|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Seth B.</b><p>I'd love to hear about how caramel cards were printed; has anyone ever seen an uncut sheet? <br />The reason I ask is that I was just thinking about caramels tonight. How is it that a single common-player card can be shortprinted in a larger set, such as the E90-1 Mitchell? I understand with the T206 Wagner where the card was only printed in one series or removed from subsequent print runs. But without a card being deleted by the printer from later print runs, wouldn't you think that a sheet of cards, not a single card, would be short printed? And does that mean that there are actually just as many (or few) Duffys, Stahls, Peaches Graham, and other rare E90-1s than the Mitchell? The E102 Miller Fielding doesn't make any sense, either.<br />I know I must be missing something, someone enlighten me.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The backs of the E90-1 cards adv. a set of 100; but, we know there are 120 in this<br /> set. I think the additional 20 cards were issued as the last series and these cards<br />reflect trades (Cy Young, Keeler, etc) and Mgr changes (Duffy) made in 1910; and,<br /> these 20 cards were short-printed.<br /><br />The Mitchell (Cinc) was included in this last series as well as other tough cards like<br />Speaker, Sweeney (Boston), Upp, etc. There was a really great Thread on the E90-1<br /> set a few months back and if you do a search, I am sure you will find it quite informative.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Seth B.</b><p>Hey Ted,<br />Thanks, yeah, I remember the E90-1 thread well. I'm using the E90-1 set as an example, but I guess my question is more, can there be a single shortprinted card from a larger set? <br />How does a short print card come into existence if not for a shortprinted sheet, and if that's the case, can there be a single rarest card from a set like the E90-1? Or are there 20 (assuming a sheet was 20 cards for the variations and short-prints) equally rare cards, it's just that the Mitchell has gotten the most press.<br />In other words, the T206 Wagner shortprint is easy to explain for exterior causes. But what in the printing process alone makes a single card and not a sheet-set of cards shortprinted?<br /><br />I hope that makes some sense.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>It stands to reason that a less popular player in a short printed group would, perhaps, be more likely to be discarded than a star player. As many collectors are aware, many cards were lost to the paper drives during the World Wars. <br /><br />Patrick
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Possibly the company used certain cards as chase cards so you would buy more packs, carmels, candies, cigarettes , etc? Joe<br><br>A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Another thing to note on most of the scarce E90-1 is the artwork looks a little different than on the more common cards. If there was an additional sheet issued that contained these scarce cards, it is possible that a different artist was used to design them. It's a subtle difference, but I've heard this from several different collectors.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Barry<br /><br />Half of the 20 cards added to the original 100 cards of the E90-1 set do exhibit a<br /> somewhat different "close-up" look than most of action portrayals of the players in<br /> this set. Duffy, "Peaches" Graham, Mike Mitchell, and Cy Young (Clev) for example.<br />Also, these cards have just plain colorful backgrounds. So, your comment may well<br /> be true.<br /><br />Here is a list of the 20 cards that I think were added to this set; and, for unknown<br /> reasons were definitely short-printed (as compared to the 1st 100 cards in the set).<br /><br />Fred Clarke........2nd card....corrected team to Pittsburgh<br />Hugh Duffy........Became Manager of Chicago (AL) in 1910<br />George Gibson....2nd card (back view)....Pittsburgh<br />Jerry Upp..........1-year career with Clev. (in 1909)<br />Ed Walsh...........Chicago (AL)<br />Vic Willis...........Traded to St Louis (NL) in 1910<br />Cy Young..........2nd card....traded to Clev. in 1909<br /><br />Boston Players excluded in the 1st Series....<br /><br />Peaches Graham (NL)<br />Ed Karger (AL)<br />Dave Shean (NL)<br />Tris Speaker (AL)<br />Jake Stahl (AL)<br />Bill Sweeney (NL)<br /><br />Cincinatti Players excuded in the 1st Series....<br /><br />Larry McLean<br />Mike Mitchell<br /><br />All 5 Horizontal cards in set I think were printed in Last Series....<br /><br />Buster Brown.......Boston (NL)<br />Charlie Hall..........Boston (AL)<br />Addie Joss..........1910 was his last year (2nd card)<br />Willie Keeler........depicted as NY Giant (3rd card)<br />Johnny Seigle......Cinc.<br /><br /><br />Note....On the Horiz. cards I am not as certain about Hall and Seigle;<br />but, then I cannot come up with two more cards to this list.<br /><br />Anyone want to venture some other candidates to this "toughies" list ? <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>I think the chase card theory would be out the window because there is no checklist or numbering system for the cards. Without the checklist or numbering you would have no way of knowling exactly how many cards you need to finish your set. thus you wouldn't know you need a Mitchell if you never saw one.<br /><br />Lee
