E92 confirmed lists for difficult backs
 

Looking to assemble a list of confirmed E92 cards with difficult backs, can anyone add any more to the lists I have?

Red Crofts Candy
- Barry x2 - SGC A, SGC 10
- Bender (stripped cap) - raw
- Bemis x2 - SGC A, CSG 1
- Bescher x3 - SGC 50, SGC A, raw
- Cobb - rumored but I have not seen an image
- Crawford x2 - SGC 20, SGC 10
- Devlin - CSG 2
- Donovan - SGC 10
- Dooin - SGC 2
- Davis x3 - SGC 60, SGC 50, SGC 30 (Lionel Carter)
- Evers - SGC 80
- Miller (fielding) x3 - raw, SGC 40, PSA A
- Shean - SGC 10 with red crofts overprint

Menagerie
- Bemis
- Kleinow - raw (poor)
- Lobert - SGC A
- McGraw - SGC 30
- Murphy - SGC 30
- Shean - BVG 1
- Wagner (batting) - SGC 40

Blank Back
- Chase x5 - SGC A, SGC 20, SGC 30, SGC 40, PSA 7
- Crawford - raw poor
- Davis - PSA A
- Dougherty - SGC 40
- Gibson - Unknown
- Kleinow - SGC 3.5
- Knight - raw
- Lajoie - SGC A
- Magee - SGC 1
- Mathewson - SGC 1.5
- McGraw x2 - was SGC 10 now raw (with cocoa overprint on front), SGC 40, SGC 60
- McLean - SGC 10
- Miller (fielding) x2 - SGC 30, raw
- Schlei - SGC 40
- Seigle - SGC 10
- Smith - SGC 40
- Tinker - SGC 40 (Goodwin - no scan)
- Wagner (throwing) - SGC40 (possibly 2, but they appear to be the same card with different cert numbers, cards have obvious diamond cut), PSA 3 (different than the SGC copies, normal cut)
- Zimmerman - BVG Authentic

Prizefighters
- Magee - SGC 40
- Young - SGC 30
- E8 U.S.S. Connecticut
- E8 U.S.S. Pennsylvania (Added 5/14/23)

Nadjas that still need to be confirmed
- Bescher
- Cobb (rumored, but has anyone actually seen the card?)
- Donovan - 1 is posted on the PSA pop report, but I don't trust PSA enough to cross it off the list without seeing it.
- Doyle (with bat)
- Zimmerman

Blue Crofts that still need to be confirmed
- Bender (white cap)
- Bergen
- Cobb
- Donovan
- Doyle (throwing)
- Gibson
- Lajoie
- Magee
- Matthewson
- Miller (batting)
- Murphy
- Schlei
- Seigle
- Smith
- Tinker
- Zimmerman


Thanks
DJ

Nice list DJ. I wish I could help :). Here is something to throw out there though. I remember the E92 Miller Fielding discussion and believe there were some background and/or shading differences with that pose in other series, which is how they are differentiated. I assume it is the same shading differences (to their e92 counterparts) which has these labeled as E101 and E102 respectively?

I personally think we will find several more, different players of all of the backs mentioned above. It's only a matter of time. *The scans aren't to size and are at least caramel with wrong backs........

http://luckeycards.com/pe92younge79back.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/pe92mageee78back.jpg

There is an E 90–1 background variation...but I do not know of any variations within the 92.

Leon, i forgot about the prize fighter backs and haven't tried to put a list of those together yet. As Pete stated, i believe from the Miller thread it was believed that the no sunset variation was limited to only e90-1. I am not aware of any variation in either the Young or Magee within the e92/e101/e102/e105 family of sets. I believe SGC likely just labeled those based on whatever the submitter wrote down. Same with the blank backs, i don't think there is a way to differentiate which set those came from (except the freaky McGraw that showed up earlier this month). One other point i would make is that we know the e92 quality control was not very good based on the number of miscuts that have shown up, but i don't recall ever seeing a miscut or other issue that are definitely from any other series.

Dj

So we can add prizefighter to the E92 backs and include at least these two. And I am almost certain I have seen at least another baseball player / prizefighter back or two also....Here is a Menagerie as an example..


http://luckeycards.com/pe92menageriemurphy.jpg

Thanks Leon,

I added your two prize fighters and the blank backs I was able to find quickly to the original list. Also digging through the archives I came up with another Menagerie (Bemis) from old threads confirmed by a reliable board member.

DJ

There is a blank back Gibson "back view" as well, but I have no idea whether it's considered an e90-1, e92, e101 or one of the other sets that contains that image.

But I do know that that image exists with a blank back.

Hope that helps,

Richard.

