E90-1.....and the "Dirty Thirty" theory

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

No argument from me on Wagner. I guess I have been quite lucky in finding this card over the years.
It was one of the 1st cards that I acquired for my 2nd set.

And definitely.....Willis.....as being on the last sheet of cards issued in 1910. I'd forgotten that Willis
is identified as a St. Louis (NL) player. He was sold to St. Louis in Jan 1910. I find it interesting that
the price guides do not reflect the scarcity of this Willis card.

Thanks,

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: ChiSoxFan

has the E90-1's rarity as follows:

Hard to Find:
Clement, r.f. Brooklyn Nat'l
Demmitt, r.f. St. Louis Amer.
Donovan, p, Detroit Amer.
Dooin, c. Phila. Nat'l
Lajoie, 2b Cleveland Amer.
Ritchie, p. Boston Nat.
Sheckard, l.f. Chicago Nat.
Tenney, 1b, New York Nat'l


Very Hard to Find:
Bransfield, 1b, Phila. Nat'l (Pink)
M. Brown, p, Chicago Nat'l
Fromme, p. Cincinnati Nat
Howell, p. St. Louis Amer. (Pitching)
Keeler, r.f. NY Amer. (Red Background)
Schlitzer, p. Boston Amer.
Wagner, s.s. Pittsburgh Nat'l (Batting)
Wiltse, p. New York Nat.


Rare:
Gibson, Pittsburgh Nat'l (Back view)
Lobert, p. Cincinnati Nat'l
McLean, c. Cincinnati Nat'l
Seigle, r.f. Cincinnati Nat'l


Very Rare:
Bemis, c. Cleveland Amer.
Bescher, c.f. Cincinnati Nat'l
Dougherty, l.f. Chicago Amer.
Joss, p. Cleveland Amer. (Pitching)
Karger, p. Boston Amer.
Keeler, r.f. New York Nat'l (Pitching)
Overall, p. Chicago Nat.
Shean, 2b Boston Nat'l
Wagner, s.s. Pittsburgh Nat'l (Fielding)
Young, p. Cleveland Amer.


Extremely Rare:
Clarke, l.f. Pitts. Nat'l
Duffy, Man'gr Chicago Amer.
Graham, c. Boston Nat'l
Mitchell, r.f. Cincinnati (The hardest card to find.)
Speaker, c.f. Boston Amer.
Stahl, 1b, Boston Amer.
Sweeney, s.s. Boston Nat'l
Walsh, p. Chicago Amer.


Here is the link for Pete's site (the E90-1 page): http://www.caramel-cards.com/e901.html


ChiSoxFan

Looking for T206 in Poor to Good condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Hans

I don't think that Pete has updated that list in quite some time. Though it is a useful classification, several cards on the list (most notably Donovan, Dooin, Lajoie, Fromme, and Overall) are overrated in terms of difficulty.

Ted and Tony,
As I said earlier, I think it's a mistake to think of a "last series" of 30 cards in terms of equal difficulty. To account for the vast disparity in scarcity, there must have been several distinct printings, perhaps composed of 2 or 3 30 card sheets, with various insertions and deletions along the way. The true "last series" probably consists of no more than 10-15 subjects.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I agree with you on the above "rarity" list. The same cards (e.g. Clarke, Duffy, Graham, Mitcell-Cinci,
Speaker, Sweeney, Walsh, Willis, CYoung, etc.) that are rare now were just as rare in the 1980's.

The most significant difference in an E90-1 card, of course, is the Joe Jackson. A very easy card to
find in the 1980's at a quite an affordable price......is now "out of sight".

The Joe Jax was issued in the very 1st series in 1908 and should be very available card.


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I don't think it was 10 cards. But, 15, 20, or 30 all sound good to me.

