|
Nice thread. Nothing new to add to your lists, but I did want to point out (or re-point, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread), that because the various E92 images were used in multiple other sets, the blank back cards on your list probably can never be conclusively identified as belonging to one of the E92 group of sets.
Even if you discount the E105 Mello Mints as being the source of the blanks, due to their thinness of paper, there are still the E90-1, E101, E102, and E106 cards that share the same images as what is seen on your blank backs list. Each subject on the list has between 1 to 4 possible other sets that the blank back could be from, and this doesn't include the D303 sets (not sure of their thickness) nor the T216's (which I believe at least some are thin). Always appreciate a research thread like this one...keep the nose to the grindstone! Brian |
Brian, you are absolutely correct that we can't definitively say the blank backs are e92, however I believe there is some pretty strong circumstantial evidence to point to them being so. Below are they various related sets and why they are/are not possible.
E105 - easiest to rule out, different size, thinner card stock. E106 - glossy stock that frequently cracks, of the blank backs I've seen, none seem to have the glossy stock or crackling effect, multiple confirmed players are not in set such as Dougherty, Davis, McLean D303 - multiple confirmed players do not exist in the set including Dougherty, Davis, McLean T216 - there are separate known t216 blank backs, my understanding they were identified based on a slightly different card stock. These were all originally sold through Goodwin and their aite is now down. Also, some players like Crawford, have minor differences in captions which distinguish t216 from e92. The blank back Crawford referenced has the same captioning as the e92 E90-1 - some poses don't exist, Crawford pose is different, Davis is different, etc. See additional note below. e102 - missing several players such as seigle and mclean E101 - most likely alternative. The biggest issue I have ruling these e101 is the lack of other print defects that can certainly be traced to e101. While I've not actively looked, I personal don't recall ever seeing an e101 with misfit back, missing color, etc. I also wouldnt be surprised if eventually we determined e101 was a generic printing by the same printer as e92. E92 - in my opinion the most likely suspect, all players with 1 exception, can be confirmed in the e92 sets. Also the e92 sets are littered with print errors that can be proved to be e92. There are misfit backs, upside down backs, wet on fronts, missing colors, front misfits, etc. Quite simply, the print quality was quite poor. As such I don't believe missing printing the back entirely would be that unrealistic. Given everything else, this is why I point to the e92s as the.most likely suspect. One final note, all of the above assumes the blank backs are from the same set, which ia not guaranteed. From memory I believe there is 1 blank back that is definitely from e90-1 as the pose is not in any other set. I just can't recall off hand who it was and I don't have a good way to check at the moment. |
One other thought that I didn't realize until recently, at least with Davis, there are variations in the print characteristics of the card. By this I mean the colors printed on the front. The blank back i have has the same color.characterics such as the bluish dust cloud as both the blue and red croft candy. Sorry not sure how to post the scan from Flickr using my phone, if some one else wants to grab my scan they can.
|
The only certifiable E90-1 blank back is the Kraus card in my collection.
|
Paul is accurate in that he has the only known E90-1 blank back subject (Krause), because Krause is not seen in any other set but the E90-1.
I have removed E105 and E106 cards from the below list due to the points made. The below list shows the possible other sets (E90-1, E101 and E102) that these subjects are in besides the E92 sets. Chase fielding: E101, E102 Crawford red: E101, E102 Davis sliding: E101 Dougherty: E90-1, E101, E102 Gibson back view: E101 Lajoie fielding: E101, E102 McGraw: E101 McLean: E90-1, E101 Miller fielding: E90-1, E101, E102 Schlei: E101 Seigle: E90-1, E101 Smith: E101, E102 Tinker batting: E101, E102 Wagner throwing: E90-1, E101, E102 Zimmerman: E101, E102 As you can see, besides all these cards being in the E92 sets, they are all also in the E101. With Paul's E90-1 Krause showing that it is possible for E90-1 cards (and thus other sets) to have blank backs, I think we can only narrow things down to the above list, unless there are some recognizable printing differences between sets of the same subject. Just like tobacco cards and blank backs being seen in all the major sets, my guess is that E90-1, E101 and E102 could possibly be the source of these blank backs. Everybody have fun trying to figure all this blank back action out! Brian |
2 Attachment(s)
Here's a McGraw blank back from Goodwin. It says T216 on the holder, but I bought it as a non-advertisement card for the back run. In other words, I don't need any more blank backs for my back run. It sort of looks like a T216, I guess...
