E98 Briggs ? revisited

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Recently I inquired about a card that was an E98 and listed as a Briggs (not E97) card? Was it Egan who had E98's labeled that way? Just checking for my own edification......BTW, I think in the future we will know who put out the Anonymous "1 of" sets....much like the Blanke-Wenneker Nadjas..thanks to one and all who answer...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: B.C.Daniels

a scan?

BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Thanks, Leon, for posting a real vintage card thread. I was getting kinda annoyed by SO many threads having nothing to do with our raison d'etre, as the Bruces put it--especially the ones on boxing et al...

I guess the reason posts like this one draw fewer responses than current events and politics is that all of us (no matter how big a blithering idiot we are ) think we know enough about those topics to comment, whereas to post anything on this topic you actually need some information not gleaned from USA Today or Fox News.

Like many others, I read Leon's E98 Briggs? question and pondered it briefly, but I didn't have any specific knowledge about it so I left it for others.

But since Leon has helpfully recalled us to our true purpose, I will offer this bit of secondhand knowledge:

In his encyclopedia, Lipset says that many collectors believe E98 was a Briggs set, but he feels that is unlikely because of its lack of similarity to E97 (different style of artwork, only four players in common). Though he stops short of claiming that E98 was a Standard Caramel set, he goes on to demonstrate that the set E98 most clearly resembles is E93.

He also proposes that E97 was probably the earliest of the E93-E98 set to be issued, possibly even in 1909. E93 and E98 were both 1910 issues (which is perhaps one reason to think that they were not actually issued by the same company). E94 he dates confidently at 1911.

It feels good to do even a little bit of card research --

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Thanks Tim and BCD....And the general question was exactly as you stated Tim, it wasn't about a particular card...as the one I had questioned was on ebay and stated it was a Briggs issue, when it was clearly an E98. That was the nature of the question......nice come back Tim....I know it was a little blasé but what can I say, it was a legit question.....peace

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Leon- I think the reason there wasn't a lot of response to your query is that most of us, even caramel card collectors, just don't know. The E98 has been a real source of confusion for a long time. The fact that a few E98s have an Old Put tobacco overprint on the back, which has rendered their being catalogued as tobacco cards by SCD and others, certainly doesn't help clear anything up.
We're reading your posts Leon, just stumped for a reply
tbob

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Macrae

Leon......To answer your question, Egan did not suggest a link with E-98 & Briggs, but felt that the E-98 series was comparable to E-94, because of the numerous color backgrounds available. In Lipset's Encyclopedia, which came out a decade and a half later, further study had been done on the E-93/94/97/98 sets. Lipset noted the nickname quotes on the reverses of E-94 & E-98 were also similar in design. The suggestion of a relationship of E-98 & Briggs was addressed by Lipset, " Many collectors have believed that E-98 was a second series put out by Briggs. While it appears the makers of E-98 (as well as E-94) will never be known its likely that it wasn't Briggs. The misconception probably came about from Burdick's numbering system."....... Lipset adds a theory, that a "pool of pictures" were available for selection and that business owners could select the players they wanted..... I think Lew is on the right track and would add another twist to the theory.... That multiple companies used the same "stock sets" to market regionally with their product.... The 'stock set' approach was similar to the marketing and distribution of trade cards two decades earlier and would be later used by Sporting News (M-101-4/5); Collins-McCarthy (E-135), American Caramel (E-121) etc ..... A manufacturer or business owner, looking for a baseball promotion, could custom order a set with or without advertising (M-101-5), one-sided or two sided printing (E-121/W-575), difference in print quality (W-501/E-121), etc. These customized sets could then be distributed however that business wished to distribute them..... Sorry to be so off-topic, I really wanted to ask for advice on controlling Fire ants. Looks like there is a big mound in the back yard. Does gasoline work?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That's a great explanation of the E mysteries. I still think one day we will have a definitive answer. As for the fire ants....Gasoline works but after you light the bed on fire...don't pour more gas on it from a gasoline can...Otherwise you will set yourself on fire....which isn't a real good feeling....I was jumping around like a cat on a hot tin roof...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Mark, thank you for that post; very enlightening.

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

I don't assume that E98 is connected to E97 or any other caramel set for that matter. We all know that many issues borrowed similar styles from each other like T206, T213, T215 etc. Candy companies must've been a bit cheaper though.

Since both E94 and E98 don't have a company name printed on the back, there has to be a good reason for it. Based on the plausible success or buzz of the E97 set, perhaps anonymous sets of popular players were issued so that small businesses throughout the region were able to use the cards as advertising. The anonymous nature of the cards created more fleixibility for whomever manufactured them.

E94 is commonly known as George Close because of the overprints, but we've already found on this board that Blome's is not a Close product. I think everyone agrees that Blome's (Baltimore) is the most common overprint for E94. So why do we refer to E94 as Close? E94, like E98 was probably intended for different candy companies. Close, and Blome's invested enough of their time and cash to prepare an actual overprint for the cards and perhaps smaller retailers (like retailers who sold Old Put) went a bit cheaper with a stamper.

I also think it's possible that E94 overprints were part of a promotion.
At the beginning, E94's with overprints were included to advertise the product and later on the regular cards were included which explains why there are so many more E94s without the overprints.

Were the cards actually inserted into the box or bag? With Old Puts I think no. It's possible that a stack of Old Puts were stamped and given out at the time of purchase. And what about the E94 overprints? E94s with overprints do exhibit chocolate staining on the backs.

The common E98s show candy stains which, in a sense, connect the issue to an alternate company which is not Old Put Cigars. We just don't know who it is.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

All baseball and trade cards were issued to sell a product. That's a given and nobody issued them out of the goodness of their heart.

Either a card was printed with the name of the advertiser already on it, such as Piedmont or Standard Caramel, or it was overprinted at a later date, such as Blome's, Old Put, or any 19th century trade card that had the store's address added to it. How the advertising got there is immaterial.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I have wondered if the E97 set was actually related to the E93 set. It is very similar in look and the only repeated player is Cy Young and we all know it is actually Irv Young in E97. What also leads me to this hypothesis is the fact that the E93 sheets and E97 sheets as well as blank back E93s that Mastro auctioned about a year or so ago all came from the same out-of-hobby source, suggesting to me that someone back in the day who had access to the printers of one had access to both. Thus, I think they were both printed in the same factory. Obviously they were used to advertise for different companies, but I think the designers and printers were one and the same. E98s probably fall into that category since they use many of the same poses as E93.
JimB