Amazing E95 Discovery

[ErikV]

As many on the board are probably aware, I'm a big Philadelphia Caramel
collector and researcher. Today I just uncovered a 104 year-old mystery.

Back in 2009 Heritage auctioned off this Ty Cobb E95 look alike with some
sort of advertising on the reverse including the words "Paste Drops, Jelly
Confections, Chocolates" and the like. See images below.

The following Philadelphia Caramel Advertisement dated May 1910 depicts the
same arrangement of words in almost exactly the same format. (Area shown
in red box.)

I have little doubt now that this Cobb was in fact part of a large advertisement
of perhaps 4 or 5 E95 cards and at some point was hand cut from the ad. With
today's discovery my theory that the E95 set was actually issued in 1910 seems
to have gained some credence. Wouldn't it have made sense that this new
promotion debuting in May 1910 would have fit right in to baseball's opening day
which began two weeks earlier on April 14, 1910?

Thoughts anyone?

ErikV

[4815162342]

Great discovery - thanks for sharing!

[petecld]

Very cool find.

I love the line, "...qualities from fair to superfine." Hate to know why some product was just considered "fair" quality. Talk about truth in advertising.

[JeremyW]

Very cool. It looks like there may have been room for two more cards.

[tiger8mush]

Very neat discovery Erik!

[caramelcard]

Nice Erik.

The flip side of the ad probably included Cobb and Jim Jeffries. (Adam Warshaw has the Jeffries on his site)

E95 set was probably issued in 1909 and continued into 1910.

Thanks for sharing the ad.

Rob

[Jobu]

Excellent find Erik - where did you come across the ad?

I do not know much about E95 - the writing "Cobb Detroit Amer." isn't typically found on E95, right? Are there any other known examples with writing like that?

Thanks.

[Jcfowler6]

Just an honest question. How do you justify the difference in format?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

I owned a blank-back version of this card. We always suspected that it was from a candy box.

[FirstYearCards]

Very interesting topic and not my area of familiarization, but I have to agree with Jon. Yes very similar advertisement, but off a bit. Can't assume card was from advertisement. Bill.

[Exhibitman]

Far out! Here's mine:

[ErikV]

This advertisement was located in the May 1910 issue of the periodical
"Confectioners Journal." Many of Philadelphia Caramel's ads were published in
this particular periodical.

I think a reasonable difference in format could have been that with the larger
name and team atop an ad would have made these properties more visible from
further away rather than having a small printed name and team at the bottom of
the picture that no one would be able to see. Just my opinion.

As far as dating the E95 set, I believe the key is Cy Morgan shown as a
Philadelphia Athletic on his E95 card. He was traded from Boston to Philly on
June 5, 1909. As mentioned in a previous post about how common E cards are,
many will agree the E95 set is a very easy and common set to collect. This
suggests to me that a large number of these cards were printed and distributed.
That in mind, Philadelphia Caramel issued the E95 set no earlier than mid-to-late
Summer 1909. Would a set like this have lasted thru the end of a baseball season,
all winter, all spring and into the following baseball season? Personally I believe it
fits better that a new promotion, which would have taken time to print,
package and distribute would have been better served being issued at the start
of the new baseball season, 1910.

Most collectors will say the E95 was issued in 1909 because that's what we've
always been told, but I think my theory fits as well as any I've heard yet.

ErikV

[Matvoo]

Very cool find!!!!

[Jcfowler6]

This is very interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

Great detective work! That ad in some slightly altered format certainly made up the back of your card. And it looks like that Jeffries could have been on the same sheet.

[orator1]

The two backs side by side:

[ullmandds]

nice work...i've always coveted that cobb...i'd love to have one!

[Jay Wolt]

Very cool thread, love the detective work

[Rickyy]

Great detective work. Nice cards too...always liked this series...

Ricky Y

[ethicsprof]

very,very interesting and great work, Erik!
also helpful computer work, Paul C.

all the best,
barry

[ErikV]

In following up from my original post from October 23rd, I found this note
this morning. It was from the May 1910 issue of Confectioners Journal.
I believe this discovery now provides a definitive issue date to both the E95
and E79 series issued by the Philadelphia Caramel Company.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ErikV

In following up from my original post from October 23rd, I found this note
this morning. It was from the May 1910 issue of Confectioners Journal.
I believe this discovery now provides a definitive issue date to both the E95
and E79 series issued by the Philadelphia Caramel Company.

Nice work Erik!!

[ErikV]

Someone just got ahold of me and asked if this notice is not referring to a
new(er) set as in the E96/E80 release. There is validity to this question. I'll
continue to investigate. At this point I'm pretty determined to find the answer.

