1921-23 E220 National Caramel Dating Re-evaluation

[rhettyeakley]

The Herb Pennock thread got me thinking about the E220 set and it's proposed date of 1921-23. This was an assumption made by Lew Lipset in his Encyclopedia many years ago. It seems like we should revisit this set and try to re-establish the date a little more concrete.

The set states on the back that there are 120 subjects, which is actually VERY accurate considering most of these sets were not that accurate (see E121 Series of 80). The E220 is known to include 115 diff subjects w/ 5 being featured on two different poses.

This has been a fairly popular set with "Rookie" collectors for a while because of that pesky 1921 date, which I propose it not accurate.

Due to the fact there are 120 different cards known and the back says there were 120 subjects what then leads us to believe these were distributed over many years w/ changes? There are actually two different backs known that I pointed out a few years ago which are a bit tough to distinguish so there were at least 2 "printings" but one would think that if they were updating this set a la the E121 series of 80 then we would have been left w/ more than the 120 known cards that we know of as they elimated one player to add another.

The players:
A few players began their career w/ a particular team in 1922 (I see no cards where 1923 is the earliest poss date)...

-George J. Burns (Cincinnati)
-Joe Dugan (Boston Red Sox)

This would lead us to conclude that the set was at the earliest made in 1922

The following are the "anamolies" in the set as they were done with their careers (or with that team) before the the 1922 season (date is last year w/ that team)

-George H. Burns (Cleveland) 1921
-Shano Collins (Red Sox) 1920
-Art Fletcher (Ginats) 1920
-Larry Kopf (Reds) 1921
-George Pakert (Cubs) 1920
-Scott Perry (A's) 1921
-Everett Scott (Red Sox) 1921
-Vernon Spencer (Giants) 1920
-Whitey Witt (A's) 1921

It has long been established that the FIRST year a player is with a team is the way to determine the date of a set and not the LAST year they are with a team as the manufacturer could have just been working with outdated info.

This is obviously a wierd set as they were up to date on many players' movements but a few (specifically Collins, Fletcher, Paskert and Spencer) were fairly well out of date. I would propose the MOST LIKELY DATE OF THIS SET IS 1922 NOT 1921-23 like previously stated. This isn't going to be too popular with those Rookie Card guys but I believe it to be more accurate.

Thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc are all welcome. I admittedly haven't put too much time into this so feel free to disagree with anything I have said!!!

-Rhett

[rhettyeakley]

I mentioned the two different backs for this sets so I figured I'd show you what they looked like.

-The top one has overall smaller writing and the first "B" in the "Base Ball Stars" line is directly under the first "s" in the word "consists" in the top line

-The lower example has the "B" directly under the second "s" in "consists" of the first line.

Anyways, I'm not sure what this adds to what I stated above, but while we are on the topic I figured I'd throw it out there.

-Rhett

[bcbgcbrcb]

Rhett:

After researching the players you mentioned in my Total Baseball Encyclopedia, I don't see that it would make sense for those players' cards to have all been issued in 1922 or later and not in 1921, too many exceptions IMHO. However, I haven't taken the time to research any other players in the set.

Although it might not be the case in this instance, it appears that lately on this forum, a number of posters seem to be going out of their way to criticize "Rookie Card" collectors and try to find fault with specific dates of specific sets, seemingly in an effort to create doubt amongst "Rookike Card" collectors as to what constitutes a "Rookie Card" and I think that this practice will ultimately discourage collectors from pursuing this type of collection.

[HRBAKER]

Phil,
That is an interesting observation and one I had not noticed. I don't think that many will be deterred by earnest scholarship of the type that normally goes on here. I think that if anything more people may be deterred by the lack of consensus on what is a card and a "rookie" card for that matter. I am not sure many people agree on those as a primer, all MHO. BTW, I love that Pennock photo.

Jeff

[rhettyeakley]

Phil, where did I "criticize" Rookie card collectors? I simply stated that if one had paid a premium for an E220 for the 1921 date then they probably wouldn't like the theory that these are from 1922 and not 1921. You should know me better than that by now I think, there is no "right way" to collect cards, whether you collect Rookie's, Minor Leaguers, PSA 8's, or anything else it is up to each of us to figure out what floats our boat.