Perhaps, we will get some more inputs on this subject. There are a quite a few E90-1 collectors on this forum.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Hans

Ted,
Interesting theory on the "first series" issue for the Jackson. I think most have assumed that his playing record would indicate a later release date. I think your assumption may have some merit. But I disagree with your estimate of his scarcity. He is certainly not in the class of Mitchell, Walsh, Speaker, etc., but he is not as common as the most common subjects in the set.

I stand by my estimate of 10-15 most difficult cards. These would not have comprised a "series" as we now think about it, but merely late substitutions in the final print run.

One final point for now-though I may be the only one to believe it, my observation indicates that the red portrait of Keeler is tougher than the much ballyhooed throwing version. Thanks for your insights on this great set. Keep 'em coming.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

My theory regarding Joe Jax being in the 1908 (1st) series of the E90 set is based on the fact that Connie Mack
and Daniel Lafean [founder of the American Caramel Co. (ACC)] were very close friends. And, as you know ACC
was based in Philadelphia. So, I don't think it is just a mere coincidence that all the A's were issued in the 1908
Series....this was by design. The A's are listed here......

HR Baker
Jack Barry
Chief Bender
Eddie Collins
Harry Davis
Jimmy Dygert
Heinie Heitmuller
Joe Jackson
Harry Krause
Stuffy McInnis
Eddie Plank
Ira Thomas

Check out my list.....I do not think you will find an A's player in the tougher series ?


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

I am also working on a theory for this set...hope to hear others ideas...


R Thomas is a Boston player...

only 28 have been graded sgc

and 11 PSA...

would he be grouped in with the other boston toughies...

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

From my experience collecting the E90-1 cards, I've never found Roy Thomas to be a tough card to find.
Maybe others have a differing opinion.

The pop report numbers on Thomas can be misleading, in that his lack of popularity could be a factor for
the low numbers.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

If I were to split the E90-1 set into 4 different categories of difficulty, with # 1 being the toughest and #4 being the easiest I would put Roy Thomas into group #3.
Not to terribly tough IMO. I agree with Ted Z on this one.

Tony A.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I looked at my old records dating back to the mid 1980's when I acquired my first E90-1 card....Mitchell (Cinci).
Here is the ranking of rarity according to my experience collecting these cards, as I noted them in my records.

1st Most difficult group......

Clarke (Pitt)
Duffy
Graham (Bost-NL)
Karger
Mitchell (Cinci)
Speaker
Stahl
Sweeney (Bost-NL)
Walsh
CYoung (Clev)

2nd most difficult group......

Bemis
Demmitt
Joss (pitching)......horiz.
Keeler (NY-NL)......horiz.
Lobert
McLean
Richie
Shean
Upp
Willis

3rd most difficult group......


Bescher
Bransfield (pink)
B. Brown..............horiz.
Hartzell (bat)
Gibson (back view)
Hall.....................horiz.
Keeler (red)
Overall
Seigle..................horiz.
Tenney

Finally, Wagner (throwing) is a tough card; however, I think he was issued in the 1909 series (and, not the last
series).

This list of 30 cards is based on my anecdotal experience. And, these cards were all most likely included on the
last sheet, which was issued in the Spring of 1910.

Obviously, this list is subject to debate....? ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

so some Boston players were included in the first or second series (they werent all released in the last series)?

Boston's teams were very poor in 1907-8 so its possible they just didnt make cards of the worst teams... had to make cuts somewhere right?

maybe the A's owner didnt like the Pittsburgh owner and asked the card company to exclude them for the first few series....


ps....did Lionel Carter have this entire set at one point and have the flips all customized?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

undergraded i think!

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Steele

Great job guys. Good reading. Ted, I think your pretty close on your 3 levels of difficulty categories.

I collect the Red Sox and Stahl, Speaker deserve to be in the most difficult category. Karger(IMO)is borderline on the most difficult to middle difficult level and I found the Hall to be a little easier and maybe should not be respected in the levels of difficulty categories but that's just my opinion.