ErikV

[brianp-beme]

I was just about to ask the same question. By the way the statement is worded, it definitely could be construed to indicate a new (another) series of boxer and baseball cards were being issued, which to me would indicate the E96 set (I am not too familiar with the vintage boxing issues).

Brian

[shammus]

Well, that's a strong theory for that particular Cobb and a solid find by Erik. But we haven't solved everything yet! What I'll bring to the table here is proof that there is in fact two different hand-cut e95 esque Cobbs with the script writing at the top. Here is the 2nd version - it actually has a blank back and if you look close at the borders, you can tell it was cut off of something red. Candy box perhaps?

If memory serves when I did my research before, there were two blank backed "Script Cobbs" and 1-2 ad-backed variants that were known.

photo 2.JPG

[Exhibitman]

What you have is a companion piece to mine:



The red is a border.

The boxing set with this pose is E79

[ErikV]

I don't own these pieces, but just to illustrate the connection between the E79s and E95s
and the E80's/E96s I'm posting these. To the far right of the E95 appears evidence
of a E79 back. To the far left of the E96 appears to be a E80 back. I believe these
show proof that both "series I" and "series II" sets were printed simultaneously. My
last post showing the blurb that the company was releasing ball players and prize fighters
lends strong evidence that E79/E95 or E80/E96 were distributed at the same time. The
Cobb and Jefferies were no doubt advertisement pieces promoting these up and coming sets.

I also just noticed the back of the E96 has the word "new" as does the short notice from
the periodical. Could the "new" sets being released have been referring to the E80/E96 sets?

Finally, the Philadelphia Caramel advertisement originally shown in the OP was used all
throughout 1910 and 1911 and may have been used prior as well. There is definitely more
research needed on this subject to pin down the exact time when the first sets of cards
were issued.

[Exhibitman]

Odds are that manufacturers would not have used Jeffries post-1910 to promote anything new, not after Jack Johnson whupped him on July 4th.

The E96/E80 mix seems clear from that card back and lends credence to a theory about print timing that I have long postulated for the E79-E80 issue. At first the different colored back prints threw me off, but I later thought I'd cracked the 'code' on the boxing cards. The E80 44-series back lists 44 subjects spread over 30 cards and the E79 back lists 19 different names and states that there are 8 other subjects. In actuality, the 27 E79 subjects are spread over 21 cards and there are only 11 cards known with the E80 44-series back. The 21 cards include a pair of “fist” cards showing the right and wrong way to clinch a fist. The fist cards are not listed on the seemingly complete E80 backs but without them the E79 count comes up short. I have verified that all 21 cards with the E79 27-subject backs are found in both red and black back print. What I have long thought happened--and what that miscut back suggests--is that E79 was made first with black inked backs, then reissued with red backs and 11 new cards to comprise E80, but with the fist cards not listed on the checklist. As for the baseball sets, the answer IMO is right on the bottom of the E96 back: "Previous series 25, making total issue 55." Given that the business notice [great find] states that the company issued the two sports together, personally, I would label all of the baseball and boxing sets as part of one unified multisport issue consisting of two series each of baseball and boxing cards, or at the very least combine the two sports into a pair of sets issued in two series.

[ErikV]

Adam,

Great post. I agree with all of your points. I should add that around the same time of these
cards being issued, Jim Jefferies was coming out of retirement to fight Jack Johnson. At
the time Jefferies was considered "The Great White Hope" and there was much publicized
over this upcoming fight. As per the San Francisco Call newspaper, this fight was announced
October 30, 1909. I find it odd that a guy who was retired since 1905 would suddenly
appear in a set of current boxing stars - unless his coming out of retirement prompted
the printing of an odd number 21-card set. This "promo" card of Jefferies also seems to me
to have been an excellent marketing strategy for Philadelphia Caramel Company's new
boxing cards. Cobb, well, he didn't need any publicity. His name and reputation spoke
for itself, but again, in terms of marketing power great choice on Philly Caramel's part.


Adam, I also agree with you in that all red-backed cards (including the 11 newer cards)
are all E80s. Interesting thought on all cards being considered a multisport set. I seem
to look at it more like "series I" and "series II." This practice of issuing baseball cards
in series' began to occur with the 1914 Crack Jack set, continuing in the 1940's with Play
Ball and in the 1950's with Topps. If the E80/E96 were in fact "series II" and were issued
in say perhaps late 1910, this may also explain why the E80/E96 cards are much lower
in population than their earlier counterparts.

ErikV

[gnaz01]

VERY pleased to have just added this to my collection from an awesome board member.

[Exhibitman]

Congrats! Always feels great to add a rarity to one's collection.

[Jobu]

Congrats Greg, very cool card.

Please shoot me a PM if you know the whereabouts of the card that Erik posted in the initial post. Thanks.

[ullmandds]

congrats greg! someday i hope to own one myself.