As to your point about too many exceptions, you and I are in disagreement. My premise is that if the E220's were produced at ONE TIME, which the fact that the back states 120 subjects and there are exactly 120 cards known today would indicate then it doesn't matter how many exceptions there are as unless the National Caramel guys could look into the future they couldn't have known that those two players I pointed out earlier (Burns (Cin) and Dugan (Red Sox)) would be with those teams in 1922, thus making 1922 the earliest possible date for the issue.

-Rhett

[brianp-beme]

I haven't done any research on the players in the E220 set, but I know there is a third variation of backs out there. This variation has the backs switched...instead of reading top to bottom, they read bottom to top.

Is it possible that National Caramel had separate 120 card runs of these at different dates? It looks like if this is the case they didn't change any of the player info, just the backs. If so, Rhett's theory would still work (dependent upon thorough examination of all the player's) in that the earliest examples would have to be considered based upon the team designations that pinpoint a later date. Having collected these for many years I don't know of any glaring rarities in the set, though as usual some have been tougher to come by.

Brian

[bcbgcbrcb]

Rhett:

Sorry, no personal attack was meant against you. It has just become very frustrating seeing posts that question dates of issue, particularly those sets which have a range of years in "the catalogue". Each time one of these types of posts has appeared recently (except maybe for Kevin's regarding the Novelty Cutlery P/C's), the status of that issue's "Rookie Cards" is always brought to the forefront and, as I mentioned before, I believe that this discourages collectors (by creating confusion/doubt) from pursuing this type of collection, which I for one find very much enjoyable and challenging and have spent a lot of time and effort trying to promote within the hobby.

[brianp-beme]

I thought that I would mention that particular E220 cards can be found with different back variations. I have personally seen around two dozen that have two different backs. I have not encountered a card that has all three back variations. This could indicate multiple printings, short-prints, and the possibility that these were issued over a span of years.

Just something to ponder (E220's are one of my favorite sets...this lower condition collector loves all the miscuts!)

Brian

[HRBAKER]

As a rookie card collector wouldn't one want to know if the previously accepted dates of issue in "the catalog" were wrong?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jeff:

As I mentioned in a previous post not too long ago, these Net 54 discussions regarding possible date(s) of issue changes for vintage card sets seem to rarely if ever translate into the updating of the Standard Catalogue nor the major grading companies' flips. If these "hobby standards" are not looking to make the necessary changes then I don't feel that the "Rookie Card" collectors need to embrace the changes either. After spending years amassing a collection along with a lot of money spent strictly because cards are "Rookie Cards", one does not really want to hear that their cards are not "Rookies" after all unless a brand new discovery is made that preceeds a previously documented "Rookie Card".

[nolemmings]

I'm not certain of that at all Phil. I remember years ago when this forum or its predecessor pointed out how Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store were issued in 1917 rather than 1916. That change was made and is now accepted. Same for m101-5 being issued in 1916, not 1915. R315s are now accepted as not being a 1928 issue. All of these changes arguably had their genesis here on this forum, so it can't be said that these discussions "rarely" lead to changes in the hobby. Sorry if that upsets rookie card collectors, but I prefer scholarship and accuracy, and I would hope most feel the same.

[HRBAKER]

Phil,

Thanks. I understand your position, I am not sure that it answered my question though. I would say that most date changes in the hobby guides don't happen unless there is pretty significant evidence that the previously believed date was incorrect (1948 Leaf baseball perhaps), that part I get. I don't think that it means that there is no benefit in a discussion of the dates and their validity if there seems to be some evidence weighing against them just because it might make a change in a rookie card definition. Rookie cards although an extremely important part of the hobby is a niche like many other things, all IMO.

Jeff

[Myachelydra]

Nice research Rhett. I enjoyed reading your analysis.

[Kenny Cole]

I don't want to slam any rookie card collector, least of all you. However, if the scholarship of this board reveals that a previously attributed date to a set is wrong, it really doesn't matter how long it takes the catalogues to catch up, IMO. If research reveals without much dispute that a card was issued in 1922, the fact that it was previously attributed to 1921 isn't a reason to keep it that way. It was issued when it was issued. That isn't a money thing, its just a factual thing.

