[x2drich2000]

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.