E97 C.A. Briggs Dating

[Cozumeleno]

Out of curiosity, the E97 CA Briggs set is generally listed as a 1909 or a 1909-10 issue. But given the fact that the Cy Young/Irv Young card has a Boston National variation, shouldn't it really be 1909-11? Cy didn't go to Boston until August of the 1911 season.

Irv did actually play on the Boston National League team as well but that was in 1908. Plus, considering the picture is the same on both cards and given that it has Cleveland and Boston variations, it would seem to be referring to Cy's stint in Boston and not Irv's.

I've looked all over but don't seem to find this argument being made, though I find it hard to believe it hasn't been before.

[nolemmings]

Although not completely responsive to your question, the following discussion is interesting and may shed light(note the remarks on Denny Sullivan):
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1440608

It seems the E97 B&W cards that some consider proofs would have predated the color version, and that these have a couple of players captioned with 1908 teams, including Young. The Young B&W card depicts him with Boston N.L., where Irv played in 1908. Although the caption on the B&W says Cy, remember that Irv was sometimes called Young Cy or variations thereof. My guess is when the cards were first colorized, they originally carried over this team designation, even though the issuer intended the real Cy Young to be in the set and therefore checklisted him with Cleveland. Seeing that the front and back team designations did not match, they corrected the error and had another printing that used the same erroneous depiction but which changed the caption to Cleveland. The same appears to have happened with the cards of Simon Nichols, and Sullivan was intended to be Billy but instead showed Denny. That's one theory anyway.


So you can look at the card as Cy Young with an erroneous front, or as Irv Young with an erroneous back.

[Cozumeleno]

Thanks, Todd - that's an interesting thought. I was aware of all of that but did not consider that the set could have been printed with 1908 captions. Will have to do more digging and see where other players were in 1908 but that theory seems plausible.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Although not completely responsive to your question, the following discussion is interesting and may shed light(note the remarks on Denny Sullivan):
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1440608

It seems the E97 B&W cards that some consider proofs would have predated the color version, and that these have a couple of players captioned with 1908 teams, including Young. The Young B&W card depicts him with Boston N.L., where Irv played in 1908. Although the caption on the B&W says Cy, remember that Irv was sometimes called Young Cy or variations thereof. My guess is when the cards were first colorized, they originally carried over this team designation, even though the issuer intended the real Cy Young to be in the set and therefore checklisted him with Cleveland. Seeing that the front and back team designations did not match, they corrected the error and had another printing that used the same erroneous depiction but which changed the caption to Cleveland. The same appears to have happened with the cards of Simon Nichols, and Sullivan was intended to be Billy but instead showed Denny. That's one theory anyway.


So you can look at the card as Cy Young with an erroneous front, or as Irv Young with an erroneous back.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Thanks, Todd - that's an interesting thought. I was aware of all of that but did not consider that the set could have been printed with 1908 captions. Will have to do more digging and see where other players were in 1908 but that theory seems plausible.

E97 Black and White aren't proofs. That is a myth that has been perpetuated forever. Todd (hey Todd) gave some good info above.
Nice Irv in a 40 holder. It got sold with my collection but I remember buying it from Terry K senior, at a National approximately 17-18 yrs ago. He had this and a McGinnity for 1k each. I took Irv thinking at the time it was Cy. That was quite a few years back....

.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by Leon

E97 Black and White aren't proofs. That is a myth that has been perpetuated forever. Todd (hey Todd) gave some good info above.
Nice Irv in a 40 holder. It got sold with my collection but I remember buying it from Terry K senior, at a National approximately 17-18 yrs ago. He had this and a McGinnity for 1k each. I took Irv thinking at the time it was Cy. That was quite a few years back....

.

Yeah, that part I did know. Some of the black and white cards have the later variations like the Nicholls Philadelphia, which would indicate it was printed later. Likely a different set entirely.

[Webster]

Having spent a good deal of time with this set, I've enjoyed reading this discussion as well as the longer thread referenced above. I would suggest the following timeline for the issue, and would be very interested to hear comments or alternatives:

1. Briggs decided to put together a set in early 1909 - perhaps as early as January. They put together the Black & White series as we know it today with 30 cards.

2. Being a Boston-centric company, Briggs printed cards of local players Joe Kelly, Irv Young, and Denny Sullivan. The Black & White cards have no team variations, each is shown with the team they played for in 1908. They also include misspellings of "Dolan" and "Steinfeld" which would be corrected only on the later color versions.

3. These Black & White cards were issued in early 1909. How and for how long, who knows? Assuming they were printed and issued together, the key card in this sequencing is Admiral Schlei (who was not signed by New York until December 1908). Thus, the Black & White cards were printed AFTER December 1908.

4. In the Summer or Fall of 1909, Briggs decides to do a full color version of these cards. They began printing the fronts with the exact same images and team labeling as the Black & White versions, perhaps preparing for an early 1910 release.

5. In early 1910, they realize they have a few problems. Sullivan and Young are no longer with Boston. Nichols was traded in December of 1909. There are also the misspellings noted above. They stop printing the fronts, and lay out the checklist for the back with the necessary fixes.

6. In composing the checklist, they correctly noted the new team for Nicholls, and decided to "label" (or pass off) Irv Young as being his brother who plays for Cleveland, and Sullivan as Billy who still played for Chicago. The checklist also has the correct spelling for Doolan and Steinfeldt. I think the Nicholls trade is definitive here, because there can be no confusion about names (Sullivan/Young) or teams (American vs. National League). Importantly, ALL E97 backs show this same checklist - and it MUST have been created AFTER December 1909 (Nicholls trade date).

7. Thus, ALL of the colored cards MUST have been issued AFTER December 1909.

8. In short, I think everything about the original issue/printing - aside from some spelling typos (Steinfeldt, Doolan) - was as intended. When they went to issue the color version in early 1910, they fixed as many issues as they could as noted on the Checklist; used up their initial run of colored fronts; then reworked the front plates for Doolan, Nicholls, Steinfeldt, Sullivan, and Young and continued distributing.

9. I think the colored run was issued/distributed throughout most of the 1910 season, but NOT re-issued in 1911. By then, there were just too many players who were no longer in the big leagues, including (I think): Austin, Durham, Dygert, Hinchman, Keeler, Kelly, Kroh, Nicholls, and Rossman.

10. Lastly, I do believe there was one, uncorrected, team error in the original issue: Keeler is shown with New York of the National League. From what I can tell, Keeler did not join the Giants until May of 1910. Given the team changes and timing noted above, I simply cannot believe that ALL of the cards (B & W and color) were created in Late 1910. I believe Keeler's card should have read NY American from the start.

It's just a theory.
Thoughts?