Evidence of E90-1 being printed before E102

[edhans]

[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.

[rhettyeakley]

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 The makers could be using outdated photos or information to compile the players for a set so nothing can be proven in that way.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.

[CaramelMan]

Main point was that e102 was printed in 1909 not 1908. So the e90-1 Cobb is older

[CaramelMan]

Originally Posted by edhans

[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

[edhans]

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.