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ted- That seems like a very accurate listing of the 20 toughest cards, but among the other 100, there are some I believe that are considered a bit tougher than others. If all of these 100 were issued in equal numbers, then there are still a few mysteries. If the 100 were issued on several sheets, as I am sure is the case, then it is likely that some may be printed in larger or smaller quantities. Without the presence of any sheets, we can only speculate. Incidentally, there is a complete uncut sheet of E93 known in the hobby, and all 30 cards are on it, so that is a set in which every card was printed in equal numbers.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>Ted - I read with great interest your listing of the 20 add-on E90-1's. I have always felt that the Bemis card was of the same design as the late issues as well. Likewise, the Bescher is very tough and may also be of the late design type. Wondering about your thoughts on these two cards. Paul
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>B.C.D</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>1. You are all assuming a monolithic printing. I know for a fact that Exhibit cards were replaced during print runs with other cards. Some short prints may result when the manufacturer pulls a card and replaces it. <br /><br />2. Since there are no uncut sheets, you are also assuming that a sheet = a set. It may not be so. I've seen miscuts from some T sets from the era and they show players lined up top to bottom or side to side (for example, the two-named cards in T206 with the same names showing). It may be that some cards were duplicated on the sheets. <br /><br />3. Far be it from a business to stoop so low as to do this, but perhaps certain cards were shorted in order to keep the tykes coughing up their allowances on more candy chasing the sets...
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Paul K.<br /><br />I started collecting this set in the 1980's and completed it by the early 1990's.<br />Then sold it in the late '90s; so, it's been quite a while since I last had my cards<br /> to look at and refresh my mind. Can you post scans of Bemis and Bescher ?<br /><br />I should be able to tell you at a glance if they are part of the "tough twenty".<br />Which, if they are, I would then have to go back to the drawing board and re-think<br />my list of cards.<br /><br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>Here you go Ted -<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1152213789.JPG">
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>PAUL K.<br /><br />I think you might be right about about Bescher, he looks like one of the more <br />difficult cards in putting my set together. And, maybe I was lucky, but Bemis<br />I acquired early in the game.<br /><br />ADAM W.<br /><br />I am not sure what you mean by a "monolithic printing" ? But, we do know this....<br /><br />1st....The Amer. Car. (E90-1 & E90-2) sets consists of 120 cards and 11 cards,<br />respectively. The Crofts (E92) set consists of 50 cards. They were all produced<br />in Philadelphia and NO uncut sheets are known to exist.<br /><br />2nd....The only uncut sheet that has been discovered is a 30-card sheet of E93<br />cards which comprises the entire set (produced in Lancaster, PA).<br /><br />My speculation is that the E90-1 set was possibly produced in 3 Series, consisting <br /> of 50-card + 50-card + 20-card sheets. Or perhaps, 3 x 40-card sheets.<br /><br />Your comparison of the T206 "vertical miscuts" to E-type cards does not apply.<br /> <br /> The T206 printing process was quite different than the Caramel one; and, it still<br /> remains a real mystery, as no uncut sheets of T206's have ever been found.<br /> And, that in itself is even a bigger mystery, considering the extensive amount<br /> of T206 cards that were produced and the millions that have survived. <br /><br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I haven't owned many e90-1s but I have or once owned Bemis and Bescher. As Ted said, either I got lucky or they aren't that hard to find.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Growing old is not optional, growing up is.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>What I am suggesting is that absent a complete uncut sheet it is possible that the "set" was printed in any number of ways, depending on how the sheets were configured: with double prints, with short prints, with cards removed from print runs or added to them, etc. Absent a sheet like the one referenced, no one can say for certain. As far as the T cards, my example was merely that, an example of a situation where we can pretty safely conclude that a sheet had more than one of the same card on it.