Origins of E98, E101, E102 ?
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>With the collective experience of the board I am curious if anyone knows who actually put any of these sets out and what kind of product, specifically, they were put in or sold with? I assume they were sold with caramels but what kind? We have a good idea about most caramel sets as they are named appropriately. Our beloved e94's don't have an actual printed name but the overprinted variety (where have all of those been lately?) give us the telltale mfg. Any thoughts?

Origins of E98, E101, E102 ?
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Leon<br /><br />I'm surprised that there hasn't been at least some speculative responses<br />to this Thread of yours. And, I can't add anything more meaningful, either.<br />Other than the cards from these sets appear to be "offshoots" from the E92<br />set. And, I'd bet that the same printing firm produced the fronts of all these<br /> cards, as they are identical.<br /><br />Now, given the E92 set comprises either Gum, Candy, or Caramel cards and the<br />E105 cards are with Mello-Mint Gum, and E106 are Caramel cards....can we then<br />interpolate that the E101 and E102 cards must have been packaged with such<br /> similar products.<br />I am not telling you anything new; however, I felt it was worth reviewing. <br />

Origins of E98, E101, E102 ?
 

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>There are several problems with assuming E98 was inserted into the same product as other identifiable candy sets. <br />The whole E98 mystery is often more confusing when you approach the study of the set with E93, E94, and E97 in mind. <br /><br />Although it's tempting to say the set is similar to e94 because each set uses different color backgrounds, it's not enough to go on since there are so many differences in the design of the two sets and there are other unrelated sets that have color variations. <br /><br />Same thing with e97 and e93...there are several similiarities, but it doesn't really prove anything. E93 shares the most players in common with e98 and both sets have numbers on the back of each card. The 4 sets share many characteristics, but I don't think e98 was produced by Standard Caramel, Briggs, or Close candy. <br /><br />The Old Put stamp adds a bit to the mystery. It is possible e98 was inserted into more than one product and the cards remained anonymous because of that reason. Or perhaps they were made available to specific retail shops where the retailer could do with them as he pleased. I have many e98s with an orange colored stain on the back of them. These stains appear brighter to me than the stains often found on e95/e96 and other caramel issues and could be from a lozenge. I also have some e98s with "normal," caramel-looking stains.<br /><br />Robert<br />

Origins of E98, E101, E102 ?
 

Posted By: <b>Daniel Bretta</b><p>I wonder about the E98...is it possible that it was only inserted in Old Put tobacco products, but just went unmarked for a while...possibly the Old Put company put the stamp on there when they figured out their identification was missing from the card?<br /><br />Has anyone ever found an unopened candy product with any of the E cards inserted? Often you hear about T cards still in the original cigarettes, but I've never heard of an unopened candy card product.

Origins of E98, E101, E102 ?
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>Actually, E92s may be an offshoot of E101s. With the backs ending in a sentence fragment, one might theorize that these cards were manufactured for different manufacturers (the blank area to be used for individual advertising). With the exception of the Croft's products, the Dockmans were actually a smaller set too. <br /><br />I'm guessing that they were candy product premium but may not be caramels. <br />