E92 vs E101 vs E102

Matt · #1 05-15-2009, 08:17 AM

Anyone have any thoughts as to why Burdick grouped the Croft's Cocoa, Candy, Dockman and Nadja issues into the E92 category and E101s and E102 each got their own category? I think that the E92 grouping is similar to the T206 grouping, where certain different branded backs existed only existed with certain fronts but shared many of the same fronts, so they were all grouped together. That being the case, I'd think just being anonymous of a brand might not be enough to warrant its own designation, and if it was, why not group E101s and E102s together?

sesop · #2 05-15-2009, 02:56 PM

I wish I had something useful to say here, Matt, but unfortunately, all I can do is agree. When I first started looking at E cards and noticed the similarity between these sets, I wondered the same thing. Trying to assemble Yankee subsets of all the T/E sets makes me wonder whether I need an E92 and E102 Kleinow to sit next to my E101 Kleinow, which, needless to say, looks exactly the same from the front...
I'm definitely curious too if anyone has any info.

Leon · #3 05-15-2009, 03:20 PM

Burdick said that E92 were Baseball Gum cards...at least that is the way he listed them, right or wrong. He listed E101 as "50 Baseball Players" and E102 as "25 Baseball Players". Burdick listed many cards according to their mfg (actually distributor), which was usually named on back. I think this helps explain "why" he did what he did.

E93 · #4 05-15-2009, 03:44 PM

I think a good argument could be made that E92 should be multiple different sets. E101 and E102 are significantly different from all the E92 backs and from each other. It makes sense to me that they are different sets.
JimB

E101 Back

E102 Back

Matt · #5 05-15-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E93

I think a good argument could be made that E92 should be multiple different sets. E101 and E102 are significantly different from all the E92 backs and from each other. It makes sense to me that they are different sets.

That's the point - it seems inconsistent - if he was going to treat the issue like T206s, then I think the E101s and E102s should be with the E92s; or at least seperate from the E92s, but in their own single classification. If we're going on the basis of different backs then all the E92s should be split out.

Leon · #6 05-15-2009, 04:07 PM

Burdick always said his catalog was a work in progress.....he would have no issue with our help, imo.

E93 · #7 05-15-2009, 04:11 PM

The E92 backs all advertise brands or products, much like all the T206 backs. The E101 and E102 do not. They even specify different sets, one of 25 (actually 29 if I remember correctly) and one of 50.

I think the E92s should probably be classified as distinct sets, but I do not think E101 and E102 should be lumped into the same pile. I think Burdick's separation makes sense.

But those aren't the only sets we could be discussing here. E105 and E106 share many similar fronts.
JimB

Matt · #8 05-15-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E93

The E92 backs all advertise brands or products, much like all the T206 backs. The E101 and E102 do not. They even specify different sets, one of 25 (actually 29 if I remember correctly) and one of 50.

I think the E92s should probably be classified as distinct sets, but I do not think E101 and E102 should be lumped into the same pile. I think Burdick's separation makes sense.

But those aren't the only sets we could be discussing here. E105 and E106 share many similar fronts.
JimB

Jim - why not then group E101 with E102 in the same classification? E105 probably belongs in this discussion as well - E106 was produced many years later so less deserving IMO.