Kenny

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'm not certain of that at all Phil. I remember years ago when this forum or its predecessor pointed out how Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store were issued in 1917 rather than 1916. That change was made and is now accepted. Same for m101-5 being issued in 1916, not 1915. R315s are now accepted as not being a 1928 issue. All of these changes arguably had their genesis here on this forum, so it can't be said that these discussions "rarely" lead to changes in the hobby. Sorry if that upsets rookie card collectors, but I prefer scholarship and accuracy, and I would hope most feel the same.

Was a consensus ever reached that all Leafs were issued in 1949, I can't remember.

[nolemmings]

I can't strictly answer your question about "consensus", but Ted Z. says yes--all baseball Leafs 1949. I will defer.

[brianp-beme]

As I mentioned in my previous posts, I have seen three different E220 National Caramel back variations--the two that Rhett has scanned for us, which are printed from the top of the card to bottom, and the other one that I mentioned, which is printed bottom to top.

After re-examining examples of the bottom to top printing variation (all variations fellow board member J.Hatch first pointed out to me years ago), I noted that it has the same printing layout as Rhett's second example, the one that the 'B' in the word 'Base' lines up under the second 's' in the word 'consists'.

Why is this of any relevance? I have two back variations of each of 18 cards. 14 of these pairs consist of Rhett's first top to bottom example (the one where the 'B' in the word 'Base' falls under the first 's' in the word 'consists') and the bottom to top variation I have mentioned (which lines up like Rhett's first example). The other four pairs have a combo of Rhett's back variation one and back variation two.

What can be deduced by this? Perhaps that the bottom to top back variation was not a separate printing by itself, because it appears that the same card does not exist as both top to bottom type 2 and bottom to top. Anyone out there feel free to prove me wrong. An educated guess would be that these two were from the same printing, but for some darn reason the backs on some of the cards were printed upside down on the sheets.

The type one back seems to be the most readily available...I have 118 different of the set (minus the Ruth and Cobb--hey, usually I blanch at the big bucks), and I can vouch that at least 99 are available with type one backs. I would venture to guess that all 120 are available (see list below for ones that it would be nice to verify as well) with this back, but perhaps only a portion are available elsewise.

How this helps out the dating of this issue I'm not sure...perhaps it is for more probing minds like Rhett's to extract the meaning of these observations and carry on with the filling in of the gaps of logic (I really stretched to make a few dental references).

Here is the list of players with unconfirmed type 1 backs--feel free to let us know here if you have any:

George Burns (Cleveland)
Ty Cobb
Frank Frisch
Hank Gowdy
Charles Grimm
Heinie Groh
Chas Hollocher
Rogers Hornsby
Walter Johnson
Pete Kilduff (leaping)
Carl Mays
Emil Muesel
V.J. Picinich
Eddie Rousch
Babe Ruth
George Sisler
Earl Smith
Frank Snyder (crouching)
Frank Snyder (standing)
Milton Stock (batting)
Fred C. Williams



Brian

[ValKehl]

Walter Johnson.

Kindly show a pic of a back that is printed bottom-to-top. I may be dense, but I really don't follow what you mean by this. Thanks in advance!
Val

[nolemmings]

Val, turn your Walter Johnson card over, with his head still pointing up, not down. Now, do you have to read the advertising starting at the bottom of the card toward the top, or from the top of the card toward the bottom?

While I don't collect the E220 issue, here are two examples of Famous and Barr, with the first being top to bottom and the other bottom to top:

[jrhatchjr]

Always nice to be remembered :-)

I do remember some of the correspondence I had with Brain about the E220 backs years ago. I seem to recall I was measuring the back lines in millimeters at the time and also found some backs in my collection to be reversed. Because I am easily confused and I'm pretty tired, for the sake of this discussion the 'B' below the first 's' is type 1, 'B' below the second 's' is type 2? If yes, then here are some verifications to Brian's type 1 list from my own collection:

Gowdy
Rousch
Grimm
Hollacher
Picinich
Burns, CLE
F Snyder crouching
F Snyder standing
Johnson
Frisch
Kilduff
E Meusel

In total, I have 85 of the type 1, 2 of the type 2 back and 21 of the type 2 upside-down backs. I also have a handful I can't identify. Are the 'normal' type 2 backs 10x as difficult as the 'upside-down' type 2 backs? And are those upside-down type 2 backs 4x as difficult as the type 1 backs? Probably not based on my meager sample but the disparity is interesting.

