E93 Black & White Cobb
 

Hello everyone,

I apologize in advance if posting scans in a separate thread is not appreciated. Has anybody ever seen such an example from Cobb or another player? Is my assumption that this is an early production example plausible? Insights? Opinions?

James

Wow that sure is a cool looking card! Where and when will this card be on the market?:eek:

That is a really neat card. I would guess it's an early stage of an E93 Cobb. Am I correct that the player image is printed before the checklist is put on the back?

Without too much unpaid promotion, the next Huggins and Scott which starts late November and ends in early December.

dibs

Wow!
 

wow...that's something!

why not sell it here.

You know one of these guys is going to end up with it anyways:D

Advertise it for a week and then drop it on the auction site and I bet you may end as well as an auction house. Plus it save the buyer some $ which may Drive the $ up higher

oh man.....

Jeff called dibs.

now I can't bid.

correct... I'll post it in the Oct pickups soon.

seriously, very cool item... good luck Lichtman!

Amazing card! I own several E93 blank backs but all are in color not black and white, although one has a completely different color scheme than the regular E93. To find a black and white one is incredible!

Awesome find!!! Thanks for the share......
Jeff L, turn away now. ;)

Tony A.

That is fantastic. I wonder how SGC decided it's an E93 rather than an E98 or some uncatalogued set.

I believe the cropping would determine the proposed set designation.

E98s and E94s have similar poses but different images. The E93 shows more of Cobb than the other two issues.

Thanks for the scan James.

I'll hold my comments until after the auction.

Rob

James,
Do you know why SGC gave the Cobb card a SGC Authentic grade rather than giving a number grade? Is it trimmed or alterred in some way?

In the past, SGC has given number grades to color variation cards. The following is a 1948 Leaf Stan Musial that SGC graded 50:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=92808

Thank you,
Wes

Wesley,

The card is not trimmed or altered.

James

hand cut?

Hello,

The card is not hand cut either. It is factory cut and unaltered.

so why not a numerical grade? (just curious)

If the 1948 Musial can get a numerical grade, then the b/w Cobb card should as well, if it has not been trimmed or tampered with. Does anyone know why SGC's policy is inconsistent in that regard?

James,

Outstanding item! Is there a story behind the find?


(On a side note, and not trying to tell Huggins & Scott how to run their business, but... they will get substantially higher prices if they can entice lawyers, dentists, printers and software salesmen into bidding on their items. Of course, this means that they have to disallow "dibs" as a viable bidding strategy. I'm just saying...)

Honestly, I don't know. If JFG (James Feagin Grading) was in charge, it would have achieved a JFG 30 :) The card is crease-free, but all of us on staff have looked at it. The card is 100% unaltered.

Perhaps you can get an answer from SGC as to why the card received the grade it did? Just a thought.

It may have gotten the grade it did because SGC just isn't sure what it is.

If SGC isn't sure what it is, then how can they authenticate it?

Do you guys remember the uncatalogued blue blank back Wagner card? The last time it was sold was in Heritage.

http://sports.ha.com/common/view_ite...4&Lot_No=81021

That one was characterized as a "C 1910 E-UNC" by SGC. If SGC isn't sure about the identification of the black and white Cobb, then maybe a E-UNC designation would be more appropriate.

The blue Wagner card, by the way, was also given a numerical grade.

Richard- that's a very good question. But do they know with absolute certainty it's a black and white E93, when this may in fact be the very first one that has surfaced? So I believe in a situation like this they proceed cautiously. Does that make sense?

Guys, I'm definitely going to look into this a bit further. Today is "deadlines", so it probably won't be today. However, I will get an answer....as it is a question worth answering.

James

Barry, that makes sense. But as Wesley pointed out, perhaps cautiously should have been E-unc with a number grade rather than E93 Auth.

I don't know what the company policy is, but periodically SGC is going to receive a card that is uncatalogued and which they have never seen before. So it will entail more than just grading, as they will have some decisions to make. The first is what to put on the label. In this case it is logical to call it an E93 black and white, but it is within the realm of possibility that it is something else. So I think in a situation like this it is safer to just authenticate it, assuming they believe it is period and not some later production.

Calling it E-Unc. would make more sense but perhaps the submitters wouldn't like that and would lobby for something a little more specific. This is all speculation of course.

Barry - I understand what you are saying, but if SGC, or anyone for that matter, is going to authenticate a card without knowing for certain the issue, then aren't they simply authenticating the card as period? If E93 is put on the label, then shouldn't the graders be certain that it is in fact an Authentic E93?

