Amazing E95 Discovery

[Exhibitman]

What you have is a companion piece to mine:



The red is a border.

The boxing set with this pose is E79

[ErikV]

I don't own these pieces, but just to illustrate the connection between the E79s and E95s
and the E80's/E96s I'm posting these. To the far right of the E95 appears evidence
of a E79 back. To the far left of the E96 appears to be a E80 back. I believe these
show proof that both "series I" and "series II" sets were printed simultaneously. My
last post showing the blurb that the company was releasing ball players and prize fighters
lends strong evidence that E79/E95 or E80/E96 were distributed at the same time. The
Cobb and Jefferies were no doubt advertisement pieces promoting these up and coming sets.

I also just noticed the back of the E96 has the word "new" as does the short notice from
the periodical. Could the "new" sets being released have been referring to the E80/E96 sets?

Finally, the Philadelphia Caramel advertisement originally shown in the OP was used all
throughout 1910 and 1911 and may have been used prior as well. There is definitely more
research needed on this subject to pin down the exact time when the first sets of cards
were issued.

[Exhibitman]

Odds are that manufacturers would not have used Jeffries post-1910 to promote anything new, not after Jack Johnson whupped him on July 4th.

The E96/E80 mix seems clear from that card back and lends credence to a theory about print timing that I have long postulated for the E79-E80 issue. At first the different colored back prints threw me off, but I later thought I'd cracked the 'code' on the boxing cards. The E80 44-series back lists 44 subjects spread over 30 cards and the E79 back lists 19 different names and states that there are 8 other subjects. In actuality, the 27 E79 subjects are spread over 21 cards and there are only 11 cards known with the E80 44-series back. The 21 cards include a pair of “fist” cards showing the right and wrong way to clinch a fist. The fist cards are not listed on the seemingly complete E80 backs but without them the E79 count comes up short. I have verified that all 21 cards with the E79 27-subject backs are found in both red and black back print. What I have long thought happened--and what that miscut back suggests--is that E79 was made first with black inked backs, then reissued with red backs and 11 new cards to comprise E80, but with the fist cards not listed on the checklist. As for the baseball sets, the answer IMO is right on the bottom of the E96 back: "Previous series 25, making total issue 55." Given that the business notice [great find] states that the company issued the two sports together, personally, I would label all of the baseball and boxing sets as part of one unified multisport issue consisting of two series each of baseball and boxing cards, or at the very least combine the two sports into a pair of sets issued in two series.

[ErikV]

Adam,

Great post. I agree with all of your points. I should add that around the same time of these
cards being issued, Jim Jefferies was coming out of retirement to fight Jack Johnson. At
the time Jefferies was considered "The Great White Hope" and there was much publicized
over this upcoming fight. As per the San Francisco Call newspaper, this fight was announced
October 30, 1909. I find it odd that a guy who was retired since 1905 would suddenly
appear in a set of current boxing stars - unless his coming out of retirement prompted
the printing of an odd number 21-card set. This "promo" card of Jefferies also seems to me
to have been an excellent marketing strategy for Philadelphia Caramel Company's new
boxing cards. Cobb, well, he didn't need any publicity. His name and reputation spoke
for itself, but again, in terms of marketing power great choice on Philly Caramel's part.


Adam, I also agree with you in that all red-backed cards (including the 11 newer cards)
are all E80s. Interesting thought on all cards being considered a multisport set. I seem
to look at it more like "series I" and "series II." This practice of issuing baseball cards
in series' began to occur with the 1914 Crack Jack set, continuing in the 1940's with Play
Ball and in the 1950's with Topps. If the E80/E96 were in fact "series II" and were issued
in say perhaps late 1910, this may also explain why the E80/E96 cards are much lower
in population than their earlier counterparts.

ErikV

[gnaz01]

VERY pleased to have just added this to my collection from an awesome board member.

[Exhibitman]

Congrats! Always feels great to add a rarity to one's collection.

[Jobu]

Congrats Greg, very cool card.

Please shoot me a PM if you know the whereabouts of the card that Erik posted in the initial post. Thanks.

[ErikV]

Brian,

To answer your question as to the blank back version you inquired about.

I've researched the Philadelphia Caramel Company and their candy cards for
several years. While I don't have a definitive answer, I don't believe the blank
back version of the E95/E96 cards were issued by this company. In all of their
promotions they made it a point to brand their products. From their earliest
non-sport cards, to their last set of cards they issued, they ALWAYS included their
company name. It makes no sense to me why they would issue a blank back
card. The blank back version cards were likely cut from a folder that occasionally
pop up at auction. I honestly don't believe a candy company would issue a school
folder with picture cards. Had they done so, I believe they would've printed their
company name on it somewhere.

Here's an additional article that you might find interesting:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/eNews/20...64/eNews64.htm

Hope this helps.

ErikV