e107 Delehanty Type 2 or.....??

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

Finally got the e107 Delehanty in today from Sotheby's. I wanted to show you all the scans of this card compared to the other e107 Type 2s I have. Not much different on the front however on the back it's a gleaming white color instead of the dull grey that the others are. I've never seen one like this actually. If this is actually a Type 2. I'm thinking that based on this, e107 Type 2s would have had to originate from multiple sources yes? This is clearly a different material than the other Type 2s I have. It's not a Type 1 either. Perhaps a Type 3?

Does anyone know where the Sotheby's group of e107s originated from? Any and all thoughts are appreciated....

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

just kidding, Brian, does the stock appear to be thick like the type 2's or thin like type 1's? at first glance i think you may have a type 1 (which is more valuable i would say) however it appears hand cut? CRACK IT OUT AND EXAMINE IT! won't hurt much, it's just in an AUTHENTIC holder now.

i looked at the scan again, i am not sure it's handcut, i think the blank back threw them as all of the other type 1's in the auction were series of 150. i am 99% sure it's a type 1.


Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

That's weird.

Never seen a back that bright on ANY old card.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The cards all originated from a family who almost threw them out but had a relative who had some connection to Sotheby's- I think he may have been a photographer or something- and he brought them in to show them to see if they had any value. Is it possible a layer of the back was peeled off? You can tell type II's from the typeface, too, as I'm sure you know, but that one has borders too wide and erratic to be a type I. Now that I look at it it is curious.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

I'd say I'm thinking it can't be a Type 1. It has the look of the other Type 2s and comparing it to the Doyle in particular, has an identical look and feel to that card on the front. Type 1s are also not white and smooth like this on the back.

The odd thing is quite simply the back. It's gleaming white. which makes me think it was cut out as some sort of advertising piece perhaps which the other 4 might have been cut out of a box?

I'm thinking it hasn't been rebacked as this looks like the same piece of cardboard to me. Plus I think SGC would catch something like that wouldn't they?

Overall, it reminds me of the e95 Notebook cards on the back. Those are typically very white as well and I have a stack of those from Frank Ward in front of me. I had an n162 Brouthers recently which had a gleaming white back like this as well. Sold that one though

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Brian,
The back does look very bright, but the front is consistent with the back in terms of being brighter than the other type 2s that you have. Is it possible that this example was simply less circulated and remains in better condition?

Also, if I could ask an ignorant question.
Why do you think the type 2 doyle and delehanty have fuller borders with the doyle almost looking like a factory cut type 1?

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Its a type 2. The type 1 Delahanty says "Washington" not "Wash." This info is in Lipsets book page 28.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ben

Agree with Rob and Frank. The Delahanty is overall a fresher card (front + back) than your other type 2's. So it's natural the back is nice and white...it's in very nice shape

Amazing card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Rios

"That's weird. Never seen a back that bright on ANY old card."

Are you suggesting that the card is not authentic?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I'm not suggesting it any more than Brian was questioning it in his initial post.

It's just uncommon, that's all. I trust SGC.

But then again... when something is "AUTHENTIC"... pretty much anything can probably have been done to the card.

Rebacked? Skinned back? Still "real"... just not what he expected.


The only problem with the "uncirculated" theory is that the front and sides show some wear. Hard to keep the back MINT fresh while the front and sides get old.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I inspected the entire group in person and every card had from virtually minute to serious paper loss on the reverse- and because all the fronts were so clean they had the look of a collection that survived by being glued into an album. That said, how did the Delahanty survive with such an amazingly pristine back?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

I'll respond to a few of the more recent posts here.

The Delehanty does look brighter than the Doyle as the Doyle has some toning on the front that the Delehanty doesn't. However aside from that, I can clearly see that the same material went into the production of the surfaces of the two cards. The back is a different story. The Doyle had a greyish back when it was new, as did the other cards. I think one of those other ones has a brownish back but that is toning on a back that was once grey. In other words, the other four type 2s were made from a greyish material to begin with, where as this Delehanty was produced from a material which is as white as a sheet. "Exposure" has nothing to do with this. These are two different backs as a whole.

I do not believe that the card has been rebacked as I can also easily see the top and sides of the card, which are also white. The "whiteness" extends all the way up to the surface where it becomes the same drab grey colored material the other cards are consisted of. There is also no signs of any layering or anything present that would lead me to believe that a layer has either been added or subtracted from the card. This all-white back looks identical to that of the n162 Brouthers I sold on Ebay a while back as well as several e95/e96 notebook cards I still have in my collection. I included a link to that n162 Brouthers below:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8724214232&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESO%3AIT&rd=1

The big difference between the two cards (Brouthers and Delehanty) is that the Brouthers was produced with gleaming white cardboard all the way through the card (as evidenced by the chip on his chin). The Delehanty is white all the way up to the surface.

My conclusion that I'm drawing in the interim (and largely because I'm too chicken to try and bust the card out of it's slab for a closer look) is that this card came from an advertising piece of some sort where as the others more than likely came from a small, thin box which held the small packages of candy that also contained the Type 1s.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

An advertising poster would clearly be made from a different paper stock than a box used to hold the candy. So your theory is a sound but with one obvious problem: We've never seen a box and we've never seen an advertsing poster. So there is a great leap of faith here.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

Barry, that's true. But then again, trying to hypothesize an origin of Type 2 e107s (not to mention countless other issues out there) is an ongoing "leap of faith" to begin with. We've always said that Type 2s either came from an advertising piece OR from a box holding the candy. Why not both? We've never had overwhelming evidence to support either source to begin with so we might as well just say "both" since now it appears that Type 2s are derived from different types of material.

I'd be really interested in hearing what the winners of some of those other Type 2 lots from Sotheby's have to say about their cards. Not sure who won those however or if they are even board members.

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Brian,
What about the thickness of the stock? Is the delehanty the same as the doyle?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You're right, Brian. With all the research done on baseball collectibles there is still a lot we don't know and the best we can do is come up with educated guesses. We agree the candies had to be shipped in some kind of box and all products have advertising of some kind so the theory is certainly reasonable.