[shammus]

Still loving the example Jerry sold me a few years back

Any thoughts on why mine has the blank back and not an ad back? Was there another possible source these could have been cut from?

[bigfanNY]

Great thread always liked the e95 set esp the Cobb. Which was the first Cobb I ever purchased. Paul Ghallager who ran the nyc show in the early 70's sold it to me at an antique show in Madison Square Garden in 1973 for $4 . My Dad bought a stack of 40 at ball yankees and we were hooked..

[ErikV]

Brian,

To answer your question as to the blank back version you inquired about.

I've researched the Philadelphia Caramel Company and their candy cards for
several years. While I don't have a definitive answer, I don't believe the blank
back version of the E95/E96 cards were issued by this company. In all of their
promotions they made it a point to brand their products. From their earliest
non-sport cards, to their last set of cards they issued, they ALWAYS included their
company name. It makes no sense to me why they would issue a blank back
card. The blank back version cards were likely cut from a folder that occasionally
pop up at auction. I honestly don't believe a candy company would issue a school
folder with picture cards. Had they done so, I believe they would've printed their
company name on it somewhere.

Here's an additional article that you might find interesting:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/eNews/20...64/eNews64.htm

Hope this helps.

ErikV

[shammus]

Erik,

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response! So a school folder then? Similar to the 1914-15 Notebooks that were released that contained those blank backed versions of e95s and e96s that are found semi-often?

Odd that it has the same scripting/captions at the top as the Cobb being discussed in this thread. For those that have this card with the ad back, what is the paper stock on the card like? Is it thicker than a normal e95? Mine is about the same in terms of thickness as a normal e95...maybe even a little slimmer. I suppose it's possible that the card could be skinned although mine doesn't exhibit any signs of distress on the back at all....

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by shammus

Erik,

For those that have this card with the ad back, what is the paper stock on the card like? Is it thicker than a normal e95? Mine is about the same in terms of thickness as a normal e95...maybe even a little slimmer. I suppose it's possible that the card could be skinned although mine doesn't exhibit any signs of distress on the back at all....

Brian,

Mine is entombed in a GAI holder but does seem to be "thinner" than most. I state this only because I have no other cards in GAI holders and this one seems to "float" around a whole lot looser. Hope this makes sense.

Greg

[shammus]

Thanks Greg, that makes perfect sense as that's how mine is as well. It's definitely not any thicker of paper stock than normal e95s, in fact, mine seemed maybe a tad more delicate even. Congrats on your new pick-up by the way!

[Dean's Cards]

We found one. These posts were extremely helpful in identifying the card. Thank you.

It’s always a lot of fun to discover a rare card like this. Any additional information would be greatly appreciated.

Ty Cobb front 1.jpgTy Cobb back 1.jpg

[swarmee]

Cool; didn't even know you were on the boards, DeansCards. I will give you a shameless plug, since most people complain about your pricing schemes.

I bought 5 of your autographed cards through COMC that are labeled "ALTERED" on their site since they're not Third Party Authenticated by either PSA, JSA, BGS, or SGC. I sent them in to PSA on a blue flip submission and all five came back authentic. I have bought quite a few others from you on COMC and have been happy with my purchases. Thanks for crosslisting them there!

[Dean's Cards]

John,

Thanks for the kind words. They are much appreciated.

Dean

[SMPEP]

Okay, not to be that guy ... but it should be pointed out that this isn't a 100% match.

The words Jelly on the Cobb in the two lines are almost on top of each other, and are clearly offset in the advertising piece. Heck the second Jelly shouldn't even appear on the card based on the red box on the advertising piece.

Granted all the words are right, but the alignment is wrong.

This isn't the advertising piece they were on front of - but is very likely a close approximation.

With that said - great detective work and great insight into the set. Well done!

Cheers,
Patrick

[Leon]

Kewl card, thanks for showing it.

Originally Posted by Dean's Cards

We found one. These posts were extremely helpful in identifying the card. Thank you.

It’s always a lot of fun to discover a rare card like this. Any additional information would be greatly appreciated.

Attachment 275597Attachment 275598

[Pistolapedro]

Here is one that I uncovered a couple of years ago.

[Jobu]

Awesome card Pistola! Thanks for posting it.

I have been looking high and low for scans of all E95-like cards and this thread contains all of the examples of the script front Cobb (one blank back, four partial ad backs) and Jefferies (one blank, one partial ad) that I have been able to find.

[ullmandds]

Such a great thread it deserves a post covid bump! I wonder if csg would slab these?

[Exhibitman]

They might. They're sufficiently identified that it would not be a real stretch.

[fkm_bky]

Love this! Thanks for bringing it back to the top of the board! I missed it the last time around.

Bill

[bigfish]

awesome !