It sure would be nice if more concrete evidence turned up from the American Caramel Co. but that's wishful thinking from a set produced about 100 years back. Thanks for the information on this great set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

I would include McLean and Upp in the first tranche of difficulty.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

MICHAEL S

You are absolutely correct regarding the highest level of scarcity of Speaker and Stahl....
and, I'll add to this scarcity level these 4......

Duffy
Graham
Sweeney (Boston)
Walsh


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

RICHARD M

I agree, McLean and Upp belong in the top category, so I will modify the list to include these two
in the category of the most difficult 12 cards in the E90 set.


1st Most difficult group......

Clarke (Pitt)
Duffy
Graham (Bost-NL)
Karger
McLean
Mitchell (Cinci)
Speaker
Stahl
Sweeney (Bost-NL)
Upp
Walsh
CYoung (Clev)

2nd most difficult group......

Bemis
Bescher
Demmitt
Joss (pitching)......horiz.
Keeler (NY-NL)......horiz.
Lobert
Richie
Shean
Tenney
Willis

3rd most difficult group......

Bransfield (pink)
B. Brown..............horiz.
Hartzell (bat)
Gibson (back view)
Hall.....................horiz.
Keeler (red)
Overall
Seigle..................horiz.


Finally, Wagner (throwing) is a tough card; however, I think he was issued in the 1909 series (and
not in the last series).

This list of 30 cards is based on my anecdotal experience. And, these cards were all most likely in-
cluded on the last sheet, which was issued in the Spring of 1910.

Obviously, this list is subject to debate....?

If your's differs, tell us about it ? ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

why do you think Wagner throwing was not released in the last series....its low low pop report (lowest by far of any HOF) would suggest its from the last....

maybe i missed your explanation but can i have it again....im sure people would love to read what you say!

also nobody answered if Lionel Carter had the entire set at one point and had them all personalized...

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

A low pop card could come from a first series just as well as any other...

I understand how card changes could suggest which card of a player came first, and which one second. I think it is a flawed assumption to think that any low pop card had to come from the last printed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I absolutely agree with Frank W. You cannot always rely on pop reports to be representative
of a particular card's availability, or scarcity.

A pop report that shows certain cards to be more available than others could be misleading,
since we do not know how many times that card was re-graded.
Conversely, cards like this Wagner are highly desirable and collectors will have a tendency to
keep them; therefore, reflecting less activity on the pop report.






Check-out the pop report on this 1st series E90-1 Wagner ?
I will bet there is more activity indicated on this one; as, I have always found this pose to be
much more available.





Set collectors' wantlists, thru-out the years, have been the true reflectors of the availability
and scarcity of certain BB cards. With respect to the E90-1 set....I am currently working on
completing a 2nd set. And, in the process (as on my 1st set of 120 cards) I am constantly
upgrading cards. So, I can tell you that I've seen many, many E90-1 cards. Furthermore, as
a dealer, I've seen many E90-1 wantlists; and therefore, I've developed a pretty darn good
feel for which cards are the real "toughies" in this set.



TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

Wagner Throwing is the rarest garded card in the set, with only 18 graded versions...



i understand crossovers and crackouts will skew a pop report, but it will skew it HIGHER, so a listed pop report is the MAX number of cards, meaning there is proably less than the stated amount...



how do you explain there onyl being 18 graded versions of this HOF when 1st and second series HOF are very plentiful...



we know it had to come from at least the second series or third because the wagner batting was in the first or second series...



some HOF have 40 and 50 graded versions so there is no way to account for so few Wagner throwing (18) unless it was in the last series....

there are no cards thought to be in the last series with more than 40 total graded copies, most have 20 to 30 total PSA AND SGC versions..


still waiting to here why POP reports are not indicative of scarcity...



i think POP reports are most useful ESPECIALLY with the E90-1...

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Scott...

It will take more than just hearing, it will require some believing and understanding, too.