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I think Adam may be correct that some cards may have been removed from their sheet during production to make room for newly added players. That is a common practice and it may explain why some of the cards have varying degrees of scarcity.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I'd love to see one of the modern card makers make a true "living" set that Pro Set orignally planned doing when they appeared on the scene. No need for manufactured scarcity. Pro Set originally planned to removed players from the set as they were injured and replaced by new players, or traded to a new team. <br /><br />Building sets would a challenge and there would be no way knowing in advance what the rarities are going to be. We will never see this because most people that collect new cards are too sued to getting what they want on demand. Actually having to take time to put together a set would be too inconvient for them.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Growing old is not optional, growing up is.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Adam W<br /><br />I forgot to respond to your 3rd comment (post 7/6 2:20 PM).....without card #s<br />there is no way that the kids back then were tricked into buying more cards.<br />First, and foremost of all, I am sure they were more interested in the Caramel<br />candy; and 2nd, the backs of the cards told them they initially needed to collect<br />100 different cards for a complete set.<br /><br />However, your premise was certainly true when Gum cards came along. Goudey<br />was one of the 1st to play "marketing tricks" on kids by omitting 22 Low # cards<br />in their early Series of their 1933 BB issue. And, I know you are very familiar with<br />the 1948 Leaf Boxing set where they skip-numbered the 50 cards in that set.<br />Leaf again skip-numbered their 1949 BB set, advertising a 168 card set, that<br />actually had only 98 cards. <br /> <br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>BARRY<br /><br />You noted the 30-card E93 sheet and it prompted me to re-consider this, perhaps<br />the E90-1 set was also produced with 30 card sheets (many of the Caramel sets<br />were produced in the greater Philadelphia area). That would result in a nice even<br /> 4 x 30 = 120 cards<br /><br />So, instead of just the 20 tough cards that I have listed above, there are really 30.<br />And, I am sure there are E90-1 collectors on this Forum that could add a few more<br /> "toughies" to my list of 20.<br /><br />And, as the caption information (teams, mgr. changes, etc.) dates most of these<br /> cards as having been produced in 1910; we can be certain that these cards were<br />on the final sheet. And, as the history BB card production has showed us.... more<br />often than not....cards on last (or Hi#) sheets are very often short-printed (relative<br /> to the earlier printed cards in a given set). <br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Ted Z wrote: "Goudey was one of the 1st to play "marketing tricks" on kids by omitting 22 Low # cards in their early Series of their 1933 BB issue."<br /><br />I didn't know this. Can you explain further? How did you come by this information?<br /><br />Thanks in advance.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ted- assuming the E90-1 were neatly issued in four 30 card sheets, it still doesn't explain the 100 different cited on the backs of the cards. Were some cards double printed, or were 20 new ones added after the fact as players got traded? We still haven't nailed this one down.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>cmoking<br /><br />Card #s 97, 98, 99, 128, 129, and 142 were not available until the next to last Series<br />of the '33 Goudeys were issued. This Series (48 cards) numbering from #190 - 231<br />and including the above listed 6 lower #s was the first group of Goudeys in this set<br /> to omit the "Big League Chewing Gum" strip at the bottom front of each card.<br /><br />The final Series of 24 cards (known as the 1933 World Series sheet) include low<br />numbers (#107 - 114 and #121 - 127) along with cards #232 - 240. These 24 cards<br />were issued in November (or early Dec.) of 1933 and the information on their backs<br /> reflect the player's performance in the 1933 W.S. between the Giants and Washington.<br /><br />If you do the math....you will see that there are 21 cards. And, the 22nd card of course<br />is Lajoie (#106) that was not issued until the Hi# Series of 1934 Goudeys were available.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Barry<br /><br />Recall the 1949 Bowman set which advertised on the backs of each card that there<br />would be 240 cards. But, as we all know there are actually 252 cards. And, that<br />was because they were printed on 36-card sheets and the set comprised 7 sheets.