E90-1 Blank Backs (also their shared sets: e106, e105, e101, e102, e92)

[Leon]

I am not sure there is a way to tell what set a blank back came from unless there is some other difference to the card. Personally, as in other things, I use the lowest common denominator (ACC#) for my blank backs. So if I have a blank back that came in E90-1 and E92, I will go with E90-1. It is a consistent way, if nothing else. I will have to re-examine my Miller here, which is still in my collection, for the differences to E90-1..

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am not sure there is a way to tell what set a blank back came from unless there is some other difference to the card. Personally, as in other things, I use the lowest common denominator (ACC#) for my blank backs. So if I have a blank back that came in E90-1 and E92, I will go with E90-1. It is a consistent way, if nothing else. I will have to re-examine my Miller here, which is still in my collection, for the differences to E90-1..

The other thread I referenced in my OP someone pointed out that if your card was an e90-1 there wouldn't be a blue shadow.
From Oldcardboard


I also notice the e90-1 has white shoes and his sleeve doesn't go as far towards his glove (there is more arm showing)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The other thread I referenced in my OP someone pointed out that if your card was an e90-1 there wouldn't be a blue shadow.

That was it....Thanks Andy. So, as I was saying , without a differentiator such as this, it is impossible to tell. I had this conversation yesterday with another board member, pertaining to the T216 blank backs in the last Goodwin Auction. Once those are in hand I will probably post about them...

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Leon

That was it....Thanks Andy. So, as I was saying , without a differentiator such as this, it is impossible to tell.

That was what I was looking for. Does anyone have any confirmed e90-1 blank backs using an an e90-1 exclusive identifier (other than the Krause I just picked up)? Then that added to the second question in my second post, if there aren't could it be possible that Krause was suppose to be in another set but wasn't included in the final printing with the backs. The other possibility I thought of was could it be that there was another uncataloged set that was intentionally left blank back for distribution that did include the Krause, thus needing its own identifying set designation?

[ullmandds]

leon...i think that miller blank back is asking to leave your collection and join mine!

[CobbSpikedMe]

I have a blank backed Seigle and was told long ago by Peter Calderon that it would be considered an e92 because that was the most common e series card for Seigle. He said without a back you can't tell what series it is from so you can't claim it's a rare e90-1 blank back Seigle. Made sense to me back then. I'll try to post scans when I'm home.

Thanks.

AndyH

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I have a blank backed Seigle and was told long ago by Peter Calderon that it would be considered an e92 because that was the most common e series card for Seigle. He said without a back you can't tell what series it is from so you can't claim it's a rare e90-1 blank back Seigle. Made sense to me back then. I'll try to post scans when I'm home.

Thanks.

AndyH

I would agree with people that the cards that have shared images with no way of telling what set it came from you can't make the assumption it came from any one set. Yet as seen with the Miller card Leon has even on some images that look shared there could be slight difference. I don't know of any difference in the Seigle image though.

I would love to see a scan though.