What's up with Rollie Zeider?
 

I read up on him a little bit, it appears he was fast. He had lots of stolen bases, and played most of the infield positions, but why is he immortalized TWICE in the 1914 Cracker Jack set? Cards #60 throwing and #116 standing. If I am not mistaken, no other player has two cards in this set. The 1914 #60 throwing card was replaced in the 1915 Cracker Jack set by Oscar Dugey.

Does anyone know how and why he had two different cards in the 1914 Cracker Jack set?

I believe it was simply an editing error. He played the majority of the time but not everyday and CJ had decided he was in the set and didn't double check that there were no doubles. I don't have any evidence to point you to, I just think that's what I was told some time back.

Another error: "Ollie".
http://www.collectorfocus.com/images...2-ollie-zeider

Interesting, bad editors? It looks like (from the PSA population reports) that there have been almost twice as many #60s graded by PSA than #116s. I don't have access to SGC, can anyone post pop reports from SGC?

"Ollie", "Rollie", just don't call me late for supper!
Thanks for the image! Is he the "Prince of Errors"?

A similar case is that of Al Corwin, who inexplicably has two different cards in the 1953 Bowman set ...

O
 

Check your numbers...

There are 36 graded 1914 cards

There are 55 graded 1915 cards.......

1914 card #60 is way tougher.....especially considering since many 1915 collectors will add 60 to the hunt to compete the whole CJ set....

I could be mistaken, but I think he meant there are almost twice as many 1914 #60 (Zeider throwing) graded vs 1914 #116 (Zeider Standing)? Would make sense to me, as in general the high numbers (around 80 and up) seem to be less available than the rest of the set for some reason

You are correct about my post, sorry I wasn't more clear. I was comparing the 1914 #60 card to the 1914 #116.

Can anyone chime in with an SGC pop report between those two?

The SGC Pop Report shows:
Card #60 - 20 graded
Card #116 - 10 graded

Thanks! So it looks like the #60 card is twice as abundant.