Pop reports show how many times a particular card has been graded, assuming they count correctly (I think they can do that) and that they correctly identify the card (they do that correctly most of the time, not all of the time). Notwithstanding what's been posted on the site to the contrary, pop reports don't show how many of a particular card are out there.

Rare cards are slightly more likely to be graded than common cards. HOFers are slightly more likely to be graded than non-HOFers, Better condition cards are more likely to be graded than worn cards. And all of that applies to folks who get cards graded in the first place. There are lots of folks who don't get cards graded, some folks who get cards graded only to sell.

All of the Wagner T206s aren't graded. I know that is true, I know of T206 Wagners that aren't graded. Some T206 Wagners are graded, I know a few collectors who have the card and it is graded/slabbed. Just guessing, maybe half of the Wagner T206s are graded... I cannot imagine that half of the Reulbach with glove T206s are graded. A disproportionate number of Wagners are graded as to other T206s. Same is probably true for green portrait Cobbs, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Let's see what the pop reports show us on these last series "toughies" ?

If you don't mind, could you please provide this information on all 30 of
these E90-1 cards.
I don't have access to PSA information, otherwise I'd look it up myself.

Clarke (Pitt)
Duffy
Graham (Bost-NL)
Karger
McLean
Mitchell (Cinci)
Speaker
Stahl
Sweeney (Bost-NL)
Upp
Walsh
CYoung (Clev)

Bemis
Bescher
Demmitt
Joss (pitching)......horiz.
Keeler (NY-NL)......horiz.
Lobert
Richie
Shean
Tenney
Willis

Bransfield (pink)
B. Brown..............horiz.
Hartzell (bat)
Gibson (back view)
Hall.....................horiz.
Keeler (red)
Overall
Seigle..................horiz.


Thanks for your time and effort.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Let's also get pop reports for 5 of the easy cards, just for comparison...

Barry
Bliss
Hall
Summers
Wiltse


Those 5 should offer a nice comparison...

And I've thought Fromme and Schlitzer were more difficult to locate than the easy cards... any pop numbers on those 2 guys?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

Card Combined SGC PSA pop reports
------------------------------------------------
Shean 17
Wagner Throwing 18
Bescher 20
Gibson BV 21
Young Clev 23
Hartzell Batting 23
Lobert 24
Siegle 25
McClean 26
Bemis 27
Stahl 29
Upp 29
Richie 30
Walsh 33
Duffy 33
Speaker 34
Sweeney Boston 34
Demmitt 34
Karger 36
M Mitchell 37
Overall 39
Donlin 39
Hall 41
Willis 41
Keeler Red Port 41
Brown 45
Bransfield No P 45
-----------------------------------------------

compared to:
series I cards

Ty Cobb 176
Plank 101
H Jennings 102
CY Young Boston 100
HR Baker 98
N Lajoie 96
c Bender 81
H Chase 78
S Crawford 80
Honus Wagner Batting 60


IMO the disparity is too great....the Wagner Throwing came from the last tough series only....

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

Barry 27

Bliss 29

Hall 41

Summers 67

Wiltse 39





Those 5 should offer a nice comparison...





Only true "common" among those is Summers



Psa only has 6 Graded Barry's and its a VERY attractive, colorful card

...

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Thank you, Scott, for digging the numbers.


Plank is high in numbers because he's in the Hall, AND because folks wanting cards of each of the HOFers have to opt for an E90-1 instead of a T205, 6, or 7.

Cobb has high numbers, realistically the most graded of the E90-1 subjects. Not because there are so many Cobb cards, but because he's in the Hall, plus he is Ty Cobb. The pop reports don't reflect card availability...

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

but you can judge RELATIVE scarcity...



there is no way to explain why there are only 18 Wagners when there are almost 100 COBBS and PLanks.....those 3 players are in the same plane of collectability so ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, you would expect the same RANGE of graded examples....



these range differences are significant and cant be Ignored and written off to "bad pop reports" or "a lot of crack outs".... the numbers speak for themselves...