<br />....36 x 7 = 252<br /><br />Similarly, the designers of the E90-1 initially thought 100 Subjects would be a nice<br />round number to begin with. But, if the 30-card sheet theory is correct, they had to<br /> "scramble" and come up with 20 more cards to fill out the last sheet. And, indeed<br /> several of these cards are 2nd depictions of players already in the set.<br /><br />The real mystery in my mind is why so many Boston (AL & NL) players and also Cinc.<br /> players were not included in this set until this final Series ?<br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Ted, thanks. When you mentioned low numbers, I thought you were speaking of cards #1 through 52. Those are the ones normally considered low numbers in the 1933 Goudey set. They did hold back cards 107-114, 121-127, 232-240 and 106 Lajoie as you mentioned. By the way, the last series depicting the 1933 World Series players were 'published' in late December, 1933. <br /><br />Sheet 9 contained 97-99, 128-129, 142 and 214-231. These cards were printed in late September, 1933, only a few weeks after sheet 6-8, which were printed in early September. <br /><br /><br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>andy becker</b><p>it is also possible that a part of a printing plate was damaged, resulting in some cards being so poorly produced that they were culled out at the factory level.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>cmoking<br /><br />I rushed to respond to your prior query and I switched the 8th and 9th sheets.<br />Yes, the SIX LOWER #s (since you are being "nit-picking"....not the 6 Low #s)<br /> #97....#128 were printed on the 9th sheet along with cards #214 - 231. Thanx<br />for correcting me.<br /><br />Anyhow, its my understanding that the 24 cards on sheet 8 were issued in August<br />and the 9th sheet in September. Again, these 48 cards were the 1st group of Goudeys<br /> that did not have the "Big League" strip. So, I do not agree with your source that<br /> sheets 6 - 8 were issued together as a Series, or issued in September. The cards<br />on sheets 6 & 7 nclude the Big League strip on the bottom front of the cards.<br /><br />Also, the availability of the 24 cards in the 10th (W.S.) sheet has been debated<br />as either late November or December; so, once again (at the risk of repeating myself)<br />you are being "nit-picking".<br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Call me nit-picker, I don't mind. I like to get facts right and things straight. I'll start a new thread later about the timing of the 33 Goudeys with evidence.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Paul- When I first started collecting the set many years ago, every publication I read on the cards in the set listed (at that time) Bemis as a very tough card in the set. Since Bemis has the same design in the E92 set and that card is plentiful (relatively speaking)and has the same front in other sets, perhaps collectors are recognizing the front of the E-90-1 Bemis and thinking it is not that tough because they have seen it so many times (?) When I put the set together, I did think it was a tough card....<br />tbob
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>cmoking<br /><br />I am really easy to get along with......but I don't understand where you are coming<br />from. Your earlier post seemed like a SINCERE question to my prior post regarding<br /> 1933 Goudey "marketing tricks". Here is your query.....<br /><br />cmoking.....10:10 AM <br /><br />>>Ted Z wrote: "Goudey was one of the 1st to play "marketing tricks" on kids by<br /> omitting 22 Low # cards in their early Series of their 1933 BB issue."<br /><br />I didn't know this. Can you explain further? How did you come by this information?<<<br /><br />So, I replied with information that I did not "dream up"; but, I recalled from an excel-<br />lent article on this set that Lew Lipset wrote (and depicted with the 10 uncut sheets<br /> from this set). <br />And, in response you come back like a "lawyer", who is challenging my information....<br />Information you clearly had knowledge of.....this bothers me....can you explain this ?<br /><br />T-Rex Ted<br /><br /> <br /> <br /><br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Ted, I need time to put together the scans to show what I think are the correct print dates. I have nothing against you - in fact, I respect your info greatly and always read your posts carefully. I may disagree with you, but it doesn't change the fact that I do respect your thoughts in the hobby. Anyway, give me some time to put my scans together so you can see what I am trying to say.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>cmoking<br /><br />Fine.....I will look forward to your information on this set. Since the early '80s, I<br /> have completed 2 sets of 1933 Goudeys. A real nice condition one and a Vg set.<br />So, I will be very interested.<br /><br />But, can I suggest that you start a new Thread....instead of continuing your post<br />on this one; as, it should have a more broader appeal.