E97 Young question

[z28jd]

Not being hugely familiar with the set, I guess I should've been clearer on that I meant the black and white versions of the card, where there is no checklist on the back. I didn't even know that there was a Boston version of the color card that said Cleveland on the back. What a mess that set is for keeping track of players!

With Keeler on the Giants, they either produced the black and white cards over different times or they made a mistake with the AL/NL designation. I'm going for the latter, since the color versions seem to have been produced second, especially true if the BW cards are really proofs

[Leon]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Not being hugely familiar with the set, I guess I should've been clearer on that I meant the black and white versions of the card, where there is no checklist on the back. I didn't even know that there was a Boston version of the color card that said Cleveland on the back. What a mess that set is for keeping track of players!

With Keeler on the Giants, they either produced the black and white cards over different times or they made a mistake with the AL/NL designation. I'm going for the latter, since the color versions seem to have been produced second, especially true if the BW cards are really proofs

NO way they black and white cards are proofs. They share almost no characteristics with proofs. IMO they are a different set which I refer to as E97-2......

[ullmandds]

Uh... i don't think anyone said anything about proofs? But let the tirade continue?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Uh... i don't think anyone said anything about proofs? But let the tirade continue?

Then I guess this was never said in post #8?


"especially true if the BW cards are really proofs"



.
.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Uh... i don't think anyone said anything about proofs? But let the tirade continue?

Not sure if this was for me, or Leon. I did mention "proofs" at the end of my post, right before Leon posted and I got the proofs mention from all of the auctions I was just looking through for more information on the set. They all said proofs, so that is why I put it out there at the end, not that I was agreeing with them totally as you can see by the wording I used

[ullmandds]

Sorry Leon I misspoke and miss read apparently. that makes perfect sense that the black and whites were produced first based on team designations.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Sorry Leon I misspoke and miss read apparently. that makes perfect sense that the black and whites were produced first based on team designations.

No worries Peter. If you just wait an hour or two I am sure I will make a mistake that can be corrected. I make lots of them. And here is a Keeler E97 just because .....

[ullmandds]

Nichols team variations...color phil amer anyone??? Tbob? Anyone have an extra for me?!?!

I took my happy juice, Leon...I'll be ok now!

[z28jd]

Judging from the reading I've done since last night Leon, I would call them e97-1 since I think they were produced first and I'd lose the Briggs designation for them