Here are some pics of dupes I have with different backs...

Frank Snyder standing with type 1 and type 2 backs...

e220fsnyderfront.jpg

e220fsnyderback.jpg

Zach Wheat with type 1 and type 2 upside down backs...

e220wheatfront.jpg

e220wheatback.jpg

[jrhatchjr]

Frank Frisch with type 1 and type 2 upside down backs...

[ValKehl]

Todd,
Many thanks for the pics and the explanation. Now, I comprehend.

For what it is worth, my eyes have an easier time distinguishing between the Type 1 and Type 2 backs by looking to see where the "B" in "BALL" is in relation to the "p" in "pictures" above it.
Val

[brianp-beme]

Glad to see a little action on this thread. I know I have slightly tweaked its focus, but I think that maybe the issue date can be solidified somehow by establishing the relevance of the back variations. If anyone can do it, Rhett can.

Thanks Todd for claryifying the top to bottom/bottom to top issue...sometimes it is tough for me to successfully describe something of this nature. And thanks Val and especially Jim for your contributions to the verified type one list, and the little photo primer of each back variation. One question for Jim...is the Kilduff the 'leaping' pose? I will leave it on the unconfirmed list until verified.

I do like Val's suggestion of identifying the backs...my eyes also find it easier to locate the positioning of 'Ball' relative to the line above it. Like mentioned previously, I used to measure the first line in millimeters too and still have them identified on my checklist as either 67mm T/B, 71mm T/B or 71mm B/T...now I don't have to carry along a metric ruler.

Jim's back variation percentages roughly parallel what I have (I would have to break out all the duplicates to find out for sure). A theory on the printing could be that the full set was issued with the type 1 back, and that a second, partial printing was issued of the type two and the upside backs on the same sheet (because I have not seen both of these backs together for a single player). If we can confirm that all the backs were issued with the type one backs, then I think that Rhett's contention that these were issued only one year (or perhaps partially reissued later with no changes to front, just the back) is stronger.

I have updated the unconfirmed list of type 1 variations below...feel free to pitch in. There has to be a few more collectors of this silly little set, or at least people that have a type in their collection to help out the cause.

Revised list of unconfirmed type one back variations:

Ty Cobb
Heinie Groh
Rogers Hornsby
Pete Kilduff (leaping)
Carl Mays
Babe Ruth
George Sisler
Earl Smith
Milton Stock (batting)
Fred C. Williams


thanks, Brian

[jrhatchjr]

I do hereby confirm that the Kilduff type 1 card in my posession is of him leaping. In addition, I also have these three type 1 backs in my collection:

Hornsby
Groh
Fred C Williams

I did say I was tired last night. The fact that my cards are in no order whatsoever also contributed to me missing them the first time around :-)

[brianp-beme]

Thanks to Jim I have narrowed down the 'Type 1' unverified backs (as a reminder type 1 backs are the ones where the word 'Ball' in line two lines up below the 'p' in the word 'picture' located in line one...thanks Val).

Unverified Type 1 backs:

Ty Cobb
Carl Mays
Babe Ruth
George Sisler
Earl Smith
Milton Stock (batting)

Let us know if you have any of the above with the Type 1 back, and maybe we can nail down for certain that each card was issued with this back, and then perhaps we can move onto the other back types.

Brian

[Matt]

[brianp-beme]

Thanks Matt...that is a nice card and believe it or not, fairly high grade for this issue. Here is the update:

Unverified Type 1 backs:

Ty Cobb
Carl Mays
Babe Ruth
Earl Smith
Milton Stock (batting)


Brian

[t213]

Can we verify that all cards come with a type 2 and/or type 2 reverse back? For purposes of the census, I have about 40 different type 1s, and these type 2s:

type 2 regular back
Cunningham
Paskert
Snyder (standing)

type 2 reverse back
Graney

Andy

[brianp-beme]

Hi Andy...I was kinda getting the type 1 backs out of the way first and then was going to tackle the more juicy type 2 and reversed backs. As I earlier theorized, and unless proven otherwise, I believe that the type 2 and reversed are not found for the same player, making me surmise that they were both printed on the same sheet. And it will be interesting to get an idea to what extent these were printed...just half the set? more, less? They are definitely less frequently seen.

