E90-1 Blank Backs (also their shared sets: e106, e105, e101, e102, e92)
 

I looked through old threads and there was a thread in 2007 that focuses on the Mclean e90-1 (which I assume is the same one currently on ebay?). In that thread there was controversy saying that there is no way to know if that card is for certain from the e90-1 set since it is a shared image with other sets.

Then I found a more recent thread in which leon questioned why his e92 miller couldn't be an e90-1. Then some pointed out there isn't a shadow on the e90-1 miller confirming that Leon's miller was indeed not an e90-1.

I couldn't find a thread about any confirmed e90-1 blank backs. I recently picked up a e90-1 blank back Krause (Krause doesn't have a shared image, so is considered confirmed) in the B&L auction that I just showed in the april pick ups. I was wanting to know if there were any other proven e90-1 blank backs?

http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...sb33143e4.jpeghttp://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...secf3ff48.jpeg

Blank is the designation for me
 

This image of Krause was only included in the E90-1 set. I don't think it is possible for any blank backed card that has an image shared with other sets could be conclusively proven to be from a particular set, so these type of blank back cards should not be associated with a set by the grading companies, in my opinion.

Nice pickup, by the way

Brian

none
 

None that I am aware of.....was surprised to see your Krause. Congrats!

I was thinking about it last night while reading through the past posts.
1) Why would blank backs try to be associated with another set if it isn't possible on some (like McLean). Just like a Blank Back t206 isn't associated with piedmont. Since the E sets are defined mainly by their backs to determine what designation it has then why aren't blank backs just considered their own E set?

2) If this Krause is the only confimred e90-1 is it possible that Krause image was intended for issuance with another set with various blank backs associated with it (like e92), but he was pulled before the backs were printed?

I am not sure there is a way to tell what set a blank back came from unless there is some other difference to the card. Personally, as in other things, I use the lowest common denominator (ACC#) for my blank backs. So if I have a blank back that came in E90-1 and E92, I will go with E90-1. It is a consistent way, if nothing else. I will have to re-examine my Miller here, which is still in my collection, for the differences to E90-1..

http://luckeycards.com/pe92blankbackmillersgc40.jpg

The other thread I referenced in my OP someone pointed out that if your card was an e90-1 there wouldn't be a blue shadow.
From Oldcardboard
http://www.oldcardboard.com/e/e1/e090/e90-1/077.jpg

I also notice the e90-1 has white shoes and his sleeve doesn't go as far towards his glove (there is more arm showing)

That was it....Thanks Andy. So, as I was saying :), without a differentiator such as this, it is impossible to tell. I had this conversation yesterday with another board member, pertaining to the T216 blank backs in the last Goodwin Auction. Once those are in hand I will probably post about them...

That was what I was looking for. Does anyone have any confirmed e90-1 blank backs using an an e90-1 exclusive identifier (other than the Krause I just picked up)? Then that added to the second question in my second post, if there aren't could it be possible that Krause was suppose to be in another set but wasn't included in the final printing with the backs. The other possibility I thought of was could it be that there was another uncataloged set that was intentionally left blank back for distribution that did include the Krause, thus needing its own identifying set designation?

leon...i think that miller blank back is asking to leave your collection and join mine!

I have a blank backed Seigle and was told long ago by Peter Calderon that it would be considered an e92 because that was the most common e series card for Seigle. He said without a back you can't tell what series it is from so you can't claim it's a rare e90-1 blank back Seigle. Made sense to me back then. I'll try to post scans when I'm home.

Thanks.

AndyH

I would agree with people that the cards that have shared images with no way of telling what set it came from you can't make the assumption it came from any one set. Yet as seen with the Miller card Leon has even on some images that look shared there could be slight difference. I don't know of any difference in the Seigle image though.

I would love to see a scan though.

I have decided to open this thread up to showing off any card that could be from the shared image sets (e106, e105, e101, e102, e92, e90) that have blank backs.

Here are scans of my blank backed Seigle. I'm not sure of any differences with his card between different sets either so I've always considered it an e92.

Thanks,

AndyH


.

It may be more of a coincidence, but on every 1909 E92 Croft's Cocoa Seigle image I found online (three on cardtarget) had a print dot below his throwing hand in the yellow. This dot didn't show up on any other backs I found. I don't own any so I don't know if that means anything.

Andy,

That's very interesting about the print dot showing up on Croft's backs. I'll have to keep an eye out for that from now on. Thanks for pointing it out.

Best regards,

AndyH

Now that there has been a list put out in another thread about e90-1 exclusive artwork I was wondering if anyone has found any other cards from this list that has a blank back.

no such thing
 

there is no such thing as a "blank back" E90-1...

they dont exist...

simple.