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

the pop reports are so good at judging the "scarcity" of E90-1's in particular, that i think it mimmicks Ted Z's List....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

OK, here is my interpretation of these numbers.....all 14 of these are definite re-grades.
These cards are "hot commodities" when they are posted on Ebay. Dealers are buying them
and resubmitting them.
How do I know this....a year ago I sold on Ebay a Karger, McLean, Richie, Speaker and Willis.
I was happy with the $$$$ I got for these cards. The same exact cards were back on Ebay
a month (or so later). All were in different graded holders (some were cross-company graded).

You might call this anecdotal....I strongly feel this is typical for most of these cards here.
Hence, the higher pop numbers than expected.

There is no-way that Wagner is more scarce than guys like Duffy, Graham, Mike Mitchell,
Speaker, Stahl, Bill Sweeney and Walsh as these numbers indicate ! !

Young Clev 23
Lobert 24
McLean 26
Bemis 27
Stahl 29
Upp 29
Richie 30
Walsh 33
Duffy 33
Speaker 34
Sweeney Boston 34
Demmitt 34
Karger 36
M Mitchell 37

Incidently, where are......

Clarke (Pitt)
Graham (Boston)
Keeler (NY Nat'l)
Willis

these should be low pops, also ?

Scott....thanks much for checking this out.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Barry, Bliss, Hall, and Wiltse weren't cherry-picked. I just picked them out from Mr. Lipset's list of the common 78 cards, I did avoid picking a HOFer.

I completely agree that Wagner throwing is found MUCH less often than Wagner batting. And from the pop reports It seems that 3/4ths of the Wagners have him batting, and 1/4th throwing.


You can't be serious that the pop reports mimic Ted's list... there are fewer cards of Barry and of Bliss than of many of Ted's difficult 30.

And I see no reason why a last series of these cards would be the short print... it isn't like 1967 Topps where production was cut because demand slackened at the end of the season. I agree there are fewer Wagner's throwing, but that doesn't mean it was among the last issued.


One thing that Scott's number might reflect is the possibility of Cobb having been double printed. These cards went straight into the grimy hands of kids. The cards went through hell. Few survived. Cobbs would have been subject to a bit extra wear. Yet for these players there are right at 100 graded examples: Plank, Jennings, Young, Baker, Lajoie... and 176 Cobbs. While I think Cobbs are more likely to be graded than a normal E90-1, I think Youngs would be likely grading target, too. And I think Cobbs went through more wear than most of the E90-1s. Yet almost twice as many have been graded. That looks like a possible double print to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I agree with Ted that Mitchell, Graham, Walsh, Duffy, Sweeney (and I'll add Shean to the bunch) are not more plentiful than Wagner throwing. I think throwing is much more difficult than the Wagner batting, and I'll buy the numbers of the 3 to 1 ratio from above...


What about Fromme and Schlitzer ???

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

possible..also Hugh Jennings has over 100 graded examples..another DP possibility...

TED what do you think of DP's in this issue?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

Fromme 44
Schlitzer 42

...there ya go....

TED, as far as Crack outs go....again, its all relative...if the tendency is for these cards to be resubmitted, then the Pop reports will be skewed in UNISON, thus the pretty consistent from top to bottom reports...

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

Clarke Pitt 50
Joss Pitching 51
Keeler Horizontal 49
Tenney 55

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Those last 4 pop report numbers are so far out of whack with the scarcity of those respec-
tive cards, it's really laughable.

Look, I am not trying to be contentious here, I can only relay to you of my experiences with
E90-1 cards....collecting them and selling them for many years.

I'm a firm believer that actual experience far outweighs any information that is garnered from
pop reports.

For example (and I think this is what Frank is alluding to)....a common card will be advertised
as a "low pop" dude (relative to the pop reports on any given star card in that set).

Well, dang it.....not too many collectors are that interested in getting a "joe schmo" graded.
So, it's no wonder that indeed "joe schmo" is a low pop card. Then a seller is advertising "joe
schmo" as a "low pop" card and sure enough there are idiots who will pay big $$ for this card.