Brian

[rhettyeakley]

Glad to see this thread getting some activity. Unfortunately, I have sold most of the E220 partial set that I once had and didn't bother writing down the front/back combos or I would be helping out more. I think what we are finding is leading to the idea that this was a 1922 issue, and not a multi-year production as previously thought to be.
-Rhett

[eb548]

Im a little confused. I own this Ruth and was wondering what type this is? I am guessing this is also a REVERSE BACK?? Thanks Guys!

[brianp-beme]

Eb548 your Ruth would be considered a type 2 reversed...the 'b' of 'Ball' in the second line is directly below the 'i' of 'pictures' in the first line, instead of lining up underneath the 'p' in 'pictures' (this would be the type 1 back). It is considered reversed in that the other two backs have their printed lines start in the top right corner and work downward, while yours is reversed, the lines starting from the bottom left and working upward. I would love to own your card...it would fit right into my collection, like horsehide in the webbing!

Brian

[Mark]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Thanks Matt...that is a nice card and believe it or not, fairly high grade for this issue. Here is the update:

Unverified Type 1 backs:

Ty Cobb
Carl Mays
Babe Ruth
Earl Smith
Milton Stock (batting)

Brian

I've got a Type 1 Cobb.

[brianp-beme]

Thanks Mark...consider Cobb kicked off the unverified type 1 team (definitely a type 1 personality, however).

Unverified Type 1 backs:

Carl Mays
Babe Ruth
Earl Smith
Milton Stock (batting)


I swear I will get to the type 2 backs...just might be a long stretch before I find the time (I wish it would stop hiding from me).

Brian

[brianp-beme]

Finally a chance to rekindle the E220 National Caramel back topic.

Starting off, I have not heard from anyone else in regards to the final four unverified Type 1 backs. The list of unconfirmed subjects remains at:

Carl Mays
Babe Ruth
Earl Smith
Milton Stock (batting)

Would still love to hear from collectors if they have any of these cards with the type 1 back (for reference Jim's earlier post clearly details with photographs the three types of backs found). I would venture to state that it appears the complete E220 set can be found with the Type 1 back.

Now onto some percentages. I tallied up the E220 card pool available to me, and I currently have catalogued 325 cards total. Of these 325 cards, 257 have the Type 1 back. 19 cards have the Type 2 back, and 51 cards have the Type 2 reversed back. So the current approximate percentages are:

Type 1 back: 79.1%
Type 2 back: 5.8%
Type 2 reversed back: 15.7%

Clearly the type 1 back dominates the card population--currently it appears on four of every five cards seen. The Type 2 appears to be the rarest, with the type 2 reversed being seen three times as often as the regular Type 2.

A point worth repeating is that I have yet to see an individual player's card with all three backs, nor have I seen a particular card with both versions of type 2 backs. This leads me to believe that the entire set was printed with the type 1 backs, and that perhaps both type 2 backs were printed on one separate sheet as well.

Now I would like to tally the specific cards that have been seen with each Type 2 back. I have listed below the ones that have been documented so far with each back, and would like to enlist the assistance of fellow collectors regarding any that they might have in their collections. So here goes:


'Regular' Type 2 backs verified (13 currently):

Wilbur Cooper
Wm. Cunningham
Hank Gowdy
Charles Grimm
Sam Harris
Chas. Hollocher
Walter Johnson
Pete Kildulf (leaping)
Geo. Paskert
V.J. Picinich
Raymond Schmandt
Frank Snyder (standing)
George Whitted (batting)


Reversed Type 2 backs verified (25 currently):

James Austin
George Burns (Cleveland)
John Collins
Jimmy Dykes (fielding)
Arthur Fletcher
Frank Frisch
Larry Gardner
J.C. Graney
Heinie Groh
Harry Hooper
Rogers Hornsby
Carl Mays
Lee Meadows
Emil Meusel
Bernie Neis
Eddie Rousch
Babe Ruth
George Sisler
Earl Smith
John Smith
Sherrod Smith
Frank Snyder (crouching)
Zach Wheat
Fred C. Williams
"Pep" Young


Always fun to do a little research, and any help on it would be appreciated too!