Please enlighten the E-card novice - I assume the Menagerie and Prizefighter backs are from the E26 and E78 sets, and were mistakenly printed on the back of E92 sheets?

Has anyone seen non-baseball E-cards from that era with "wrong" baseball backs? Now that would be a tough type collection!

Dan, you got it exactly right. The Menagerie and Prize fighter were misprinted on the back of the baseball cards. I don't recall ever seeing either of those with the baseball back, however, I have also never looked.

Richard, thanks, I've added Gibson to the list of blank backs. Do you happen to know the grade or if it is raw?

DJ

Thanks DJ, very interesting stuff!

It seems to me that of the Young and Magee Prizefighters, the Magee designated as E102 must be incorrect. The matching upside-down/miscut backs on those two cards suggest that they were cut from the same sheet. Magee and Young were both in the E101 set, but only Magee was in E102. So, if these cards were on the same sheet, it could not have been an E102 sheet. That's not to say it was definitely an E101 sheet, but we know it wasn't an E102.

Here's something else. (Again, warning - a novice outside of his comfort zone.) The E26 Animals and E78 Prizefighters were 1910 issues, yes? My understanding is that the E101 and E102 printings would have predated that - at least they're slabbed as 1908/09. So it seems to me that those "wrong backs" could not be E101s or E102s. Looking at the seven confirmed Menagerie backs (and also the Prizefighters, actually), the only sets that contain all those front poses are E92 (all four), E101, and E105. We know E101 was a 1909 issue, as was E92. The only 1910 issue was E105. So is it possible that the wrong backs are actually E105s? Doesn't that make the most sense based on the dates?

E105s are on almost paper thin stock.....I don't think all of the "years" of those early caramel sets are so set in stone either. I think there were series issued multiple years.

I agree with Leon, e105 is thinner stock. Even in a slab you can tell the differences in stock. As an example 1914 and 1915 crackerjack cards (most) look the same on the front. If you hold them up to a light 1915's you can see the back printing because they are so thin , 1914's you can read every word it is that much more thin. With that being said, and the fact that I have collected e92's for more than 15 years, when I hold my menagerie to the light and look at it in hand it has same quality/thickness of a e92. Oh yeah, here is my already verified Menagerie Animal back...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...e39855ed6d.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...88b04da540.jpg

Ephus, Is that the same one that was on Ebay earlier this year? In either case, very nice card!

DJ

No, I have had it for maybe 6+ years. It was for sale earlier this year on Memory Lane's Own IT Now sale, but did not sell. Maybe you saw it there.


Kelly

Kelly, that's the same one. Thanks

Earlier today I was also asked if I had a list of confirmed crofts blue backs. I put a quick list together, but am still missing the following. So can anyone confirm any of the ones below?

Bender (white cap)
Bergen
Casey
Cobb
Donovan
Doyle (throwing)
Gibson
Lajoie
Magee
Matthewson
Miller (batting)
Miller (fielding)
Murphy
Schlei
Seigle
Smith
Tinker
Zimmerman

I also found evidence of a 2nd red crofts Crawford, so that list has been updated.

DJ

I don't have a scan but there is a Red back Crofts Evers.....it is from a very reliable source. Thanks for the efforts.

Added a 3rd Miller fielding red back...Any one else able to add to these lists?

DJ

Hey DJ -- sorry for being so slow in responding to this.
The truth is that I don't remember for sure. I will see if I can track down some information and return to post whatever I find (if anything).

Richard.

wow! a third? what condition?

Thanks everyone, added a few more to the blank backs and knocked off a few more blue backs. Please keep the lists going.

Pete, appears to be vg/ex-ex, but trimmed. Will send you a PM shortly.

DJ

I think I have owned 2 Red backed Miller fielding cards before. I am sure at least one is counted and I am not counting the other as it was too long ago (and might have been counted).

Thanks to a board member, I've got confirmation of an e92 red croft's Shean added to the list. Any more to add?

DJ

in case you're a stickler for documentation purposes, the "blank back McGraw SGC 10 (with cocoa overprint on front)" is now raw :)

nice
 

Don't blame you for popping that one out.......that 10 designation was crazy....Jerry

Thanks Jerry, was happy to win it from you :) I guess the advertisement printing on the front is like a stamp, makes it technically "poor"? Anyhow its in a binder page now.

Wonder how it happened. Face down on a wet Crofts Cocoa sheet?

(sorry to derail thread)

Rob, I updated the description. That's a great card, kind of wishing I had kept bidding higher myself.

DJ

I know this is an old thread, but figured I would bump this to the top to see if we can add/cross anything off these lists.

