E93 Black & White Cobb

[barrysloate]

There is always a leap of faith with the first card out of the box...I would assume that down the road some new information will surface about it.

Now to label it an E93 doesn't SGC have to be nearly certain that this black and white example was printed ca. 1910? What if someone got hold of a printing plate, and at a later date made this? Wouldn't that preclude this being called an E93? We certainly don't know the origin of this card.

[rman444]

Let me take it one step further. Shouldn't SGC be nearly certain that this example was printed ca. 1910 AND distributed by Standard Caramel for it to be labeled an E93?

As an example, E92s, E101s and E102s were all printed around the same time, and probably by the same printer, but are all different sets/issues because of how (and through whom) they were distributed.

[barrysloate]

As I said Richard, SGC took a leap of faith. It very well may be exactly what the label says, but we don't know for sure.

[botn]

Which it means it very well may not be what the label says.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

As I said Richard, SGC took a leap of faith. It very well may be exactly what the label says, but we don't know for sure.

[cfc1909]

images taken from ebay and the board-it appeares the image is from the e93 issue

e93TyCobb[1].jpg!BToghj!BWk~$(KGrHgoOKj!EjlLm,WqpBKJdmjz3U!~~_12[1].jpg10COBB384[1].jpg

[Epps]

I honestly don't think it matters if the card has a numerical grade or not. The card isn't going to sell because of its grade, its going to sell because its a one of a kind card. (Maybe) If another one comes out into the open and SGC gives it a numerical grade, then yeah this one should get one too. I get what you guys are saying that if some E-UNC cards get numerical grades then this one should, but I don't think that it matters if it has a numerical grade or not.

[E93]

To me it seems pretty obvious that this is an E93 due to cropping. Cropping is identical with the orange E93 below. It obviously differs from the purple E94 that crops at the bottom of the shirt, and also differs from the red E98 that crops between where the E93 and E94 do.


Yes, it is possible that this is from a yet-unknown E set, thus justifying and E-unc description, but if one is looking for distribution evidence and one is not convinced that it is an E93 because of the blank back, then there is certainly no reason to give it an "E" designation for "early candy", including "E-Unc". The only reason one would be led to the conclusion of it being an E card would be the remarkable resemblance to E93s, so the argument would become circular. If it deserves E-Unc, it deserves E93.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think SGC made the right call in labeling it an E93. If it shows no evidence of trimming or other tampering, they probably should have given it a numerical grade.


JimB