A Modern Objective View of E90-1 Rarities

[ScottFandango]

Hmm. ..wonder if has shaded reverse borders...

If it does...boy oh boy.....

[ullmandds]

here is a link to previous discussion. that lot was a huggins and scott auction...so you could probably find your answer.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=151300

[ullmandds]

link to huggins auction lot...correction...there were 3 of the millers w/sunset in it!

http://may12.hugginsandscott.com/cgi...l?itemid=45141

[ScottFandango]

No scans of the back on any of those Millers

That may be important in figuring out that variation...

[ullmandds]

perhaps another board member will post a scan of the back of their miller w/sunset...otherwise I will around 630 pm central time!

[pkaufman]

I love the sunset variation Miller card.....I think it was a great find. I tried to get SGC to put "sunset variation" on the label of mine, but they said it was not recognized yet in any publications. Perhaps we need to do a little more lobbying. It is certainly a very obvious and striking artwork variation. Will try to get a scan up for Scott a little later.

[ullmandds]

i tried to get sgc to label it too...and they would not!!!!

[tedzan]

Hey Scott

A lot of work there guy, thanks for the time and effort you put into this research.....great stuff.

Years ago, I did a comparison of the E90-1's 1910 (last) series subjects with the 1909 RAMLY. There is no doubt that this E90-1 last series cards were
short-printed. And a good number of them are Boston-based and Cincinnati players (Graham, Ritchey, Stahl, Bill Sweeney, and Karger, Lobert, McLean,
Mitchell, respectively).

I arrived at this theory that a possible conflict with the 1909 RAMLY set may have resulted, since American Caramel did not include these guys in their
1st and 2nd series issued in 1908 - 1909.

And, of course (in my opinion the toughest) Tris Speaker was issued in the short-printed 1910 series since his first full season in the Major's was 1909.

Any thoughts on this hypotheses ?



My 3 favorite E90-1 cards

.




TED Z

[ScottFandango]

I surely thought you were on to something back then...

those cards you listed make sense that they were issued at the same time..

Aside from the Boston thing, not only does the Pop report confirm their similarities, but if you look closely at the artwork in those cards, you will see they have a different "print-dot pattern" than the earlier issued (more common) cards...

they have an almost "Speckled" look to their backgrounds, not a solid/blended look like most of the others...

the B Sweeney has the most obvious "speckling" going on...check it out!

PS, NICE RARITIES YOU POSTED!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

Aside from the Boston thing, not only does the Pop report confirm their similarities, but if you look closely at the artwork in those cards, you will see they have a different "print-dot pattern" than the earlier issued (more common) cards...

they have an almost "Speckled" look to their backgrounds, not a solid/blended look like most of the others...

the B Sweeney has the most obvious "speckling" going on...check it out!

Scott

Very interesting regarding the printing characteristics you have noted on 1910 series cards. I will check them out.

RAMLY was situated in Worcester, MA. Therefore, it is understandable why ACC withheld the Boston-based players' cards until this last series.
I did some research regarding why the Cincinnati players were withheld until this last series; however, I cannot find it. When I find it I'll post it.
I do recall that there is a connection with the Worcester club.


TED Z

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I arrived at this theory that a possible conflict with the 1909 RAMLY set may have resulted, since American Caramel did not include these guys in their
1st and 2nd series issued in 1908 - 1909.

TED Z

Hi Ted,

The old thread was here: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...l+ramly&page=4

I'm afraid I still don't understand your theory. Either you are postulating (a) that the Boston players pictured in Ramly could not appear in E90-1 until later, or (b) because of some arrangement between Ramly and the Boston clubs, no Boston player - whether they appeared in Ramly or not - could be on a 1909 E90-1.

I think those are the only two possible theories, but I have never been able to figure out which one you were putting forth.

But here is the thing - both (a) and (b) don't work.

There are many Boston players in E90-1 that we think were from the scarcer late series who have no Ramly card. So if it was (a) above, there is no reason why those cards could not have been issued in 1909.

So maybe Ramly had the Boston clubs locked up - ie. (b) above? The quick answer to that one is "no" - Cy Young Boston proves this is not the case.

I'm not trying to pick at you, but I can't understand how any "theory" could be formed when either way it does not work on the facts.

Cheers,
Blair

[Bosox Blair]

Maybe one of my problems with your theory is that - as a Red Sox collector - I don't see any significant overlap with these sets.

In E90-1 there are only 6 Red Sox cards (T204 has twice as many). Here are the E90-1 Red Sox:

1. Tris Speaker - does not appear in Ramly at all
2. Cy Young - does not appear in Ramly at all
3. Biff Schlitzer - does not appear in Ramly at all
4. Charley Hall - does not appear in Ramly at all
5. Ed Karger - appears in Ramly, but not as a Boston player
6. Jake Stahl - this is the only card of the 6 where he appears with Boston in both E90-1 and T204.

Maybe I'm obtuse, but how can a relationship theory be formed on the basis of this?

Cheers,
Blair