It's a a crazy collecting world out there in "grading-land", and it's getting crazier !



TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

why are those so "far out of whack" as you say....







they have about only 50 graded copies each, half that of more common HOF's....i think that is a good representative number...plus the fact that those 4 cards have similar graded numbers (50) is a good sign of the accuracy of these numbers..







BTW...TED I love the Passion you are expressing in this thread, wish more people had that passion!

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Hey Ted,

Do you think that Barry, Bliss, Hall, Summers, and Wiltse are common? I do. Scott, please explain why you think only Summers is common.


It seems nuts that if there are 27 of Barry graded, and 29 of Bliss; that from that someone would deduce that Barry and bliss are as rare as the Jerry Upp card (29) or as rare as Walsh (33), Karger (36) or Mike Mitchell (37). Mitchell is the toughest. I think Walsh is tougher than Karger. And I think Upp is tougher than Karger. But there's no way that I think Barry or Bliss are even close. What Ted says is right that someone will now list a Bliss card and mention its low pop report and it will sell much higher than it should.


Scott, do you have a copy of Mr. Lipset's second encyclopedia? I still think his thoughts on E90-1 are pretty close to reality.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

the low variation of these known toughies, makes the numbers that more plausible...if they were all over the map, then they would be less believable....


Lobert 24
Siegle 25
McLean 26
Bemis 27
Stahl 29
Upp 29
Richie 30
Walsh 33
Duffy 33
Speaker 34
Sweeney 34
Karger 36
Mitchell 37....

Also, the second series contained some "medium difficult cards" these would be:

Barry Gray Camnitz Oconner Bliss H Davis Corridon Leever Stovall Mcintyre Bell Pastorious Tenney Sheckard Irwin Miller Donovan....

the cards that have had "press" over the years will have more graded versions in general, eventhough they may indeed be rarer....

for instance we know Duffy/Walsh are more difficult than Barry Bliss although the latter are less encased....

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Steele

Nice discussion. I think Lipset's original thoughts on scarcity for this set are holding true. He sold a complete set in November 2007 and it is interesting to see his breakdown of the lots with some based on rarity.

I did happen to win the 11 card lot in that auction and kept the Karger, Schlitzer and sold some of the others including the Young Cleveland which by the way is the only public sale I saw on this card in 2008. It was a fun lot to win.

I still do not understand the Wagner throwing pose and why such a low pop report if not printed in the last series? This maybe a dumb question but why are there two cards of Wagner? Maybe for the same reason there are 2 Gibson cards? It is interesting to note that the Gibson back view has roughly the same (18-21) pop as the Wagner throwing and we have the Gibson back view in the last series. Young, Clarke and Keeler make sense as to extra cards since they were traded or team corrected during the printing runs.

I really appreciate the knowledge coming forth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

thats how i look at it exactly...

i know Ted has put this set together and has a lot of experience, way more than most people, so it was interting to hear he thought the wagner was printed other than in the last series...


i know POP reports arent 100% accurate, but if the wagner throwing were printed with CObb, Jennings, and Baker, and other 100 count cards, then it would have been graded WAY more than it has (a mere 18 times AT MOST-probably less in actuality with crossovers and crackouts right?)..

really enjoying this discussion BTW

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I think that the Wagner throwing card was issued subsequently to Wagner batting.


But why do you say it must have been in the last series?? Couldn't it have been earlier than that and then production of that card halted for some reason?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

SCOTT

Remember, I started this thread 2 1/2 years ago. And, I basically broke down the 120 cards into 3 levels of
availability......

1908....1st Series of 60 (or so) cards that are easily found (incl. Cobb, Plank, Wagner-bat, CYoung-Bost.)

