Which Card Sets Should be Re-Classified?

[btcarfagno]

"Scrapps Tobacco" ain't tobacco cards, yet both PSA and SGC continue to label as such. They have definitively been found to have been gum cards.

Tom C

[barrysloate]

E98's should no longer be catalogued exclusively as candy cards, since they have no product advertising, and the Black Swamp find confirmed that they were distributed through other venues.

[Jobu]

All E95/E96 blank backs that are slabbed as proofs should be slabbed as cut outs from notebooks, scorecards, etc. I have never seen anything that looks like a real proof.

[jerrys]

Sponsor's advertisements are printed on all insert cards; the reason for the extra expense of the premium.

The newly credited sponsor, H D Smith & Co. Gum, have no advertising on the Scrapps. (?)

Large thin card - thin gum. Packaged together - boxed?

I'm still looking for an 1888 Green and Blackwell Co. Gum (E223) Card Package - I've added to that an HDS Gum (Scrapps) package. Doubt their existence.

[ullmandds]

e97 b/w should be called something...but not proofs.

[Luke]

I wish all of the cards in the 1917 E135 family (Standard Biscuit D350-2, Weil Baking D328, and Boston Store H801-8) were considered to be the same set (like T206). I think it would boost their popularity a bit.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Luke

I wish all of the cards in the 1917 E135 family (Standard Biscuit D350-2, Weil Baking D328, and Boston Store H801-8) were considered to be the same set (like T206). I think it would boost their popularity a bit.

agreed!

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jerrys

Sponsor's advertisements are printed on all insert cards; the reason for the extra expense of the premium.

The newly credited sponsor, H D Smith & Co. Gum, have no advertising on the Scrapps. (?)

Large thin card - thin gum. Packaged together - boxed?

I'm still looking for an 1888 Green and Blackwell Co. Gum (E223) Card Package - I've added to that an HDS Gum (Scrapps) package. Doubt their existence.

HDS is definitive.

I owned several uncut pairs that had tabs on them with HDS name. Consigned to Al at LOTG and he did the legwork that solved the mystery.

Tom C

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

To expand on what Leon said, W575-2 has absolutely no connection to W575-1 and is its own stand-alone release. On top of that whole not-being-a-W thing.

W502 isn't a W set either.

[jerrys]

Yes Tom, I'm aware of these pairs from Al's auction and the results of the research:

item_26789_1.jpg

There is an expense in producing, packaging and distributing cards. A sponsor's reason for absorbing this cost is to influence people to remain or become customers. Scrapps carry no message - no advertisement - no reminder of where the cards originated. This is still a part of the mystery missing from the story. All other insert cards bear a printed sponsor's ad. That is why I included a (?).

I shared my believe that neither of the PACKAGING that united the product and the card in each case existed - never disagreed with the HDS.