I found a post from over a decade ago referencing a red crofts Barry (SGC 10), but would still like to confirm the player was correct and it isn't a case of mistaken identity. Also found an old post selling a blue crofts Bergen and I picked up a blue Gibson. If anyone can confirm any others, please post or let me know.

DJ

Yes, I can confirm the existence of a Crofts Blue Cobb. I had one about 20 years ago, but sold it when I left the hobby and folded Full Count's tent. As I recall it was graded a PSA 4. Nice card.

Thanks John, blue Cobb has been taken off the list. I suspect most of the blue backs will end up being confirmed, so can anyone else confirm any?

DJ

Here is a scan of the Evers. Unfortunately, it is no longer in my possession.

Kevin, :eek: that's all i have to say. Thanks for the scan.

Leon, I am assuming this is the same Evers you were referring to, would that be accurate?

DJ

incredible
 

Incredible Evers Kevin!!.........Jerry

yes

E92 Blue/Red Backs
 

I can confirm these three players can be found with Croft's Candy backs in blue:

Casey, Lajoie, Murphy

And yes, there is an SGC 10 Barry with a red back.

Have images of them all.

Peter

Thanks Peter, I've updated the lists.

When you say you have images of them all, does that include a Cobb? I've only heard rumors of the Cobb (as in I heard from a friend of a friend that someone used to own one), but have never found a reliable source to actually say they have seen the card.

If you wouldn't mind, I would love to see the SGC 10 Barry, that and the Cobb are the only ones I have not seen a scan of yet.

Thanks
DJ
x2drich2000@yahoo.com

Been a few months since I bumped this to the top. Is anyone able to add anything to the confirmed lists? Also, I've been able to confirm all croft's candy with black backs except for Davis. Can anyone confirm this card?

DJ

I can confirm red and blue from my first collection....

Now that I have it hand, I've added the 3rd confirmed red croft Bescher to the list.

What is interesting to me is you can see the SGC 50 copy and the raw copy have the exact areas on the back that are missing ink and that the missing spots got more pronounced from the raw to SGC 50 copies. Here are the 3 Bescher's side by side (raw, SGC 50, and SGC A).

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4456/...f1c16f12_b.jpg

Aaaaaand next on extreme hoarders!! I love it... I cannot wait to see this completed Someday!!!

Now that REA is over, I thought I'd bump this for a couple updates. The Blue Crofts Candy Mathewson has been confirmed as well as a completely different blank back Wagner (throwing). While it is not baseball, I've also added a U.S.S. Constitution (E8) to the Prizefighter backs as the miscuts on the back are very similar.

Any one have any other cards they can add/cross off these checklists?

Hi DJ. I know you already have a confirmed Seigle blank back SGC 10 but I used to own one that was raw and don't know if it's the same one as the SGC 10 you already confirmed. If graded after I sold it, it would've been a 10 for sure. I can provide scans if you need them.

Thanks,

AndyH

Hi Andy, by all means post a scan. I will check my records to see where I found the SGC 10, but I suspect I had the source noted on an old computer.

DJ

Here is the front of the blank back Seigle I used to own. I think the back scan is on another computer and I can't find it right now. The new owner might chime in but I can't speak for him.

Thanks,

AndyH

Thanks to a board member who has confirmed Andy's Siegle is the same as the SGC 10 example. Attached are scans of the Crawford and Zimmerman blank backs.

Blank backs are very cool. Way to keep it going x2d (DJ)

Just picked up my first E92 blank back. Personally, I don't really like blank backs (including T206) because I like the Americana of the advertisements on the back. But this is rare, and I am trying a back run in this pose, so blank back it is (clearly this have been confirmed already!)

At the request of a board member, here is an older scan of the Davis blank back. I have no idea why PSA labeled it an E104, of all the possible sets it could be, that is not one.

http://net54baseball.com/picture.php...ictureid=13638

Just wanted to post the blue back Matty -- thank you to DJ for giving me the heads up on it!

good thread
 

Good thread guys.....Jerry

Bumping this back to the top to see if anyone has anything new to cross off. A recent find brought confirmation of both the Nadja Cobb and Bescher.

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

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...

my approach is different for my miller run...I feel it is not complete without both the e92 and the t216 bb's...just my preference.

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.

i do believe i do!

in retrospect i wish I bought them all!!!!

If I remember correctly there is a space in the c. f. that distinguishes it from the e92/e101 example shown above.

that I am NOT aware of?

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.

First off, great work on these back combinations, DJ!!

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...
 

SGC labeled "A" and they designate it on the flip "e101"

Blank backs
 

Chase is by far the most common Blank back

Here is the other blue Croft's Matty.

Nice combo there. I need me a blue back again!@

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.

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.

Blank back Knight.

Bump, updated the lists with my Bender and Bryan's Knight. Anything else to add?

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