Based on what? My original post shows a Krause. The image of Krause is exclusive to the e90-1 set. So why do you say they don't exist? Are you saying that blank backs are a separate set and should not be considered a part of the e90-1 set? Either way I want to know if any other images from the e90-1 exclusive artwork has also been found with a blank back.

its a sample
 

the blank back is a "salesman sample"

as we know, the front images of many caramel cards are shared by different companies....these companies ordered the picture card fronts and had their own company names printed on the back....the Krause was a salesman's example he could show prospective companies...

same thing still happens now, but nowadays, the word "SAMPLE" is usually placed on the card.....I have some "Sample" cards in hand...

the on thing that correctly identifies these cards is the back label...no back label means its not part of the set...

Where did you get all these facts?

These companies did not buy them and print their own backs, all of this was done at the time of production. Further I have never seen a "sample" card from this era. The blank back examples seen have all been circulated and are nothing more than a sheet which escaped getting the back printed and a few survived the last 100+ years. Please show us your E card "samples".

didn't say they printed their own cards....they ordered the half tone lithographs in certain amounts, AFTER they saw samples of the card front ...also they may have been involved in choosing the players they wanted (local affiliations)..

my "sample" cards I have are modern...

If this is all correct then is it your thinking that the reason Krause isn't found in any other set is because none of the other companies wanted to buy that image for their distribution? Also would this be your theory of what a blank back t206 is also?

I have been wondering if all the blank backs were their own set and should be cataloged, but had no reason to back it up.

I was still wanting to know if, now that there is a list of e90-1 exclusive artwork, if there are any other blank backs that are on that list that anyone has ran across.

Andy,

It's possible some company may have used them without a printed ad, but why would they? the whole point is to promote their product. I again will say they were merely blank back errors from sheets that did not get printed for one reason or another and then cut and distributed with whatever product they were meant to be with.

They were NOT "salesmen samples".

As has been shown with Siegle and Miller and others, although the fronts are near identical, there are subtle changes from issue to issue as these images were used over a 2-3 year period. Further study of each player may reveal enough clues to identify it with it's correct set.

I would not say however that the blank back is "part" of the set, much like a T206 blank back is not part of a T206 back run, IT IS the absence of a printed back and therefore an "error" card.

I see points from both of you. I really don't know. That is why I am wanting to see if any other blank backs can be proven to be from the e90-1 set or related to it in some way by finding e90-1 exclusive art with a blank back. Both theories lend themselves to thinking there could be more out there. Your theory that it is just an error makes me think there should at least be a sheet's worth out there of blank backs with some of those being e90-1 exclusive artwork. I am just trying to piece it together. I am very ignorant about the sets and have only tried researching this in the past year.

$$$
 

The more half tone lithographs they sold (either to candy store, cocoa dealers, clothes stores) the more money they made...they would have sold them to elementary schools if possible....

Of course they had samples to show their prospective clients....

Baseball card makers of the early 1900's were pretty smart... they made artwork we still treasure today!

Krause
 

The Krause shown in the OP is very interesting.....

This may have been one of the salesman samples used in convincing the Clement Brothers into changing from the funny oval images in 1909 to the Rectangular 1910 image we are more familiar with today...

Surely one of the board members lives in NYC and can take a peek at the Burdick Collection....the D380 Krause is in fact, there.

Sorry for the triple post but......
 

This Krause is the brother to the McLean Blank bank on sale on eBay (not mine)

These were both sample cards of a salesman from upstate new York most probably...

He was a good salesman, he got small time businesses to buy his artwork...

He got Clement bakers in the small town of Rochester NY to buy krause amoung others

He got tiny NIAGRA BAKING to buy his artwork after seeing the McLean...

Oh yeah, and McLean is one of the few verified D355 Niagara Baking cards...

Not sure what it means if anything, but here is a McGraw image that is not in e90-1. This one is labeled by SGC as T216....
Maybe American Caramel didn't want to buy it because it was pink....

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7387/9...0ff440821c.jpghttp://farm3.staticflickr.com/2855/9...5b2acdd6c5.jpg

T216 McGraw?
 

That is an e92 most probably....why would they label that (the way more valuable) t216.....did you submit that?

Perfect examples
 

Of why blank backs should only be labeled "blank back"....

You know what happens when you ASSUME...

Last triple post I promise...
 

I wish TED Z would chime in...

The godfather of T206, your opinion is requested.....

No. I bought it, as is, in a recent Goodwin auction. I think I read on here that a few blank backs were found with a large group of T216.