Edited to add: If this card had a more unique image of Cobb, or if it had an E93 printed back then I can see a better argument of how this card could be an E93. However, this image is used on no less than 3 different caramel cards, notebook covers, magazine premiums, publications, etc and was found with a blank back. To authenticate it as an E93 seems a bit of a stretch to me.

my 2 cents
 

i agree it is logical to call it an e93...based on the cropping...and b/w...because it is. I guess it should have a numerical grade...but I also understand why they graded it A...as it is the 1st found of it's kind. Tough one...what does one do when a new discovery is made to the hobby. E97 b/w's were potentially mislabelled for years as proofs...maybe more of these will surface...or maybe these are proofs?!

There is always a leap of faith with the first card out of the box...I would assume that down the road some new information will surface about it.

Now to label it an E93 doesn't SGC have to be nearly certain that this black and white example was printed ca. 1910? What if someone got hold of a printing plate, and at a later date made this? Wouldn't that preclude this being called an E93? We certainly don't know the origin of this card.

Let me take it one step further. Shouldn't SGC be nearly certain that this example was printed ca. 1910 AND distributed by Standard Caramel for it to be labeled an E93?

As an example, E92s, E101s and E102s were all printed around the same time, and probably by the same printer, but are all different sets/issues because of how (and through whom) they were distributed.

As I said Richard, SGC took a leap of faith. It very well may be exactly what the label says, but we don't know for sure.

Which it means it very well may not be what the label says.

images taken from ebay and the board-it appeares the image is from the e93 issue

Attachment 7790Attachment 7791Attachment 7792

I honestly don't think it matters if the card has a numerical grade or not. The card isn't going to sell because of its grade, its going to sell because its a one of a kind card. (Maybe) If another one comes out into the open and SGC gives it a numerical grade, then yeah this one should get one too. I get what you guys are saying that if some E-UNC cards get numerical grades then this one should, but I don't think that it matters if it has a numerical grade or not.

To me it seems pretty obvious that this is an E93 due to cropping. Cropping is identical with the orange E93 below. It obviously differs from the purple E94 that crops at the bottom of the shirt, and also differs from the red E98 that crops between where the E93 and E94 do.


Yes, it is possible that this is from a yet-unknown E set, thus justifying and E-unc description, but if one is looking for distribution evidence and one is not convinced that it is an E93 because of the blank back, then there is certainly no reason to give it an "E" designation for "early candy", including "E-Unc". The only reason one would be led to the conclusion of it being an E card would be the remarkable resemblance to E93s, so the argument would become circular. If it deserves E-Unc, it deserves E93.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think SGC made the right call in labeling it an E93. If it shows no evidence of trimming or other tampering, they probably should have given it a numerical grade.


JimB

<a href='http://img17.imageshack.us/i/e93cobbblackandwhite.jpg/'><img src='http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9125/e93cobbblackandwhite.jpg' border='0' alt='Image Hosted by ImageShack.us'/></a><br/><a href='http://img17.imageshack.us/i/e93cobbpsa8300dpicut.jpg/'><img src='http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/9792/e93cobbpsa8300dpicut.jpg' border='0' alt='Image Hosted by ImageShack.us'/></a><br/><a href='http://img43.imageshack.us/i/e94cobbcut.jpg/'><img src='http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8875/e94cobbcut.jpg' border='0' alt='Image Hosted by ImageShack.us'/></a><br/><a href='http://img62.imageshack.us/i/e98cobbpsa4cut.jpg/'><img src='http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6162/e98cobbpsa4cut.jpg' border='0' alt='Image Hosted by ImageShack.us'/></a><br/>

I don't know Jim.

The black and white one looks a lot smaller than the other e93s shown.

been there done that
 

If it's not altered it should get a numerical grade, imo. The cropping for it looks most like an E93 and I don't think it's a stretch calling it that. There are too many "ifs" going on in these evaluations, if you ask me. However, I will go ahead and use one and say "IF it is not altered and has the same other characteristics as an E93, then it should be labeled and graded as such....." There is precedence for "grading" this type of situation.....

I see where you are coming from with the grade. A numerical grade would be nice so as to tell if it was altered or trimmed. All I was saying earlier was that on the market, I don't think it will matter if it has a numerical grade or not.

Here's another example with a numerical grade:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5...ayE97Proof.jpg

I don't know much about this but my thought would be the difference in an Authentic grade and say a grade of a 3 or 4 would be tens of thousands of dollars.

For me the importance of having a numerical grade, be it a 10 or a 98 (and for this card it doesn't really matter) is that it gives the owner some assurance that the card is not trimmed or otherwise altered.

When I see "A" I automatically think "trimmed".

The lack of a grade doesn't bother me at all; it's the color (or lack of) that is the most important factor in this one. That being said, the fact that no one knows anything about this card would prevent me from spending big money on it.

But small Jeffbux still blows big Rmanbux out of the water :(

I guess we'll see :)

thanks for the false sense of hope! ;)