E92 confirmed lists for difficult backs

[Leon]

Nice prick up, Steve!

Originally Posted by brass_rat

We can add Knabe to the list of E92 Croft's Candy red backs.

This was quite the interesting back run pickup for me, (and DJ and I did confer before the card ended up with me... And a big thank you to DJ for bringing all of his red Croft's for in-person comparison).

When I saw the original scans of the card, I thought it was likely a fake back, similar to the T213-1 Coupons from several years ago. (And also a big thank you to the board member who didn't hesitate to send me a number of examples of those fake Coupons to see in-person for education and comparison.)

Turner was quite gracious in allowing me to have folks look at the card in person before finalizing the sale -- I gained comfort from having a number of experts look at the holdered card. While I don't want to speak on their behalf, their opinions that it is real gave me confidence.

I was having a tough time getting a clear high res scan, so Brian had DJ and me come by the REA office to have their photographer do high res photos of the Knabe and several of DJ's red Croft's for comparison. (Thanks!) It was much easier to see things and the back at that point.

(The photo below is me shrinking those high res photos for posting purposes.)

All in, thank you to everybody who took the time to share their knowledge and opinions.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice prick up, Steve!

I think what Leon is trying to say is this is the Viagra of prewar cards.

Brian

[brass_rat]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I think what Leon is trying to say is this is the Viagra of prewar cards.

Brian

that's certainly one way of looking at it!

Thanks, guys -- it's fun when we get to add something to DJ's checklist. I love threads like this one.

[x2drich2000]

Thanks Steve, I've updated the checklist of red backs.

I've also updated the notes on the Nadja Donovan to indicate the one in the PSA pop report is actually an E104-3. The Nadja Donovan is still unconfirmed.

Always looking to hear about any other examples that people can confirm exist from these sets.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Why isn’t Cobb in the e92 Dockman series? It was long thought he didn’t exist in the e92 Nadjas until 3 of them surfaced 6 yrs ago… is it possible he’s out there somewhere with a Dockman back?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

Why isn’t Cobb in the e92 Dockman series? It was long thought he didn’t exist in the e92 Nadjas until 3 of them surfaced 6 yrs ago… is it possible he’s out there somewhere with a Dockman back?

i don't know why cobb isn't in dockman...but as common as they are within e92 i'd say there is 0% chance of it's existence

I'm glad this card turned out to be real...congrats steve.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

Why isn’t Cobb in the e92 Dockman series? It was long thought he didn’t exist in the e92 Nadjas until 3 of them surfaced 6 yrs ago… is it possible he’s out there somewhere with a Dockman back?

Like Pete mentioned above, I would think it extremely unlikely there is a E92 Dockman Cobb, because the Dockman cards are multiple times more available than the Nadja, and thus most likely would have appeared before now. I am guessing that he just didn't make the 40 man roster (maybe someone in the Dockman decision process was the defintion of an anti-Cobb).

Brian

[steve B]

I got to get a look at Steves Knabe a while back when he had questions. Nice card. The questions were about the odd left side of the panel that says candy, and if it looked real.
It sure is, and looking at it alongside a few other cards led me to some interesting things. And made me look at the few caramel cards I have.

To save time - I type pretty slowly- I'll just paste in what I wrote in an email
I figured I’d let you know about the things I found interesting. (with one corrected typo)
-----------------------------------------------
First, they are all genuine, Some of what’s interesting is what I thought was not standard, but they’re obviously from different sources and the odd stuff is consistent.

The fronts are all typical 1910 ish lithography. Halftone for the picture, solid colors combined with the precursor to halftones which I cant think of the name of just now.

The backs are where it gets interesting.
Lithography typically prints with a very even flat quality to it. These show a line of darker print around most of the printed areas. This is most visible on the lighter ones, but is there in all of them.
That is typical of typography, especially on larger type the force involved in printing forces some of the ink on the type or print block to the sides. It’s generally referred to as squeeze out.
(Printers aren’t always the most imaginative bunch)
The various flaws in the backs make more sense with typography.
For example
The left of the candy panel on Knabe looks to be where that line is either breaking and about to come off, or has broken off and been reattached
On both of the darker ones the upper left corner is mush thicker, but the edges are uneven. That’s most likely from “stuff” – squeezed out ink, random tiny paper debris etc building up on the
Print block until it’s at the level of the surface so it gets inked and prints.
Each one shows potentially broken letters especially the Bender.

I checked my tiny supply of E cards, and to my surprise many of them showed similar signs of typography.
But none showed one of the key signs, that being the printed area being impressed into the stock. That can happen with some types of typography. German stamps were all typographed into the 1920’s and often don’t
show those impressions. But their “plates” were shallow, and more like etchings where only the high spots were printed (instead of the whole thing being etched and the high spots wiped clean as in art.
I’d be surprised if the places printing cards used that system, but it’s possible.
What I think is more likely is a hybrid type, where the print block printed to a roller which then printed the stock, so offset typography.
I’ll have to ask the print museum if squeeze out could translate across the offset process. I suspect it can.

There are a lot of avenues to explore just in E92, and most in the crofts candy. If the damaged letters are plate damage they will be consistent. So other Benders will have the same group of damaged letters.
Or, other cards from the same place on a different sheet will have those damaged letters. Damage on typography blocks tends to be progressive, so you might see a series of them as those letters came apart.
It's probable the Crofts candy was all done using the same print blocks for the backs. It should be possible to figure out which color was done first. My guess would be the order is black/blue/red
It should also be possible to sort the set into groups by comparing flaws to checklists and pop reports. Maybe not precisely, but just looking at set size in general, 40 and 50 could both be small sheets of 10 different players.
But 62 doesn’t fit that at all. So it’s not entirely that simple.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Steve B