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>here's the <br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1152298446/last-1152298446/1933+Goudey+-+printing+of+different+series" target="_blank">new thread on the 1933 Goudey set</a> <br /><br />BTW, compared to you, I am a new collector. Not only of the 1933 Goudey set, but of all cards. So I look forward to any thoughts you have based on your experience.<br /><br />I hope you will also note that I was not "sand-bagging" you. The question I posed was about the low numbers being held back. It sounded like you meant the some of the low-numbers (1-52) were held back by not being all put in the packs at the time of the distribution of the other cards in the same sheets. So I thought you meant - for example - that card #3 wasn't distributed with the rest of the cards in sheet 1, but was distributed with cards in sheet 10 ... or something funky like that. Anyway, I won't bring that up in the new thread, as my confusion is not relevant to that thread.<br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>Bob - I personally found Bemis to be very tough in anything but beat condition, and I think that the POP reports back me up on this. I seem to recall that Lipset mentioned that the Bemis card was not even known to collectors until the mid 1960's. Perhaps you are right about a mis-identification with the E92 set.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>cmoking: please don't take Ted Z's comments to heart. He really can not help it. You see? Ted is an Engineer, so when he is correct, he simply is paying attention to detail, as is typical. However, when he is wrong - you are nit-picking.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>GIL<br /><br />It wasn't anything regarding who is right and who is wrong.....I simply thought it was<br /> sort of nit-picking for someone to be critical of my use of the word "LOW #s", when<br /> perhaps I should have used the word "LOWER #s"......that's it, period......let's just<br />forget it.<br /><br />I mean, really, I have seen members commit more blatant grammer and spelling errors<br />than this on this Forum and others haven't "jumped" all over them.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I too am an Engineer, Ted. And I take offense at your inference that I could have erred in my assessment. Are you nit picking my comments?<br /><br />Its Only Cards, and Im Only Gil
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>GIL<br /><br />You are a diehard Giants fan and I am a diehard Yankee fan; and, if we could back in<br /> that "time machine" of yours to the Fall of 1951....we would have been "busting each<br />others chops" over that magic season and the resulting World Series between our two<br /> teams. And, I would have had the last laugh....Ha !<br /><br />Have a nice weekend, guy.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>You are a great sparring partner, my friend. And I always see you smiling ear to ear.<br /><br />Have a good weekend.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>What's the theory behind the Mitchell?
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Paul Kaufman<br /><br />I've done some more research and I'm now expanding the scarcity of certain players<br />as a function of team in this set. We have already identified most of the Boston cards.<br /> If you recall either you or Scott Gross noted in the prior lengthy Thread on the E90-1<br />set, that besides Mike Mitchell, most Cincinnati players appear to be tough (Fromme,<br /> Lobert, McLean, Seigle). Therefore, I agree with you that Bescher belongs in the tough<br /> category.<br /><br />Furthermore, I am including Cleveland players in this list who were not depicted in the<br />early Series and ended up in the tough last Series. This list includes tough cards of Joss,<br /> Lajoie, CYoung (Clev).....and yes.....your Bemis.<br /><br />I have initiated a new Thread (which modifies my previous thinking of 20 tough cards)<br />to 30....I refer to them as the "Dirty Thirty"; because we have to do a lot of digging<br /> to come up with them. Also, this is consistent with my new theory that the E90-1 cards<br />were printed on 30-card sheets.<br /><br />This new Thread is in the form of a survey and I hope we get some good inputs.<br /><br />Thanks again for your contribution....you certainly know your E90-1 set. <br />