|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Then again, the front captions are different...Pitt for e92 St Louis for t216. Disclaimer...the e92 posted is not mine! |
Pete, do you also have the Crawford T216 blank back?I can't remember if it is you or someone else.
|
Quote:
|
in retrospect i wish I bought them all!!!!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You have an extended dance mix going with the Miller run. I would call my McGraw run a radio edit run. Plus, McGraw was mostly NY Giants thru the e and T card series, so the captions I assume are all the same for McGraw.
|
Quote:
As for the T216 McGraw, does it have a glossy front? I would go with the Goodwin assessment because (as you and most others probably know) there were a lot of T216s he sold from a find, which were hand cut and blank backed. Here are some I used to own, mostly from that find... http://luckeycards.com/pt216x6miscutsfinal.jpg |
Leon, yes the McGraw was from that same sale I think. The Gibson you had has similar scribbling on the back to the McGraw. I don't recall the backstory of the find. Looking at the card, I thought it also looks like an e106 with the gloss. Anyway, I'm glad I was able to get it at auction when I did.
|
just in...
2 Attachment(s)
SGC labeled "A" and they designate it on the flip "e101"
|
Blank backs
Chase is by far the most common Blank back
|
1 Attachment(s)
Here is the other blue Croft's Matty.
|
Quote:
|
Just to add a bit of salsa picante to this potboiler, I hold an E92 Chase blank back PSA 7. But PSA, in their infinite wisdom, has labelled the flip E92 Crofts Candy. How did the grader deduce the blank-backed card he was examining was intended to be a Crofts Candy? Too much glue in the grading room? Oh PSA, you continue to disappoint.
|
You would think if a card was a blank back they would not differentiate what type they thought it was. Something like E92-Unc might be applicable.
Quote:
|
Or how about a E92 Chase blank back? How do these people think?
|
Or the grader could have simply graded the card E92 blank back. There are others known. Too much of a stretch, I guess.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Blank back Knight.
|
Bump, updated the lists with my Bender and Bryan's Knight. Anything else to add?
|
6 Attachment(s)
Great thread! DJ, thanks for bumping indirectly- this will serve as a direct bump. DJ’s list already confirms a blue Crofts Cobb and Nadja Cobb, but there are no pics. And a tango eggs for good measure - same front so why not
|
Cool
Cool Ryan...used to own one of those...Jerry
|
Nice cards, Ryan. Love those backs!
|
Thanks Leon
Jerry, you probably owned at one time a fair percentage of all the rare stuff that gets posted here! |
Thanks
Thanks Ryan...believe me your collection takes mine out in the parking lot and beats the crap out of it...Jerry
|
Had a board member ask me today if certain cards were known, so figured I would update and bump this thread. I know a number of blank backs have come up for sale in the past year or so and I haven't updated them so if anyone has additions to add to/remove from the lists please let me know.
|
I don't see the Bender white cap blank back listed on your original post.
Confirmed picture in Leons post #64 of this thread. And yes, I would love to overpay somebody for that card if they own it. EDIT: NVM, I've been made aware that is a T216 blank back (I'd still like to buy it though). |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
We can add Knabe to the list of E92 Croft's Candy red backs.
This was quite the interesting back run pickup for me, (and DJ and I did confer before the card ended up with me... And a big thank you to DJ for bringing all of his red Croft's for in-person comparison). When I saw the original scans of the card, I thought it was likely a fake back, similar to the T213-1 Coupons from several years ago. (And also a big thank you to the board member who didn't hesitate to send me a number of examples of those fake Coupons to see in-person for education and comparison.) Turner was quite gracious in allowing me to have folks look at the card in person before finalizing the sale -- I gained comfort from having a number of experts look at the holdered card. While I don't want to speak on their behalf, their opinions that it is real gave me confidence. I was having a tough time getting a clear high res scan, so Brian had DJ and me come by the REA office to have their photographer do high res photos of the Knabe and several of DJ's red Croft's for comparison. (Thanks!) It was much easier to see things and the back at that point. (The photo below is me shrinking those high res photos for posting purposes.) All in, thank you to everybody who took the time to share their knowledge and opinions. |
Quote:
Congrats, Steve! And kudos to Turner, DJ, Brian, et al. What a great hobby story with a terrific ending. Thanks for sharing! |
Congrats to Steve and many kudos to all of those that helped make this happen for him!
