Identifying E101 and E102 purely by the front (E8, E78 tie in)

[G1911]

The two attached cards (not mine) are stated by SGC to be an E101 Cy/Irv Young and an E102 Sherry Magee.

This image of Young, with the same caption, is used in E90 American Caramel, E92 Crofts Cocoa, E92 Crofts Candy, E92 Dockman, E92 Nadja, E101, E105 Mello Mint, D355 Niagara, and T216.

This image of Magee, with the same caption, is used in: E92 Crofts Cocoa, E92 Crofts Candy, E92 Dockman, E92 Nadja, E101, E102, E105 Mello Mint, D355 Niagara, and T216.

The backs on both cards are E78, a rare and anonymous boxing issue about which nothing is really known and is not even proven to be a candy set at all yet. The reverses are similar to E77 by American Caramel and E102.

Is there any way to identify that the two cards are indeed from E101 and E102? Or did SGC just make something up again? As far as I can tell there is no way to actually ascertain this and they could from several of the above listed issues that use the pose and caption on similar stocks. It also seems unlikely that these are from 2 different sets (Young does not appear in E102). Am I missing something? Positive identification could have significant value in research trails for E78, which is my motive as right now trying to find primary source information on a set of an unknown time by an unknown issuer made by an unknown lithographer is a serious of seeking unknown unknown's in a massive haystack.

[brianp-beme]

As far as the E101/E102 fronts, I don't think there is a real way to tell the difference. Some other sets that share the same artwork, such as E105 (thinner stock) or E106 (the colors look less refined and 'blobbed' together) it is easier to tell. Since both of these subjects are in the E101 set, I would lean toward that. But then again they are both also in all of the different E92 sets, so why not that designation?

I am fairly unfamiliar with boxing issues, so no help there with the cool baseball fronts/boxing backs. Good luck on exploring the mystery of it all.

Brian

[x2drich2000]

The Young is mine. E101/102 don't have any real front differences that I am aware of. In addition to the differences Brian stated, some individual players with the same images have other minor differences in other sets. Crawford has a spacing issue, Mathewson has a text size difference, etc. Personally, I think they should all be classified as E92, but the proof is just circumstantial. E92, particularly Cocoa, are littered with all sorts of issues (miscut fronts/backs, overprint, upside down backs, etc). These types of errors aren't nearly as common with the E101/102 sets.

There is also an example of an e92 with a miscut back that shows evidence it was printed on the same sheet as a different set. From memory I think it was a Nadja Stone with American Caramel text, but I don't have access to my notes right now.

I also believe both these may have come from the same sheet as the offset on the back is nearly identical. Likewise, I think all the menageries may have come from the same sheet for the same reason. The menageries are interesting because there are at least 2 examples from non-sport sets that also exhibit the same offset. I cant prove they are from the same sheet and that multiple sheets werent just printed wrong. If they are from the same sheet though then that also points to multiple sets being printed on the same sheet.

[G1911]

Thank you guys. Very cool run of Young's

The only thing I would bet on is that the Magee and the Young are from the same set and are thus not E102 or E90.

I would think it most likely these were run through a different sheet's back by accident, rather than E78 being on the same sheet and appearing on these because it was run upside down. E78 is markedly scarcer than than most of the options here, to the extent that it wouldn't make sense to be on the same sheet. At the same time, the same is true for E79 and E80 that clearly did, for at least some of production, share sheet space with E95 and E96.

I believe American Caramel is the only one of these caramel companies possibly involved for which a printer is known.

[RCMcKenzie]

I think I own that Magee. DJ may have a better memory than me. I can look later.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I think I own that Magee. DJ may have a better memory than me. I can look later.

If you come across it and under close examination find a message written in invisible ink on the back detailing the production of the card, please let me know

[RCMcKenzie]

The boxing backs have the stair-step style of e102, but Young is not in e102.

What if Dockman, or it's printer, made e101, e102, and e92 Dockman, and also the e78. Back is a mistake. My Magee and DJ's Young are from the same mistake sheet.

