E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>jrhatchjr</b><p>Greetings,<br /><br />Long time board reader and new poster seeks feedback on a puzzling card I have had in my collection for years, an E106 Doolan (standard E106 back not shown):<br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jrhatchjr/e106.jpg"><br /><br />Yes, I know the condition of the card is poor. But upon closer examination, take a look at his listed position:<br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jrhatchjr/e106large.jpg"><br /><br />Other E106 Doolan's I have seen have his position printed as "s.s." as checklisted. The "c" which is supposed to be an "s" is pretty clear.<br /><br />Does anyone else have an example with "c.s." listed as his position? Or is this a legit, albeit minor, variation?<br /><br />Many thanks in advance,<br />Jim<br><br>***********************************< br /><br />"I'd rather have a hole in my card than a hole in my collection any day."<br /><br />Email: check_raze (at) yahoo.com

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Looks to me like there is paper/ink loss on the angular part of the S (or where the angular part would be) and the bottom left "foot" had a little extra ink and is touching the top curve.

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>Hmm...looks legit to me.

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>I erased a little ink for the s on the right:<br /><br /><img src="http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/1227/e106largeyz0.jpg">

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Nice detective work.....<br /><br />Jim- welcome aboard and don't be shy!! We all learn together. This place is kind of like a stew. The individual ingredients are ok but when we put them all together something really good comes out of it.....We (note plural) look forward to your participation...

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>Marty Ogelvie</b><p>At first glance it looks like a clear varition but I like Matt's argument that it could easily be a case of paper loss or INK loss in the area that connects the top and bottom of the S.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I would like to see MORE scans, examples... unfortunately I do NOT have one in my possession.&nbsp; <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>martyOgelvie<br /><a href="http://www.nyyankeecards.com">New York Yankee cards</a>

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark T</b><p>it does look more like ink loss than paper loss. Maybe this blown up pic shows it better.<br /><br /><img src="http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x198/SquareframeRamly/e106.jpg">?t=1216820448

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>i'm having a hard time understanding why you're saying it could be ink loss. a c and an s look completely different. if there is ink missing, where? it's hard to get a c out of an s. first off, if the ink is missing how did it get bent backward? a c and an s bend in opposite directions so even if there was ink missing on the s it wouldn't bend the curve backwards to form a c. looks like a legit variation to me.

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark T</b><p>It does not even look like a C....its a S that does not have enough ink.<br /><br />You can see this because the "C" almost comes to a point, if you look over at the other "s" you will notice it has the same characteristic, and if there were more ink added then the "C" would become an "S"....i think that makes sense(&lt;: <br /><br />Of course...just my opinion.<br /><br /><br /><br />edited: spelling

E106 Doolan variation?
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>i dont really see that at all. if this is an inking error then somewhere out there should be more examples. perhaps there are.