Identifying E101 and E102 purely by the front (E8, E78 tie in)

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

Had a card with a Menagerie back that was designated as E92...memory fails me who it was but if I remember it I will post...Jerry

Here is the Wagner batting -- OOPS, I see it was already posted. Sorry for the double post

I love this issue -- E90-1 (sometimes) through E106 and T216. DJ knows more about these than anyone. I wish we had the general knowledge on these cards that exist for T206

[G1911]

It seems to me that the likeliest scenario is that all of the sets discussed here were done by a single printer. It doesn't make much sense otherwise; one printing firm gets the artwork done, designs the cards and captions, and then others... what, pirate the set by getting their hands on the cards, recreating the images perfectly and setting up to reprint them? It doesn't make sense that way, hard to see the profit in going to so much effort at the time. E90, E92, E101, E102, these sets are all very likely the same printer. The wrong sheets tell us E78, E26 and E8 had to be done by the same team.

We do know the name of a printer used by American Caramel, who issued E90. The E125 die cut stands from mid 1910 tell us P.R. Warren made both series of them. I have been diving into Peter R. Warren's printing and paper goods making firm of Lowell, Warrensville, Boston and NYC because of this connection in an effort to tie their NY office to American Caramel to resolve some lingering mysteries from the V153 research.

We should not assume and make the deductive leap that because Peter Warren's firm did the E125's that they did all of American Caramel's cards (and thus likely this grouping of sets discussed in this thread). It forms the solitary real clue I have at present though, and may lead to a real resolution. P.R. Warren was in some serious financial trouble in late 1910, but were big enough to have at least 4 offices and locations. I have always thought it probable the caramel sets were not authorized unlike the tobacco issues, but if Warren had an NY office and did do American Caramel's cards, these issues may have been authorized by the players after all, in accord with the 1904 NY State law.

[gabrinus]

Awesome DJ...thanks...I don't know why I thought it was graded...should have remembered I sold it to you...Jerry

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

Awesome DJ...thanks...I don't know why I thought it was graded...should have remembered I sold it to you...Jerry

Why do I get the impression that a significant amount of significant cards have passed through your hands Jerry...

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Why do I get the impression that a significant amount of significant cards have passed through your hands Jerry...

Jerry is the man behind the man behind the man when it comes to baseball cards like Macrae and Richard. I used to think they were old, but they're only like 15 years older than me or 30 years older like Deniro and Pacino.

[gabrinus]

Thanks guys...I think y'all are definitely holding more cards than me now...don't think my collection was ever like Richard or Macrae's...Jerry

[Jobu]

We can rule out e102 based on the OP's post as that issue doesn't have Cy Young. If we assume that these wrong backs were printed at the same time as the baseball sheet (as opposed to one side or the other having been printed a year or more apart), then looking at the dates might help:

1909 E92 Croft's Cocoa
1909 E92 Dockman
1909 E92 Croft's Candy
1909 E92 Nadja
1909 E101 Anonymous
1909 D355 Niagara Baking
1910 E105 Mello Mint
1910 E78 Anonymous Prize Fighters
1910 E26 Dockman & Son Menagerie
1910 E8 Battle Ship USS Connecticut
1912-1916 T216 Kotton-Mino-Virginia Extra

Both wrong backs, E78 and E26, are listed as 1910 issues (not sure about the certainty of those dates). 1910 is also the date for the other front, E8 Battle Ships. There is only one baseball set listed as being issued in 1910, E105 Mello Mint. I looked at DJ's full baseball player list (Cy Young, Magee, Kleinow, Lobert, Wagner batting, Murphy, McGraw, Bemis, and Shean) and all are in E105. So it is possible that these are all wrong-backed E105s.