[gabrinus]

Had a card with a Menagerie back that was designated as E92...memory fails me who it was but if I remember it I will post...Jerry

[gabrinus]

It was a Red Kleinow I bought from FKW...Jerry

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

It was a Red Kleinow I bought from FKW...Jerry

Jerry, here it is. Still appreciate you letting me get it. And my Lobert labeled as an e102.

Rob, no idea if you have the Magee. From memory I think it last sold in LOTG years ago.

[G1911]

Not my card! - Here's a Wagner Menagerie (E26).

The Wagner and Lobert indicate the 3rd back type - Menagerie Gum at top, but no Dockman credit at bottom. i.e., another anonymous issue.

I believe there is a John McGraw like this too. I also assume that SGC just made up the E92 designation, because they don't know the E26 backs and assumed the Dockman ad version of that set who also made an E92 series, though these cards are not using that Dockman advertising version.

[G1911]

And to add - the three Menagerie backs can be seen here in Dan's gallery on the non-sport side: http://www.moviecard.com/gallery/ecards/e26_back.html

[RCMcKenzie]

Dj, I thought I posted it as a pick-up on here and we had a similar discussion to this thread. I'll check to see if I have the Magee.

[G1911]

Another possibly related card (again, not mine!); this is an E8 Battleship with the same E78 misaligned and upside down back as the Magee and the Young.

E8 is another anonymous issue. I am also attaching what an E8 back looks like, similar stepped checklist pattern that was used on a lot of the anonymous issues and by American Caramel as well in many of their sets.

I'm digging through my archive for that McGraw I could swear exists...

[G1911]

No McGraw in my photo archive, but found a Danny Murphy (Not my card either!). Again, this one clearly shows it is not a Dockman E26, but the second anonymous type back.

[x2drich2000]

Here are the menagerie and prize fighters I'm aware of.

Menagerie
- Bemis
- Kleinow - raw (poor)
- Lobert - SGC A
- McGraw - SGC 30
- Murphy - SGC 30
- Shean - BVG 1
- Wagner (batting) - SGC 40

Prizefighters
- Magee - SGC 40
- Young - SGC 30
- E8 U.S.S. Connecticut
- E8 U.S.S. Pennsylvania (Added 5/14/23)

Rob, maybe you did. I just don't remember.

[G1911]

Do you guys know the origin of these 3 groups (E26 Menagerie, E8 Battleships, and E78 Prize Fighters)? I would expect the examples within a particular wrong back came out into the hobby together originally.

[RCMcKenzie]

That E8 is neat and has the same miscut look of the Magee and Young on here.


I found it...

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

Had a card with a Menagerie back that was designated as E92...memory fails me who it was but if I remember it I will post...Jerry

Here is the Wagner batting -- OOPS, I see it was already posted. Sorry for the double post

I love this issue -- E90-1 (sometimes) through E106 and T216. DJ knows more about these than anyone. I wish we had the general knowledge on these cards that exist for T206

[G1911]

It seems to me that the likeliest scenario is that all of the sets discussed here were done by a single printer. It doesn't make much sense otherwise; one printing firm gets the artwork done, designs the cards and captions, and then others... what, pirate the set by getting their hands on the cards, recreating the images perfectly and setting up to reprint them? It doesn't make sense that way, hard to see the profit in going to so much effort at the time. E90, E92, E101, E102, these sets are all very likely the same printer. The wrong sheets tell us E78, E26 and E8 had to be done by the same team.

We do know the name of a printer used by American Caramel, who issued E90. The E125 die cut stands from mid 1910 tell us P.R. Warren made both series of them. I have been diving into Peter R. Warren's printing and paper goods making firm of Lowell, Warrensville, Boston and NYC because of this connection in an effort to tie their NY office to American Caramel to resolve some lingering mysteries from the V153 research.