Brian

[ethicsprof]

just saw this thread and it's fascinating!!!
many thanks for the efforts.

i have the E220 Type 2 reversed W. Jacobson

all the best,
barry

[Mark]

Brian,
Thanks for continuing to act as a pioneer, scientist, archeologist on this.
I have a small stack of these in another location, but here goes. A couple are dupes, but I will just list them all to help with the population report.

Type 2 regular back

Turner Barber
George Paskert
Roger Peckinpaugh
Jimmy Ring
James Vaughn

Type 2 reverse back
Babe Adams
Max Carey
John Collins
Jake Daubert
Arthur Fletcher
Rogers Hornsby
Robert Nehf
Darrill Pratt
Eddie Rousch
Casey Stengel
Milton Stock
Aaron Ward

[frohme]

Great thread, Brian!

I have (or had) only 4 - the Snyder may be a contradiction.

Type 2 - reversed
Babe Adams
Aaron Ward

Type 2 Regular
Whitted (batting)
Snyder (catching).

[brianp-beme]

Thanks Barry, Mike and Mark for your contributions. Maybe if we get enough responses we can get a clearer idea that perhaps a good chunk or most of the 120 cards were issued with these backs, but just in smaller quantities.

Of course there always has to be a rule-breaker to monkey with a cool theory that you have spent countless brain cells to formulate. Mike, can you confirm that the Regular Type 2 back Frank Snyder card you have (there are two Frank Snyder cards in the set) is the one that shows him crouching in a catcher's position? Or do you have the one that shows him standing with glove? If it is the crouching, catching pose, then the 'type 2 cards printed on one sheet' theory is less likely (I guess you could have two crouching Snyders with different backs on one sheet).

Here is an updated (12/1/15) listing...keep them coming:


Type 1 backs NOT verified:

Carl Mays


'Regular' Type 2 backs verified (29 currently):

G.C. Alexander
Wilbur Cooper
Wm. Cunningham
"Red" Faber
Walter Gerber
Hank Gowdy
Charles Grimm
Sam Harris
Chas. Hollocher
Jimmy Johnston
Pete Kilduff (bending)
Pete Kilduff (leaping)
Walter "Buster" Mails
Steve O'Neill
Geo. Paskert
Roger Peckinpaugh
V.J. Picinich
Jimmy Ring
Raymond Schmandt
Everett Scott
Bob Shawkey
Urban Shocker
John Smith
Frank Snyder (crouching)
Frank Snyder (standing)
James Vaughan
Robert Veach
George Whitted (batting)
Arthur Wilson


Reversed Type 2 backs verified (63 currently):

Babe Adams
James Austin
Franklin "Home Run" Baker
Dave Bancroft
George Burns (Cleveland)
Joe Bush
Leon Cadore
Max Carey
Eddie Collins
John Collins
Walton Cruise
George Cutshaw
Jake Daubert
Chas. A Deal
Bill Doak
Joe Dugan
Jimmy Dykes (fielding)
Ira Flagstead
Arthur Fletcher
Frank Frisch
Larry Gardner
Charles Glazner
J.C. Graney
Heinie Groh
Claude Hendrix
Chas. Hollocher
Harry Hooper
Rogers Hornsby
Waite Hoyt
Wilbur Hubbell
William Jacobsen
Walter Johnson
Larry Kopf
Walter "Buster" Mails
Carl Mays
Lee Meadows
Emil Meusel
Robert Nehf
Bernie Neis
Ivan Olson
Ralph "Cy" Perkins
Scott Perry
Jeff Pfeffer
Wally Pipp
Derill Pratt
Eddie Rousch
Babe Ruth
Raymond Schmandt
Urban Shocker
George Sisler
Earl Smith
John Smith
Sherrod Smith
Frank Snyder (crouching)
Vernon Spencer
Chas. "Casey" Stengle
Milton Stock (fielding)
Aaron Ward
Zach Wheat
George Whitted (fielding)
Fred C. Williams
"Pep" Young
Ross Young


