E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[Bob Lemke]

I've been corresponding with a New York collector who is seeking recognition for what he has identified as "shaded-back" variations on (so far) nine different E90-1 cards.

The picture here shows (in red) the areas on which a gray shading has been found on these potential variations.

I'm here to ask you to check your E90-1 backs for such shading. I don't want to name the cards that have been so far identified, so as not to taint the results.

At this point I don't know if this is a legitimate variation, a printing anomaly or a kid with a #2 lead pencil.

If more than one example of the shaded back can be found for one or more of the currently known players, we may have a true variation to consider.

Please post 'em if you've got 'em, or send me a PM or e-mail. Thanks much!

E90-1 back shaded.jpg

[pkaufman]

Bob, I've seen what you are describing on many different E90-1's over the years. My own opinion is that the effect is due to either over inking or wearing down of the printing plates. Regards, Paul

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by pkaufman

Bob, I've seen what you are describing on many different E90-1's over the years. My own opinion is that the effect is due to either over inking or wearing down of the printing plates. Regards, Paul

then it would occur in any card, randomly, with equal probability....

when you only find it on specific player cards, it is not random...

true, a different printing plate was used, signifying a separate print run...

[ScottFandango]

wow , just realized Bob posted this yesterday morning.....

crickets..................

[Steve D]

I just looked at all of mine (25 different), and they are all unshaded.


Steve

[Bob Lemke]

I think to confirm their status as true variations, we need to see more than one "shaded" example for one or more of those that are now known.

I know that would be easier with a more commonly encountered set, but surely there are enough E90-1s out there to confirm or disprove this theory.

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by pkaufman

Bob, I've seen what you are describing on many different E90-1's over the years. My own opinion is that the effect is due to either over inking or wearing down of the printing plates. Regards, Paul

I'm with Paul on this one. I sold my set months ago, and put it together piece by piece just as TBob did and probably had a dozen or so with the shaded area as mentioned.
It always looked like loss of ink to me more than a variation.

[ScottFandango]

look at the baseball in the middle...no ink loss there, and it is clearly different from the normal.....notice how that SHADED areas are always INSIDE the lines and NEVER cross over the lines (which would be indicative of a printing "error" or smudging)

[ScottFandango]

any luck looking at those E90-1 Backs?

[Matt]

Scott - what player is that? It will help with Bob's survey. Also, that's a bit different then what Bob showed above , with several letters bieng partially or completely filled in.

[ScottFandango]

more scans please

[brianp-beme]

Will check what I have and get back tomorrow.

Brian

[ullmandds]

I don't know how "big of a deal" this appears...I am an advanced type collector with a bunch of e90-1's...but don't see this as anything groundbreaking. Certainly not as groundbreaking as the ultra rare e94 single/double quotation variation on its backside?

[Bosox Blair]

Hi Bob,

I have 3 HOFers: Young (Boston), Crawford, and Eddie Collins...none shaded.

Cheers,
Blair

[ScottFandango]

Bob, is it a coincidence that out of the 300 E90-1 cards for sale on ebay right now, there are ZERO Shaded back variation cards for sale...

there are no R Marquard, J sheckard, R demmitt, Tenney, H wagner batting (ALL SIMILAR RED BACKGROUNDS) for sale!

there are no Bob green , hooks wiltse, Froome, Roy Thomas (all Blue green with mountains) for sale!

this is no coincidence....it is because these shaded back cards were one of (if not the last) series produced for the E90-1 series (also the rarest)..

you cannot call it a "printing error or defect" if it only appears in certain cards, that happen to be the "tougher" cards also....it would be a "random printing error" IF it occured in ALL or MOST cards, which it in fact DOESNT....IT NEVER IS SEEN IN THE COMMON CARDS....again, It IS NEVER SEEN In The ComMon Cards!!

so, it may appear on the surface (no pun intended) that this "shaded back" variation that I discovered is a printing mistake, but in fact it reveals one of the more rare print runs that occured between 1909-1911....just use the cards for sale at this very moment as a hint....

especially fun is if you line these "shaded variations" up next to eachother, they all look very similar, YET look AMAZINGLY different to the rest of the set!

Enjoy this 100 year old discovery, a gift from me to the collecting World!