E95/E96 Philadelphia Caramel and their connection to other Philly issues

[G1911]

There are five series in question:

E95 - Black backs, set of 25 baseball players.

E96 - Red backs, set of 30 baseball players. It notes on the backs that the previous series was 25 cards and this makes for 55 total subjects.

E79-1 - Black backs, set of 21 cards (the 27 scrappers refers to an odd accounting of the boxers featured and not the count of actual cards).

E79-2 Red backs, same 21 fronts as above. These cards are truly rare.

E80 44 Scrappers, 11 cards continuing the E79 series, in red backs. These cards are tough, but more common than the E79 type 2’s. Some consider them and E79 type 2 to really be one issue though this thesis is not proven.




I know of 2 proven points of crossover between the pugilists and baseball players.

1) There was an advertisement piece featuring the art on the James J. Jeffries card and Ty Cobb’s cards, with a script naming in the backgrounds. These 2 cut cards appear occasionally, though they are not easy, and are fairly well known.

2) This E96 Baker (not my card) shows that adjacent to Baker was an E79 type 2 card, with part of its back visible on the reverse

Thus we know that 1) they were advertised together and 2) for at least part of production, some of these subjects were clearly on the same sheets and produced together. While the backs indicate intent to collect as separate series, it appears they weren’t completely produced or even marketed as separate series, and should perhaps not be looked at in isolation.

What is very unusual is that E96 is a pretty common set. PSA has graded over a thousand E96’s and ever card is available any day and every day. E79 type 2’s are rare; I have half the set and that is a significant number in boxing land. If they were on the same sheet as E96 for long, even if, say, E96 had 4 copies of each card on the sheet and only 1 card of each boxing subject, E79 red backs would be far, far more common than they actually are. The art styling also differs. E96 portrays feminine renditions of its male subjects with bright red cheeks and lipstick, E80 does so to some extent but not as much as E96 (check the Lajoie card out). E79 is missing this artistic aspect.

I’m hoping someone else may have more useful information or we can use as a springboard to better explore these sets and the evidentiary basis for what we do know.

Specific Questions:
1) Does anyone have or have a picture of an E95 miscut showing a boxing back or front adjacent?

2) Does anyone have a Philadelphia Caramel wrong back or upside down back showing one of the other sets (not looking for the E75/E101/E102 cards)?

3) Are there other E96’s like this Baker that can be shown?

4) Is there any E96 advertising piece known?

5) Is there evidence for the 1909 issue date of E95 generally prescribed? What is it?

6) Does anyone have an image of a miscut, wrong back, or upside down back showing a non-sport subject?

7) Does anyone have an image of uncut Philadelphia Caramel material?

[brianp-beme]

5) Is there evidence for the 1909 issue date of E95 generally prescribed? What is it?

To me, because of a few players in the E95 set, I would think that early 1910 is likely a more accurate time frame of production for this issue.

--Cy Morgan, shown as an A's player, was purchased from the Red Sox by the A's on June 5th, 1909. He had 2 wins, 6 losses for the Red Sox in 12 games, and for the rest of the year with the A's in 28 games went 16 and 11 with 1.65 ERA.

So because of Morgan, it appears that the earliest this set was created would likely be August of 1909 (to allow Cy to show his stuff and earn his spot in the set).

--Fred Merkle, despite his infamous 'bonehead' play in a crucial September 1908 game, was really a bit player in both 1907 and 1908, with just 88 at bats total for those two years, while in 1909 he hit .192 in 236 at bats, hardly something to warrant inclusion in a 25 card set. In 1910 he came into his own, playing full time and hitting at a .291 clip.

So definitely leaning toward an early 1910 production date, and a possibility after the start of the season.

--Vic Willis, shown with the Pirates, was sold by Pirates to the Cardinals on February 15, 1910.

Because of Willis though, I see March as a likely end date for the E95 set being produced, as the makers obviously didn't stop the presses to change team designation on the Willis card.

So my educated guess, based upon the designations and career circumstances of these three players, I would believe the E95 set was an early 1910 production.

But it could be as early as August 1909, but Merkle makes me think it would be later, possibly as late as spring 1910.

