![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimB
I don't know the exact number off hand, but many of the E98 poses are identical to the E93 Standard Caramels. I think this is why it was assumed they were candy cards and given the E designation. It may not be accurate. I think it is impossible to tell for sure. How do we weight conflicting evidence: On the one hand they look A LOT like the other candy issues of the period. On the other hand the only explicit indication is the Old Put overprint which would suggest they are a T issue. It gets complicated because Old Put overprints probably represent less than 1% of known E98s and they clearly the exception rather than the rule. |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
t205 Clarke SGC 50 and some other nice "t" and "e" cards for sale | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 04-13-2008 09:48 PM |
e98 Cobb "Old Put" | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 4 | 12-03-2006 05:55 AM |
Let's Put Together a "Set" of 1933 DeLongs | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-17-2006 07:56 PM |
S81 "Pillowcase" - Information sought! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 06-24-2003 08:14 AM |
Is it "ebay-legal" to put your reserve price in your description? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 01-27-2002 04:47 PM |