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>Is it possible that the Mike Mitchell card is no tougher than any of the other so-called "tough" E90-1's ? The POP reports indicate that it is not any tougher than some of the other known scarcities in the set. It is possible that by word of mouth, it was perceived to be scarce and that Lipset continued that perception of the card in his noted work? Several Mike Mitchell's have been graded and it seems like an equal number show up for sale that appear to have been trimmed somewhere along the way.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Paul K.<br /><br />Your "Trimmed Mitchell cards", might be our "key" to why they are scarcer than other<br />cards in the last Series. Please refer to my "new thinking" regarding this card and<br /> also others like Duffy, Speaker, Bill Sweeney, Walsh, etc in my "Dirty Thirty" thread<br /> and I would appreciate your response to this.<br /><br />Also, I have found that the POP report can be mis-leading; since all it essentially<br />reflects is a "sellers market". That is....the data can be skewed by the greater #<br />of Stars (or Big $$ cards) that are being Graded as opposed to commons, just simply<br />due to that's where most of the collector action is. Set collectors likeyou and I and<br /> others are a "vanishing breed".<br /><br />Now, where an indication of a really scarce card can be gleaned from a POP report<br /> is when a a particular "Big $$" card has a Low # on this report. Then, I would tend<br /> to think that this combination of factors really reflects a high level of scarcity.<br /> <br />Ted Z
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>Ted- I understand your thoughts about the POP reports being slanted towards having more cards submitted as the price of a particular card goes up. I was just using the reports to buttress my theory that the Mike Mitchell is not really all that rare, and that you even see more examples of the card that are not gradeable.<br /><br />The slant cut of the E90-1 cards is not that uncommon at all in my experience.....and they seem to be totally acceptable as long as the top and bottom cuts are parallel. I am not sure I agree with your premise that the slant cut cards were discarded at the time of printing. There are many, many of these slant cut cards out there of varying degress of "slant". Perhaps even up to 20% of the total E90-1 population.<br /><br />On another point, I don't know why it is totally unbelievable that Amer. Caramel Co. changed the background color of the Keeler portrait so that his facial tone (pink) would contrast more with the new background color (red) ?
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Paul- that is a reasonable explanation, which means the pink was printed before the red. That could be the case; they simply didn't like the look of the card and felt it needed more contrast. Re: the Mitchell, in years past it was always considered the rolls-royce of candy cards; but as the hobby matured, it became clear that while it is a rare card there are probably tougher ones just in the E90-1 set alone. Many collectors feel Walsh, for one, is tougher. There may be others. The problem is every collector who was close to finishing a set probably needed a different last card, so much of it is subjective.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>Barry - I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that everyone has a slightly slanted perception of what the tough E90-1 cards are based solely on their own experience. I recall reading from TBOB that he easily found a McLean in very nice shape when he was putting the set together a few years ago. (Wish I had his McLean right now) I also agree with your thoughts on the Walsh, and would put the Duffy, Speaker and Wagner Throwing right up there with it !
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>I think Ted's point re: POP reports is a salient one. You can look up and down the T206 pop reports and many times see more "scarce" cards graded than commons, which (as Ted points out) means that probably most known "scarce" cards are graded versus a small percentage of the commons. These POP #s are, therefore, not indicative of "true" populations.
|
I don't understand the E90-1 Mitchell
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>cobby33<br /><br />Our minds are on the same track.....my 1st observation that these POP reports<br />are not really reflective of the relative scarcity of cards in a given set were<br />based on studying the T206 reports. Not only the absolute POP # for a particular<br />card; but, mis-leading column which lists how many (if any) cards are Graded higher.<br /> <br /><br />Paul K.<br /><br />Back in the early 1980's (when Caramel cards were not as popular and well understood)<br /> articles were comparing the E90-1 Mike Mitchell as the Wagner of the Candy Card sets.<br /> Therefore, a "myth" surrounding this card was born. And, you could acquire this card for<br /> a mere $200 back in 1982. There was one BB card mag. that provided advice on BB card<br /> investing and Mitchell was listed in the top 5. I wish I would have taken that author's<br />advice and bought more of them back then. I now could have sold them and offset the<br /> losses on my Lucent stock.<br /><br />Paul.....to a certain degree this card has been "hyped" over the years and perhaps you<br />are right, Mitchell isn't as tough to find when compared to Duffy, Keeler (NY Giants),<br /> Speaker, Bill Sweeney and Walsh.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:09 PM. |