1909....2nd Series of 30 (or so) cards that are tougher to find (incl. Wagner-throwing)

1910....3rd Series of 30 (or so) cards that are very tough to find (incl. Duffy, Graham, M. Mitchell, Speaker,
Stahl, Sweeney, Walsh, CYoung-Clev.)

Pop reports notwithstanding, I will stick to my original thinking regarding these cards in the E90-1 set.

I wish Paul Kaufman would chime in on this discussion. Paul has one of the nicest (graded) E90 sets in the
hobby....and, we need another opinion in this matter.


Also, speaking about pop reports, are you interested in providing some pop numbers on certain T206's ?


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

Thanks Ted, but all I can add is that it has been my experience that the Wagner Throwing is one of the toughest HOFers to find.

[Archive]

Posted By: gary nuchereno

I concur with Paul about Wagner throwing being the toughest hall of famer. In my opinion the grading services do give an insight into scarcity, more so than personal experience.Once
I own a card I have a tendency not to pay any attention to
whether or not or how often others are being offered. I got
a Walsh early on and so I never looked for another. Walsh was easy for me but it is a very tough card and impossible
to find in really nice condition. In the 70's serious
collectors circulated their wantlists among other serious collectors. When Lew Lipsett referred to the Mitchell cin
as the carmel equivalent of a t206 Wagner every collector
put it on their wantlist. Have a bunch come out of the woodwork since then? I don't think so. imo the Mitchell is very tough, but the pop reports show that it is not the toughest card in the set. We have had poll's on T206 sets.
How about a poll on e90-1 sets and maybe a poll on a card like Mitchell?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

This pop report # of 18 for Wagner....can you post all the Grades it comprises ?

Thanks,

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanks for chiming in here. I certainly agree with both of you that this Wagner is tough.

However, when you compare it's pop report with respect to the following E90 Subjects....

Duffy
Graham
Mike Mitchell
Speaker
Stahl
Sweeney
Walsh
CYoung (Cleveland)

This pop report data (numerically speaking) is saying that Wagner is 2 to 3 times more
scarce than these 8 cards (much less others that we have know to be extremely tough).

I'm sorry guys, but I do not accept this pop report data as representative of the rela-
tive scarcity of the Wagner with respect to these classically known scarce cards.

GARY

I recall the Mike Mitchell analogy to the T206 Wagner. So, in 1982, my goal was to get
Mitchell before starting this set. It was certainly more affordable back then.


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: gary nuchereno

Ted on the really tough cards you listed I agree that the pop report will be off but only on the high side. Any of
the cards you listed would be worthy of re submitting in
the hope of an upgrade. Even going from a psa 1 to a psa 2
could mean a substantial financial reward. PSA has graded
Duffy-13
Graham-15
Mitchell-15
Speaker-13
Stahl-11
Sweeney-14
Walsh-13
Young Cle-9
Wagner throwing-6 PSA1(1), PSA 2(3),PSA 4(1) PSA 6 (1)

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

So I'm not seeing anyone explain why the shortest print cards in E90-1 have to be from the tail end of the set.

Chronologically, it makes sense that Fred Clarke's Philadelphia card came before his Pittsburgh card. But I don't understand why a shortprint card has to be at the end.


In T206, and I understand the two sets don't mirror one another, Wagner was is the 150 series, and is definitely a short printed card.

Hey Scott, I'm going to start a thread about the T206 Cobbs and other stars, and the super prints. Ted and I have discussed this. We'd need your help in totaling graded cards for us. My initial thought was that if the red Cobb portrait was double printed, then there should be about twice as many. And maybe more, since Cobb cards are probably more likely to be graded than other cards.





Frank W.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Thanks for reiterating my contention that the real tough cards (Duffy, Mitchell, Speaker, Walsh, etc.) in this set
are being re-submitted for higher grades. Therefore, this recycling of these cards is the reason we are seeing mis-
leadingly high pop report numbers on them.

Of course, it's very difficult to track this "churning" effect. But, if some one has the time and patience it would be
very interesting to see the results.


TED Z