NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-22-2013, 05:52 AM
CaramelMan's Avatar
CaramelMan CaramelMan is offline
Scott S
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 151
Default 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

Last edited by CaramelMan; 08-22-2013 at 06:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-22-2013, 05:56 AM
CaramelMan's Avatar
CaramelMan CaramelMan is offline
Scott S
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 151
Default 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....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-22-2013, 06:06 AM
veloce veloce is offline
Rick
member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 98
Default

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

ACC designations aren't in chronological order.

Last edited by veloce; 08-22-2013 at 06:12 AM. Reason: context
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-22-2013, 07:58 AM
tedzan tedzan is offline
Ted Zanidakis
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pennsylvania & Maine
Posts: 10,053
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-22-2013, 10:23 AM
edhans's Avatar
edhans edhans is offline
Ed Hans
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.
Posts: 1,222
Default

[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.
__________________
Please visit my website at http://t206.monkberry.com/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-22-2013, 11:54 AM
rhettyeakley's Avatar
rhettyeakley rhettyeakley is offline
Rhett Yeakley
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,650
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my YouTube Videos highlighting VINTAGE CARDS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbE..._as=subscriber

ebay store: kryvintage-->https://www.ebay.com/sch/kryvintage/...p2047675.l2562
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-24-2013, 02:35 PM
CaramelMan's Avatar
CaramelMan CaramelMan is offline
Scott S
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 151
Default

Main point was that e102 was printed in 1909 not 1908. So the e90-1 Cobb is older
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-24-2013, 02:38 PM
CaramelMan's Avatar
CaramelMan CaramelMan is offline
Scott S
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edhans View Post
[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
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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-24-2013, 05:40 PM
edhans's Avatar
edhans edhans is offline
Ed Hans
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.
Posts: 1,222
Default 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.
__________________
Please visit my website at http://t206.monkberry.com/index.html
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The evidence against Barry Halper is mounting slidekellyslide Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 63 01-18-2011 07:41 AM
Evidence of trimming kylebicking Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 9 02-04-2010 04:03 PM
Leon, I will post evidence this evening Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 05-01-2008 10:47 PM
The Evidence as Promised Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 7 05-01-2008 07:02 PM
evidence of trimming vs. cut short Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 4 04-08-2005 04:18 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 AM.


ebay GSB