Brian

[Exhibitman]

The Jeffries cards Greg mentioned. These are cut from an advertising sheet for the company. Can be found blank back and ad back:




E80 Jack Johnson, formerly the property of Jefferson Burdick:

[Pat R]

Hey Greg,

I think with the mixed sheets we are back to something you and I have discussed many times with some of the other sets. My guess is the mixed sheet were printed at one of the smaller printing facility's only.
I'm sure most people would disagree with me but I don't think the T206 Magie error was ever corrected I think it was an error that was made on the sheets printed at one of the smaller facility's and it was always correct on the sheets printed at the main ALC facility.

As for the 1909 distribution date I think 1910 is probably the correct date I have mentioned it many times that most of the sets from that era were distributed a year after what the backs reflect.

[x2drich2000]

The Baker card was previously discussed in this thread https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=155720 and in the link mentioned in that thread.

The only thing I would add is this isn't the sole example where a back shows evidence of multiple sets being printed on the same sheet and I don't mean that the back is just from a different set like the E78 and Menageries.

[G1911]

The reason I ask the issue date is that I think the E79's strongly suggest, but do not prove, a likely 1910 issue date. All of the fighters in the set are active (though Hart, Fitzsimmons and Burns were on their last legs in 1909 and 1910) except for two, Sharkey and Jeffries. Sharkey had retired in 1904, as did Jeffries. Jeffries came back in 1910 for a big paycheck to put on a show and lose to Jack Johnson as an old fat man. He'd not necessarily be an issue to have in the checklist, but he wouldn't make much of any sense to pair with Cobb for the advertising pieces in 1909. He would in 1910 as the hype for the first fight of the century built.

The fight cards in E80 are not very helpful to dating. Most of them are matchups of several years before. Kelly and Ketchel was a 1908 bout. Wolgast V. Nelson is probably their February 1910 title match, but they did have a July 1909 bout too that was much less of a big deal.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Hey Greg,

I think with the mixed sheets we are back to something you and I have discussed many times with some of the other sets. My guess is the mixed sheet were printed at one of the smaller printing facility's only.
I'm sure most people would disagree with me but I don't think the T206 Magie error was ever corrected I think it was an error that was made on the sheets printed at one of the smaller facility's and it was always correct on the sheets printed at the main ALC facility.

As for the 1909 distribution date I think 1910 is probably the correct date I have mentioned it many times that most of the sets from that era were distributed a year after what the backs reflect.

I think we are at the point where your hypothesis is the deductive likelihood, if not yet proven it seems much more likely to be the case than to not be the case with the evidence we have found on how the ALC operated.

The Philadelphia Caramels appear to not be an American Lithography production, and probably don't follow the New York law. Some of the subjects the ALC doesn't appear to have had rights too, and the art style is unlike them (particularly the feminization of the E96 subjects). I'm not sure the same will apply; it may well be done a shop. I'm not aware of any evidence on who the printer is, but if anyone does that would be very helpful.

[gabrinus]

This probably won't clear anything up but here is a Davis E96 type card with a team change I sold to Olbermann years ago and a blank back Plank E95 type I owned as well...Jerry

[G1911]

Are these from a poster or a notebook cover? Look like cutouts, with the black outer framing visible.

[gabrinus]

I think they came from a poster honestly as I have had "plenty" of blank back E95/E96s and these two were different from the rest...they were paper thin and the others more likely from a notebook...Jerry

[G1911]

These are the two covers I have in my archive of saved scans (not my items!). I believe I've seen other designs though. If it is a poster instead of a notebook cover I don't think I've seen a full poster anywhere. Pretty cool items, I love supplementary stuff like this to a 'normal' card set.

[Exhibitman]

It is possible E79 is 1909 but I am pretty sure it is 1910 because of how Jeffries looked. He signed for the Johnson fight in late October 1909 and had to lose 60#. This Sarony cabinet is copyrighted 1909 and shows Jeffries thinner but soft



He did not look fighting trim until well into 1910.

[G1911]

Appears we can more solidly align the E95 and E79 production did indeed, at least in part, utilize shared sheets as well as shared advertising. This is from a member who wishes to remain anonymous and kindly shared this image. The miscut shows an E79 black back adjacent to an E95.

E95's are more common than E79 blacks, but to a degree that could possibly be explained by an uneven amount of sets produced on a sheet.

The # of cards in the E79 issue is unusual for T or E cards and probably makes for a weird sheet, whether or not they were all done on sheets sharing space with E95.