We should not assume and make the deductive leap that because Peter Warren's firm did the E125's that they did all of American Caramel's cards (and thus likely this grouping of sets discussed in this thread). It forms the solitary real clue I have at present though, and may lead to a real resolution. P.R. Warren was in some serious financial trouble in late 1910, but were big enough to have at least 4 offices and locations. I have always thought it probable the caramel sets were not authorized unlike the tobacco issues, but if Warren had an NY office and did do American Caramel's cards, these issues may have been authorized by the players after all, in accord with the 1904 NY State law.

[gabrinus]

Awesome DJ...thanks...I don't know why I thought it was graded...should have remembered I sold it to you...Jerry

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

Awesome DJ...thanks...I don't know why I thought it was graded...should have remembered I sold it to you...Jerry

Why do I get the impression that a significant amount of significant cards have passed through your hands Jerry...

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Why do I get the impression that a significant amount of significant cards have passed through your hands Jerry...

Jerry is the man behind the man behind the man when it comes to baseball cards like Macrae and Richard. I used to think they were old, but they're only like 15 years older than me or 30 years older like Deniro and Pacino.

[gabrinus]

Thanks guys...I think y'all are definitely holding more cards than me now...don't think my collection was ever like Richard or Macrae's...Jerry

[Jobu]

We can rule out e102 based on the OP's post as that issue doesn't have Cy Young. If we assume that these wrong backs were printed at the same time as the baseball sheet (as opposed to one side or the other having been printed a year or more apart), then looking at the dates might help:

1909 E92 Croft's Cocoa
1909 E92 Dockman
1909 E92 Croft's Candy
1909 E92 Nadja
1909 E101 Anonymous
1909 D355 Niagara Baking
1910 E105 Mello Mint
1910 E78 Anonymous Prize Fighters
1910 E26 Dockman & Son Menagerie
1910 E8 Battle Ship USS Connecticut
1912-1916 T216 Kotton-Mino-Virginia Extra

Both wrong backs, E78 and E26, are listed as 1910 issues (not sure about the certainty of those dates). 1910 is also the date for the other front, E8 Battle Ships. There is only one baseball set listed as being issued in 1910, E105 Mello Mint. I looked at DJ's full baseball player list (Cy Young, Magee, Kleinow, Lobert, Wagner batting, Murphy, McGraw, Bemis, and Shean) and all are in E105. So it is possible that these are all wrong-backed E105s.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Jobu

We can rule out e102 based on the OP's post as that issue doesn't have Cy Young. If we assume that these wrong backs were printed at the same time as the baseball sheet (as opposed to one side or the other having been printed a year or more apart), then looking at the dates might help:

1909 E92 Croft's Cocoa
1909 E92 Dockman
1909 E92 Croft's Candy
1909 E92 Nadja
1909 E101 Anonymous
1909 D355 Niagara Baking
1910 E105 Mello Mint
1910 E78 Anonymous Prize Fighters
1910 E26 Dockman & Son Menagerie
1910 E8 Battle Ship USS Connecticut
1912-1916 T216 Kotton-Mino-Virginia Extra

Both wrong backs, E78 and E26, are listed as 1910 issues (not sure about the certainty of those dates). 1910 is also the date for the other front, E8 Battle Ships. There is only one baseball set listed as being issued in 1910, E105 Mello Mint. I looked at DJ's full baseball player list (Cy Young, Magee, Kleinow, Lobert, Wagner batting, Murphy, McGraw, Bemis, and Shean) and all are in E105. So it is possible that these are all wrong-backed E105s.

While that makes sense looking at the commonly held date of each set, e105 doesn't make sense as they are a complete different card stock and slightly different size (e105 are thinner and slightly smaller).

[Jobu]

It could be that the wrong backs were in the scrap pile on their thicker paper and the printers used them to do a test run for the E105 fronts though - they likely wouldn't have cared about the paper type for a test run that was bound for the garbage.

