[G1911]

There are five series in question:

E95 - Black backs, set of 25 baseball players.

E96 - Red backs, set of 30 baseball players. It notes on the backs that the previous series was 25 cards and this makes for 55 total subjects.

E79-1 - Black backs, set of 21 cards (the 27 scrappers refers to an odd accounting of the boxers featured and not the count of actual cards).

E79-2 Red backs, same 21 fronts as above. These cards are truly rare.

E80 44 Scrappers, 11 cards continuing the E79 series, in red backs. These cards are tough, but more common than the E79 type 2’s. Some consider them and E79 type 2 to really be one issue though this thesis is not proven.




I know of 2 proven points of crossover between the pugilists and baseball players.

1) There was an advertisement piece featuring the art on the James J. Jeffries card and Ty Cobb’s cards, with a script naming in the backgrounds. These 2 cut cards appear occasionally, though they are not easy, and are fairly well known.

2) This E96 Baker (not my card) shows that adjacent to Baker was an E79 type 2 card, with part of its back visible on the reverse

Thus we know that 1) they were advertised together and 2) for at least part of production, some of these subjects were clearly on the same sheets and produced together. While the backs indicate intent to collect as separate series, it appears they weren’t completely produced or even marketed as separate series, and should perhaps not be looked at in isolation.

What is very unusual is that E96 is a pretty common set. PSA has graded over a thousand E96’s and ever card is available any day and every day. E79 type 2’s are rare; I have half the set and that is a significant number in boxing land. If they were on the same sheet as E96 for long, even if, say, E96 had 4 copies of each card on the sheet and only 1 card of each boxing subject, E79 red backs would be far, far more common than they actually are. The art styling also differs. E96 portrays feminine renditions of its male subjects with bright red cheeks and lipstick, E80 does so to some extent but not as much as E96 (check the Lajoie card out). E79 is missing this artistic aspect.

I’m hoping someone else may have more useful information or we can use as a springboard to better explore these sets and the evidentiary basis for what we do know.

Specific Questions:
1) Does anyone have or have a picture of an E95 miscut showing a boxing back or front adjacent?

2) Does anyone have a Philadelphia Caramel wrong back or upside down back showing one of the other sets (not looking for the E75/E101/E102 cards)?

3) Are there other E96’s like this Baker that can be shown?

4) Is there any E96 advertising piece known?

5) Is there evidence for the 1909 issue date of E95 generally prescribed? What is it?

6) Does anyone have an image of a miscut, wrong back, or upside down back showing a non-sport subject?

7) Does anyone have an image of uncut Philadelphia Caramel material?