E92 confirmed lists for difficult backs

[x2drich2000]

Looking to assemble a list of confirmed E92 cards with difficult backs, can anyone add any more to the lists I have?

Red Crofts Candy
- Barry x2 - SGC A, SGC 10
- Bender (stripped cap) - raw
- Bemis x2 - SGC A, CSG 1
- Bescher x3 - SGC 50, SGC A, raw
- Cobb - rumored but I have not seen an image
- Crawford x2 - SGC 20, SGC 10
- Devlin - CSG 2
- Donovan - SGC 10
- Dooin - SGC 2
- Davis x3 - SGC 60, SGC 50, SGC 30 (Lionel Carter)
- Evers - SGC 80
- Miller (fielding) x3 - raw, SGC 40, PSA A
- Shean - SGC 10 with red crofts overprint

Menagerie
- Bemis
- Kleinow - raw (poor)
- Lobert - SGC A
- McGraw - SGC 30
- Murphy - SGC 30
- Shean - BVG 1
- Wagner (batting) - SGC 40

Blank Back
- Chase x5 - SGC A, SGC 20, SGC 30, SGC 40, PSA 7
- Crawford - raw poor
- Davis - PSA A
- Dougherty - SGC 40
- Gibson - Unknown
- Kleinow - SGC 3.5
- Knight - raw
- Lajoie - SGC A
- Magee - SGC 1
- Mathewson - SGC 1.5
- McGraw x2 - was SGC 10 now raw (with cocoa overprint on front), SGC 40, SGC 60
- McLean - SGC 10
- Miller (fielding) x2 - SGC 30, raw
- Schlei - SGC 40
- Seigle - SGC 10
- Smith - SGC 40
- Tinker - SGC 40 (Goodwin - no scan)
- Wagner (throwing) - SGC40 (possibly 2, but they appear to be the same card with different cert numbers, cards have obvious diamond cut), PSA 3 (different than the SGC copies, normal cut)
- Zimmerman - BVG Authentic

Prizefighters
- Magee - SGC 40
- Young - SGC 30
- E8 U.S.S. Connecticut
- E8 U.S.S. Pennsylvania (Added 5/14/23)

Nadjas that still need to be confirmed
- Bescher
- Cobb (rumored, but has anyone actually seen the card?)
- Donovan - 1 is posted on the PSA pop report, but I don't trust PSA enough to cross it off the list without seeing it.
- Doyle (with bat)
- Zimmerman

Blue Crofts that still need to be confirmed
- Bender (white cap)
- Bergen
- Cobb
- Donovan
- Doyle (throwing)
- Gibson
- Lajoie
- Magee
- Matthewson
- Miller (batting)
- Murphy
- Schlei
- Seigle
- Smith
- Tinker
- Zimmerman


Thanks
DJ

[Leon]

Nice list DJ. I wish I could help . Here is something to throw out there though. I remember the E92 Miller Fielding discussion and believe there were some background and/or shading differences with that pose in other series, which is how they are differentiated. I assume it is the same shading differences (to their e92 counterparts) which has these labeled as E101 and E102 respectively?

I personally think we will find several more, different players of all of the backs mentioned above. It's only a matter of time. *The scans aren't to size and are at least caramel with wrong backs........

[ullmandds]

There is an E 90–1 background variation...but I do not know of any variations within the 92.

[x2drich2000]

Leon, i forgot about the prize fighter backs and haven't tried to put a list of those together yet. As Pete stated, i believe from the Miller thread it was believed that the no sunset variation was limited to only e90-1. I am not aware of any variation in either the Young or Magee within the e92/e101/e102/e105 family of sets. I believe SGC likely just labeled those based on whatever the submitter wrote down. Same with the blank backs, i don't think there is a way to differentiate which set those came from (except the freaky McGraw that showed up earlier this month). One other point i would make is that we know the e92 quality control was not very good based on the number of miscuts that have shown up, but i don't recall ever seeing a miscut or other issue that are definitely from any other series.

Dj

[Leon]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Leon, i forgot about the prize fighter backs and haven't tried to put a list of those together yet. As Pete stated, i believe from the Miller thread it was believed that the no sunset variation was limited to only e90-1. I am not aware of any variation in either the Young or Magee within the e92/e101/e102/e105 family of sets. I believe SGC likely just labeled those based on whatever the submitter wrote down. Same with the blank backs, i don't think there is a way to differentiate which set those came from (except the freaky McGraw that showed up earlier this month). One other point i would make is that we know the e92 quality control was not very good based on the number of miscuts that have shown up, but i don't recall ever seeing a miscut or other issue that are definitely from any other series.

Dj

So we can add prizefighter to the E92 backs and include at least these two. And I am almost certain I have seen at least another baseball player / prizefighter back or two also....Here is a Menagerie as an example..

[x2drich2000]

Thanks Leon,

I added your two prize fighters and the blank backs I was able to find quickly to the original list. Also digging through the archives I came up with another Menagerie (Bemis) from old threads confirmed by a reliable board member.

DJ

[Bliggity]

Thanks DJ, very interesting stuff!

It seems to me that of the Young and Magee Prizefighters, the Magee designated as E102 must be incorrect. The matching upside-down/miscut backs on those two cards suggest that they were cut from the same sheet. Magee and Young were both in the E101 set, but only Magee was in E102. So, if these cards were on the same sheet, it could not have been an E102 sheet. That's not to say it was definitely an E101 sheet, but we know it wasn't an E102.

Here's something else. (Again, warning - a novice outside of his comfort zone.) The E26 Animals and E78 Prizefighters were 1910 issues, yes? My understanding is that the E101 and E102 printings would have predated that - at least they're slabbed as 1908/09. So it seems to me that those "wrong backs" could not be E101s or E102s. Looking at the seven confirmed Menagerie backs (and also the Prizefighters, actually), the only sets that contain all those front poses are E92 (all four), E101, and E105. We know E101 was a 1909 issue, as was E92. The only 1910 issue was E105. So is it possible that the wrong backs are actually E105s? Doesn't that make the most sense based on the dates?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

Thanks DJ, very interesting stuff!

It seems to me that of the Young and Magee Prizefighters, the Magee designated as E102 must be incorrect. The matching upside-down/miscut backs on those two cards suggest that they were cut from the same sheet. Magee and Young were both in the E101 set, but only Magee was in E102. So, if these cards were on the same sheet, it could not have been an E102 sheet. That's not to say it was definitely an E101 sheet, but we know it wasn't an E102.

Here's something else. (Again, warning - a novice outside of his comfort zone.) The E26 Animals and E78 Prizefighters were 1910 issues, yes? My understanding is that the E101 and E102 printings would have predated that - at least they're slabbed as 1908/09. So it seems to me that those "wrong backs" could not be E101s or E102s. Looking at the seven confirmed Menagerie backs (and also the Prizefighters, actually), the only sets that contain all those front poses are E92 (all four), E101, and E105. We know E101 was a 1909 issue, as was E92. The only 1910 issue was E105. So is it possible that the wrong backs are actually E105s? Doesn't that make the most sense based on the dates?

E105s are on almost paper thin stock.....I don't think all of the "years" of those early caramel sets are so set in stone either. I think there were series issued multiple years.