[G1911]

Unfortunately, the date of E78 is made up - just something hobbyists have claimed to be true without an evidentiary basis. There's no way to know if it's 1908 or 1910 or 1912. Same for E26. I think E8 is in the same boat; there is no evidence for 1910 as opposed to another year in this period.

I would expect it is more likely it was just a test sheet, or they ran the wrong sheet(s) through the printer for the second side than that E78 was on the same exact shape and the sheet was correct but run upside down. This can't be eliminated though, it could look like E96.

[Leon]

The D355 isn't as much of a wrong back as it is an E101 with a back stamp on it. Great conversation and I wish I had my wrong back collection again. Such is life...

Originally Posted by Jobu

We can rule out e102 based on the OP's post as that issue doesn't have Cy Young. If we assume that these wrong backs were printed at the same time as the baseball sheet (as opposed to one side or the other having been printed a year or more apart), then looking at the dates might help:

1909 E92 Croft's Cocoa
1909 E92 Dockman
1909 E92 Croft's Candy
1909 E92 Nadja
1909 E101 Anonymous
1909 D355 Niagara Baking
1910 E105 Mello Mint
1910 E78 Anonymous Prize Fighters
1910 E26 Dockman & Son Menagerie
1910 E8 Battle Ship USS Connecticut
1912-1916 T216 Kotton-Mino-Virginia Extra

Both wrong backs, E78 and E26, are listed as 1910 issues (not sure about the certainty of those dates). 1910 is also the date for the other front, E8 Battle Ships. There is only one baseball set listed as being issued in 1910, E105 Mello Mint. I looked at DJ's full baseball player list (Cy Young, Magee, Kleinow, Lobert, Wagner batting, Murphy, McGraw, Bemis, and Shean) and all are in E105. So it is possible that these are all wrong-backed E105s.

[G1911]

To see if we may get any information on dating E78 and some baseball issue, I took a look at E8's checklist and looked up each ship, noting its commission date and any significant change in naming or scrapping of the ship between 1908-1912, when the cards are almost certainly printed. The results are most interesting for the U.S.S. Connecticut, though a ship may well have used a slightly old name, attention to detail was probably not perfect for a minor card release that was likely just a premium. The results are shown in the table below (which probably won't format on Net54):
U.S.S. Alabama - 1900
U.S.C. Albany - Cruiser in commission 1900-1904, 1907-1913, 1914, and 1916-1922.
U.S.S. Brooklyn - 1896
U.S.S. Charleston - 1905
U.S.S. Connecticut - 1903, renamed the U.S.S. Tonopah on March 2, 1909. Another Connecticut existed at this time but this one seems to match the card art and the larger battleship does not.
U.S.S. Indiana - 1895
U.S.S. Iowa - 1897
U.S.S. Kearsarge - 1898
U.S.S. Kentucky - 1898
U.S.S. Maine - 1901
U.S.S. Massachusetts - 1896
U.S.S. Minneapolis - 1894
U.S. Monitor Puritan - 1896, Monitor is the class of ship
U.S.S. New Jersey - 1906
U.S.C. New Orleans and Torpedo Boat Somers - both 1898
U.S.C. New York - 1893, renamed the Saratoga on February 16, 1911
U.S.S. Olympia - 1895
U.S.S. Oregon - 1896
U.S.S. Pennsylvania - 1903, renamed the U.S.S. Pittsburgh in 1912.
U.S.S. Philadelphia - 1890
U.S.S. Rhode Island - 1906
U.S.S. Texas - 1895, renamed the U.S.S. San Marcos in February 1911 and later that same year was used for target practice and sunk.
U.S.C. Topeka - 1898
U.S.S. Virginia - 1906
To be strictly correct, the set was released in 1906 or later, and before March 2, 1909 when the U.S.S. Connecticut was renamed. Other ships were renamed or scrapped in 1911. This may be indicate of a relatively early release date in 1909 among cards catalogued as E sets. I would be surprised if it was as early as 1908, but this is entirely possible. Not enough is known to responsibly draw any firm conclusions at this juncture.