Subjects that have been seen with all three back types:

Chas. Hollocher
Walter "Buster" Mails
Raymond Schmandt
Urban Shocker
John Smith
Frank Snyder (crouching)




Brian

[frohme]

Hey Brian,

Here's the Snyder I had - I think I understood the back descriptions, type1/2 reversed/not but maybe I've got it wrong.



and the others,

Whitted Fielding (Type 1)


Whitted batting (Type 2 - normal)


Type 2 - reversed
Adams


Ward


--
Mike

[Matt]

There was a large lot of E220s mixed in with E120s in the collect.com auction that closed last week (that some were E220s was not noted in the lot description). You can probably get some good data from whomever won that lot.

[Mark]

I've found a type 2 regular Grimm, which has already been reported. But I also found a type 2 reversed Whitted fielding.

[marcdelpercio]

Just curious if anybody is still tracking the back variations on these or has a more updated list? I have searched for any such threads on this set more recent than this one and haven't been able to find anything. I picked up a very large lot of E220s and could make dozens of additions to these checklists if anybody is still interested.

[brianp-beme]

Thanks Marc for reposting this fun thread...boy was I obviously five years younger back then! I have observed many more subjects of the type 2 and 3 backs, including a couple cards that now have all three backs verified. Unfortunately I can not add anything to the list currently, because it is all buried beneath a stack of moveable objects. When the opportunity arises I will post updated lists.

Brian

[marcdelpercio]

Thanks, Brian. I figured that there must be something more current than this. I have also found a few subjects that have all three backs and quite a few others with the Type 2 back. It would certainly seem that there were at least two printings of these, if not three. I'm eager to see your list whenever you get the chance!

[brianp-beme]

After sporadic observation over the past few years since the original posting, I have updated the verified back listings for the E220 National Caramel set (see post # 39). We are down to just one Type 1 back (Carl Mays) that has not been verified...I assume it is out there. The verified type 2 backs have grown from 13 subjects to 29, and the Type 2 reversed from 37 to the current 63 subjects verified.

Would love to hear of any more out there, and especially from the re-invigorator of this thread, Marc.

Brian

[SMPEP]

Getting back to Rhett's original question on the date ... can I ask a dumb question?

Is it possible that the correct date was 1921, not 1922, because these two "rookies" were players that were known to be coming up with certain clubs? I am borrowing the concept from the 1980s garbage where they issued a lot of pre-rookie cards based on players that they knew were going to be in the big leagues in a couple years. Given that there are only two players that debuted in 1922, is it possible these were well-known pre-rookies that were about to make the show ... and the card company just got out in front?

I don't know enough about either player to answer that question (maybe they were obscure in 1921), but just given the numbers of players that date to 1922 versus the larger list that dates to 1920/1921 it makes me wonder if there wasn't some early adoption of these two players because they were known future players.

Cheers,
Ptrick

[rhettyeakley]

The players in question weren't rookies but were veterans that had changed teams. I looked up when Joe Dugan was dealt to the Red Sox and there was a three team trade that took place January 10, 1922 that landed Dugan in Boston. I haven't checked on any of the other dates.

I love seeing older threads like this get new life and a fresh set of eyes!

[brianp-beme]

Rhett was gracious enough not to complain when I semi-derailed this thread years ago, and it is good to see he holds no grudges.

It is interesting that despite the three different back printings, as noted in detail in this thread, no changes occurred on the front, such as name (Bagbyk would have been an obvious one to change), position, team, etc. It seems more likely that the various printings came in one time frame, such as 1922 as conjectured by Rhett. Of course the printers could have been lazy or not cared...after all these were just stupid baseball cards and the job just a paycheck for some Joe Blow, so they could have been issued in multiple years. I still like Rhett's 1922 estimate as the earliest print date, especially due to the Dugan early 1922 trade to the Red Sox.

Brian

[Leon]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Thanks Marc for reposting this fun thread...boy was I obviously five years younger back then! I have observed many more subjects of the type 2 and 3 backs, including a couple cards that now have all three backs verified. Unfortunately I can not add anything to the list currently, because it is all buried beneath a stack of moveable objects. When the opportunity arises I will post updated lists.

Brian

Five years ago we all had more energy.