E90-1 Miller Red Sunset Variation

[pkaufman]

For those that are interested, SGC will now show the E90-1 Miller red sunset variation on their label. I sent them the latest page of Beckett on-line which now shows it as a valid variety as of the National.

[ullmandds]

That's cool! So will the other version say missing sunset? Who is to say which was the intended version?

[pkaufman]

Pete, from my experience, the red sunset version is much tougher, but I certainly couldn't say which was intended.

[ullmandds]

I would tend to agree...but...a survey was done a year or two ago and the % seemed more equal than I'd expect.

[Sean]

That doesn't look like a sunset, it looks like a couple red smears. But as a T206 collector, I have no right to complain about variations being recognized.

[abroome]

Originally Posted by Sean

That doesn't look like a sunset, it looks like a couple red smears. But as a T206 collector, I have no right to complain about variations being recognized.

I can say that the sunset is not a red smear!
I have had the opportunity to examine some of these with sunset, including a copy I have owned for some time.
The price guide database guys and I decided to catalog this card along with the T206 Pfeffer "Chicaco" variation at this years National. Since I am a sucker for all things E90-1, the Miller was one I had been wanting to include for some time.
I mentioned these two at the Net54 dinner on Friday at the National. I had examples with me that we had graded that day at the National.

I have a theory as to why the sunset was removed during the print run, making the "with sunset" possibly harder to find than the "without sunset" version. But, it is still just a theory.

Andy

[ullmandds]

hows about sharing your theory with us??

Originally Posted by abroome

I can say that the sunset is not a red smear!
I have had the opportunity to examine some of these with sunset, including a copy I have owned for some time.
The price guide database guys and I decided to catalog this card along with the T206 Pfeffer "Chicaco" variation at this years National. Since I am a sucker for all things E90-1, the Miller was one I had been wanting to include for some time.
I mentioned these two at the Net54 dinner on Friday at the National. I had examples with me that we had graded that day at the National.

I have a theory as to why the sunset was removed during the print run, making the "with sunset" possibly harder to find than the "without sunset" version. But, it is still just a theory.

Andy

[pkaufman]

Andy, thanks for breaking the ice with Beckett on this.....SGC was reluctant to recognize this variety in the past without a Beckett listing.

[irishdenny]

Sure Andy... I 2nd Pete's Request!

I would also love to hear about Your "Sunset Theory"!

I've been trudging the E90-1 road fir sometime now...
I Honestly wish that we discussed this Awesome Set a bit more!

[abroome]

This is my own unscientific theory as to why we have “with sunset” and “without sunset” E90-1 Miller cards.
The image of Dots Miller fielding with the red sunset in the background is used on a number of sets (E92, E101, E102, E105, E106, T216). Each of these cards feature the red sunset in the background in the image. The shadow behind his feet found on cards from these sets that share the Miller image was not added to the E90-1 design.

All of the E90-1 with sunset Millers I have seen all seem to have a sunset that is consistently off register almost exactly the same.
If you look at the red portion of ink closely, the plate was made to “fit” around the image of Miller. You can clearly see the cutaway that is supposed to fit around his body and it is shifted off to the left.
For whatever reason, the plate was made off-centered when the design was made for the E90 set and the sunset runs over his body and arm.
From my experience with studying printing processes, I do not think this is a random registry problem that happened on a few sheets. I think the mistake is consistent on all the examples I have seen and would be an actual problem created when the plate or stone for red was created.

I believe this mistake was noticed by the lithographer but was not easily fixable, nor was it feasible to re-cut a new plate with better alignment. The solution was to remove the sunset portion of the red plate completely and keep printing. To me, this type of error would be a quality issue that would bug a printer more than fixing a team error, etc.
This probably would have happened early in the first run or after the first run was complete but I do not know that for sure.
From what I have seen, the more common card is “without sunset.” If my theory is correct, that would make the “without sunset” the common corrected version.
The problem I have run into is it is hard to get an accurate gauge because the cards just don't come up that often on the market. As we know, E cards as a whole seem to be scarcer than T cards. That's part of the reason we still have more to learn about E cards like the E90-1’s.

I am building the E90-1 set and I would love to see more discussion about the set around here. It seems some the rarities of this set are overlooked because many newer collectors just don't know much about this set. Not much has been written about the E90's, not in comparison to T sets.
I personally think some of the other rarities of this set are pretty close in scarcity as the Mitchell is.


Andy

[steve B]

Seems like a sound theory to me.

The shift is well into the player, but is not so far from the right border, so it really might be a messed up plate. It's possible they simply decided to leave the red off, it's hard to tell from the scans if that red is anywhere else.

If they were going to fix the plate it would have been much easier to erase the bits that overlap rather than all the red. Easier still to just skip a step.

Now, are there any with a bit of red erased instead of the whole thing?

Steve B

[pkaufman]

As Andy says, some cards don't come up in enough frequency to make comparisons. Here are three Clarke Pittsburgh cards showing various stages of correction from Phila. to Pitts.

[pkaufman]

I'll try to put them in order:

[abroome]

Originally Posted by pkaufman

I'll try to put them in order:

Wow, those are fantastic. Yes, that is another card I haven't seen enough examples to know there is a clear progressive shift in the team change.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[pkaufman]

Well Andy, I guess you and I are the only ones that want to discuss E90-1's !?!

[abroome]

Originally Posted by pkaufman

Well Andy, I guess you and I are the only ones that want to discuss E90-1's !?!

Ha! Yeah that seems to be the case.
Thats ok, I'm used to the E's being the unwanted stepchild of the T's.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[abroome]

Originally Posted by pkaufman

Well Andy, I guess you and I are the only ones that want to discuss E90-1's !?!

I'd like to talk to you about possibly using your Clarke progression in an upcoming issue of the vintage magazine if you are interested.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk