Post your wrong back errors

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Since e101 has a Young, and e102 does not, and DJ's card and my card appear to be from the same sheet, it seems these are e101 fronts with e78 backs. e101, e102, and e78 are all anonymous, but appear to be made by the same printer. e102 is sometimes said to be from 1908, e101 1909, and e78 1910. These wrong backs raise some questions about the years of release...Rob

I also would like to see some more players from this sheet.

Rob, In addition to the Young and Magee, there is also an E8 USS Constitution with the same back. As far as the set these should be called, that's a big rabbit hole to go down. Do not forget that both cards also exist with all E92 backs (except I do not have blue croft Magee confirmed). We also have the Menageries which are also upside down and offset. Both black crofts and cocoa have known upside down backs (along with other print issues).

[Leon]

E126 not blank backed

[Exhibitman]

That E126 is a wet sheet transfer not a wrong back, but great card.

E78 was definitely a 1910 issue. The Berger-Jeffries card is strong proof since it shows Jeffries training for the 7/4/10 Johnson fight and in physical condition he did not achieve until the spring of 1910.

[RCMcKenzie]

Thanks for chiming in with that info, Adam. If we agree that e78 was produced in 1910, and the backs for Magee and Young are mistakes, what back, in 1910, did they mean to put on the cards?

I know there have been discussions about the release dates for all the different caramel issues, 1908,1909,1910. Is it now thought that they were released over a number of years? Rob

Also, the e78 back has a similar, stair-step design to the e102, but Young is not in e102....