Posted By:
Ted ZanidakisLyle Jobe
1st....where were you....didn't see you at Philly in March ?
You raise a really great question....but far be it from "little ole me" to
declare that the E90-1 Ty Cobb is his real "rookie" card. I recently had to
dodge a lot of flak when I brought up the subject his 1907 Dietsche P/C.
However, I will present some actual facts on this set and I leave it up to
you guys to decide. One fact I am quite confident of is.....that my study
suggests that the American Caramel Co. of Philadelphia started designing
and producing its 1st Series of cards in 1908.
1....The Cy Young card (portrait) in the 1st Series depicts him with Boston.
He was traded to Cleveland in FEB 1909....and, indeed, a later Series card
of CY depicts him with Cleveland (pitching pose).
Now, compare this with the 3 cards of CY in the T206 set where all 3 have him
with Cleveland. Does this tells us that the 1st Series cards of the E90-1 set
preceded the T206 issue ? Did this series of E90-1 cards get into the market
sometime in 1908, or perhaps very early in 1909 ?
2....And, was the Ty Cobb card in this 1st Series of E90-1 cards ? Well, con-
sider this, most of his career he played CF. The E90-1 card designates his
fielding position as RF. He played in RF from 1907-09 and was switched to CF
when the Left-Handed throwing Sam Crawford took over the RF spot for Detroit.
3....Why does Shoeless Joe Jackson appear in this set ? He was only in 5 games
in 1908 and 1909 (his rookie years). Could it be because he started with the
Phila A's and these cards were produced in Philly ? He never made it into the
T206 set, which has always been a mystery to me.
4....Of course the big mystery is why wasn't Walter Johnson in the E90-1 set ?
His rookie year is 1907, and by then it is possible the printing plate impressions
of first Series cards were already at the printing plant ?
But, in 1910 he had won 25 games and was an established star, so why didn't
Am. Caramel include him in their latter series of cards (which reflect Trades
and Managerial changes in 1910).
OK....enough for now; however, there are even more arguments in favor of a
possible 1908 issue (instead of 1909 as is noted in the Price Guides).