E92 confirmed lists for difficult backs

[Bliggity]

Thanks DJ, very interesting stuff!

It seems to me that of the Young and Magee Prizefighters, the Magee designated as E102 must be incorrect. The matching upside-down/miscut backs on those two cards suggest that they were cut from the same sheet. Magee and Young were both in the E101 set, but only Magee was in E102. So, if these cards were on the same sheet, it could not have been an E102 sheet. That's not to say it was definitely an E101 sheet, but we know it wasn't an E102.

Here's something else. (Again, warning - a novice outside of his comfort zone.) The E26 Animals and E78 Prizefighters were 1910 issues, yes? My understanding is that the E101 and E102 printings would have predated that - at least they're slabbed as 1908/09. So it seems to me that those "wrong backs" could not be E101s or E102s. Looking at the seven confirmed Menagerie backs (and also the Prizefighters, actually), the only sets that contain all those front poses are E92 (all four), E101, and E105. We know E101 was a 1909 issue, as was E92. The only 1910 issue was E105. So is it possible that the wrong backs are actually E105s? Doesn't that make the most sense based on the dates?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

Thanks DJ, very interesting stuff!

It seems to me that of the Young and Magee Prizefighters, the Magee designated as E102 must be incorrect. The matching upside-down/miscut backs on those two cards suggest that they were cut from the same sheet. Magee and Young were both in the E101 set, but only Magee was in E102. So, if these cards were on the same sheet, it could not have been an E102 sheet. That's not to say it was definitely an E101 sheet, but we know it wasn't an E102.

Here's something else. (Again, warning - a novice outside of his comfort zone.) The E26 Animals and E78 Prizefighters were 1910 issues, yes? My understanding is that the E101 and E102 printings would have predated that - at least they're slabbed as 1908/09. So it seems to me that those "wrong backs" could not be E101s or E102s. Looking at the seven confirmed Menagerie backs (and also the Prizefighters, actually), the only sets that contain all those front poses are E92 (all four), E101, and E105. We know E101 was a 1909 issue, as was E92. The only 1910 issue was E105. So is it possible that the wrong backs are actually E105s? Doesn't that make the most sense based on the dates?

E105s are on almost paper thin stock.....I don't think all of the "years" of those early caramel sets are so set in stone either. I think there were series issued multiple years.

[ephus]

Originally Posted by Leon

E105s are on almost paper thin stock.....I don't think all of the "years" of those early caramel sets are so set in stone either. I think there were series issued multiple years.

I agree with Leon, e105 is thinner stock. Even in a slab you can tell the differences in stock. As an example 1914 and 1915 crackerjack cards (most) look the same on the front. If you hold them up to a light 1915's you can see the back printing because they are so thin , 1914's you can read every word it is that much more thin. With that being said, and the fact that I have collected e92's for more than 15 years, when I hold my menagerie to the light and look at it in hand it has same quality/thickness of a e92. Oh yeah, here is my already verified Menagerie Animal back...

[x2drich2000]

Ephus, Is that the same one that was on Ebay earlier this year? In either case, very nice card!

DJ

[ephus]

No, I have had it for maybe 6+ years. It was for sale earlier this year on Memory Lane's Own IT Now sale, but did not sell. Maybe you saw it there.


Kelly

[x2drich2000]

Kelly, that's the same one. Thanks

Earlier today I was also asked if I had a list of confirmed crofts blue backs. I put a quick list together, but am still missing the following. So can anyone confirm any of the ones below?

Bender (white cap)
Bergen
Casey
Cobb
Donovan
Doyle (throwing)
Gibson
Lajoie
Magee
Matthewson
Miller (batting)
Miller (fielding)
Murphy
Schlei
Seigle
Smith
Tinker
Zimmerman

I also found evidence of a 2nd red crofts Crawford, so that list has been updated.

DJ

[Leon]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Kelly, that's the same one. Thanks

Earlier today I was also asked if I had a list of confirmed crofts blue backs. I put a quick list together, but am still missing the following. So can anyone confirm any of the ones below?

Bender (white cap)
Bergen
Casey
Cobb
Donovan
Doyle (throwing)
Gibson
Lajoie
Magee
Matthewson
Miller (batting)
Miller (fielding)
Murphy
Schlei
Seigle
Smith
Tinker
Zimmerman

I also found evidence of a 2nd red crofts Crawford, so that list has been updated.

DJ

I don't have a scan but there is a Red back Crofts Evers.....it is from a very reliable source. Thanks for the efforts.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Kelly, that's the same one. Thanks

Earlier today I was also asked if I had a list of confirmed crofts blue backs. I put a quick list together, but am still missing the following. So can anyone confirm any of the ones below?

Bender (white cap)
Bergen
Casey
Cobb
Donovan
Doyle (throwing)
Gibson
Lajoie
Magee
Matthewson
Miller (batting)
Miller (fielding)
Murphy
Schlei
Seigle
Smith
Tinker
Zimmerman

I also found evidence of a 2nd red crofts Crawford, so that list has been updated.

DJ

Yes, I can confirm the existence of a Crofts Blue Cobb. I had one about 20 years ago, but sold it when I left the hobby and folded Full Count's tent. As I recall it was graded a PSA 4. Nice card.