Now then guys, your next mission impossible assignment is to repeat this performance with respect to a Croft's Candy red back of Hugh Jennings for MY BACK RUN! :D |
Nice prick up, Steve!
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think what Leon is trying to say is this is the Viagra of prewar cards. Brian |
Quote:
Thanks, guys -- it's fun when we get to add something to DJ's checklist. I love threads like this one. |
Thanks Steve, I've updated the checklist of red backs.
I've also updated the notes on the Nadja Donovan to indicate the one in the PSA pop report is actually an E104-3. The Nadja Donovan is still unconfirmed. Always looking to hear about any other examples that people can confirm exist from these sets. |
Question
Why isn’t Cobb in the e92 Dockman series? It was long thought he didn’t exist in the e92 Nadjas until 3 of them surfaced 6 yrs ago… is it possible he’s out there somewhere with a Dockman back?
|
Quote:
I'm glad this card turned out to be real...congrats steve. |
Quote:
Brian |
I got to get a look at Steves Knabe a while back when he had questions. Nice card. The questions were about the odd left side of the panel that says candy, and if it looked real.
It sure is, and looking at it alongside a few other cards led me to some interesting things. And made me look at the few caramel cards I have. To save time - I type pretty slowly- I'll just paste in what I wrote in an email I figured I’d let you know about the things I found interesting. (with one corrected typo) ----------------------------------------------- First, they are all genuine, Some of what’s interesting is what I thought was not standard, but they’re obviously from different sources and the odd stuff is consistent. The fronts are all typical 1910 ish lithography. Halftone for the picture, solid colors combined with the precursor to halftones which I cant think of the name of just now. The backs are where it gets interesting. Lithography typically prints with a very even flat quality to it. These show a line of darker print around most of the printed areas. This is most visible on the lighter ones, but is there in all of them. That is typical of typography, especially on larger type the force involved in printing forces some of the ink on the type or print block to the sides. It’s generally referred to as squeeze out. (Printers aren’t always the most imaginative bunch) The various flaws in the backs make more sense with typography. For example The left of the candy panel on Knabe looks to be where that line is either breaking and about to come off, or has broken off and been reattached On both of the darker ones the upper left corner is mush thicker, but the edges are uneven. That’s most likely from “stuff” – squeezed out ink, random tiny paper debris etc building up on the Print block until it’s at the level of the surface so it gets inked and prints. Each one shows potentially broken letters especially the Bender. I checked my tiny supply of E cards, and to my surprise many of them showed similar signs of typography. But none showed one of the key signs, that being the printed area being impressed into the stock. That can happen with some types of typography. German stamps were all typographed into the 1920’s and often don’t show those impressions. But their “plates” were shallow, and more like etchings where only the high spots were printed (instead of the whole thing being etched and the high spots wiped clean as in art. I’d be surprised if the places printing cards used that system, but it’s possible. What I think is more likely is a hybrid type, where the print block printed to a roller which then printed the stock, so offset typography. I’ll have to ask the print museum if squeeze out could translate across the offset process. I suspect it can. There are a lot of avenues to explore just in E92, and most in the crofts candy. If the damaged letters are plate damage they will be consistent. So other Benders will have the same group of damaged letters. Or, other cards from the same place on a different sheet will have those damaged letters. Damage on typography blocks tends to be progressive, so you might see a series of them as those letters came apart. It's probable the Crofts candy was all done using the same print blocks for the backs. It should be possible to figure out which color was done first. My guess would be the order is black/blue/red It should also be possible to sort the set into groups by comparing flaws to checklists and pop reports. Maybe not precisely, but just looking at set size in general, 40 and 50 could both be small sheets of 10 different players. But 62 doesn’t fit that at all. So it’s not entirely that simple. ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve B |
Great research and congratulations on the addition Steve.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:44 PM. |