjects does not prove a pre-1908 date.

As Ed said this may be compelling but doesn't really prove anything. When dating sets it is very problematic to put any weight on a players last year with a particular team. The makers could be using outdated photos or information to compile the players for a set so nothing can be proven in that way. The BEST indicator for the dating of a set is finding a player that first played for a particular team in a particular year. For example the E121 Series of 80 set has multiple subjects that first played for the team listed in 1921 thus the set cannot date from before 1921 but could have been issued later than that. The rest of the subjects then cement the picture that it is in fact a 1921 set. The same analysis must be done with this set and then proven to be a 1908 set versus the date that has been used for years.

Main point was that e102 was printed in 1909 not 1908. So the e90-1 Cobb is older

They did the same thing with Seigle. The inclusion of these two subjects does not prove a pre-1908 date.[/QUOTE]

No but it proves a 1908 date and not a 1909 date

Re: Evidence of E90-1 being printed before E102
 

It doesn't prove anything of the kind. Johnny Siegle hadn't played for the Reds since 1906. Does that prove it's a 1907 issue? Not at all. It just proves that American Caramel missed a few. It don't doubt your hypothesis about the E102s, but nothing you've said proves that E90-1 was a 1908 issue. It may have been a very late 1908 issue, but I'm not aware of any conclusive evidence to prove this.