E93 Black & White Cobb

[rman444]

Barry, that makes sense. But as Wesley pointed out, perhaps cautiously should have been E-unc with a number grade rather than E93 Auth.

[barrysloate]

I don't know what the company policy is, but periodically SGC is going to receive a card that is uncatalogued and which they have never seen before. So it will entail more than just grading, as they will have some decisions to make. The first is what to put on the label. In this case it is logical to call it an E93 black and white, but it is within the realm of possibility that it is something else. So I think in a situation like this it is safer to just authenticate it, assuming they believe it is period and not some later production.

Calling it E-Unc. would make more sense but perhaps the submitters wouldn't like that and would lobby for something a little more specific. This is all speculation of course.

[rman444]

Barry - I understand what you are saying, but if SGC, or anyone for that matter, is going to authenticate a card without knowing for certain the issue, then aren't they simply authenticating the card as period? If E93 is put on the label, then shouldn't the graders be certain that it is in fact an Authentic E93?

Edited to add: If this card had a more unique image of Cobb, or if it had an E93 printed back then I can see a better argument of how this card could be an E93. However, this image is used on no less than 3 different caramel cards, notebook covers, magazine premiums, publications, etc and was found with a blank back. To authenticate it as an E93 seems a bit of a stretch to me.

[ullmandds]

i agree it is logical to call it an e93...based on the cropping...and b/w...because it is. I guess it should have a numerical grade...but I also understand why they graded it A...as it is the 1st found of it's kind. Tough one...what does one do when a new discovery is made to the hobby. E97 b/w's were potentially mislabelled for years as proofs...maybe more of these will surface...or maybe these are proofs?!

[barrysloate]

There is always a leap of faith with the first card out of the box...I would assume that down the road some new information will surface about it.

Now to label it an E93 doesn't SGC have to be nearly certain that this black and white example was printed ca. 1910? What if someone got hold of a printing plate, and at a later date made this? Wouldn't that preclude this being called an E93? We certainly don't know the origin of this card.

[rman444]

Let me take it one step further. Shouldn't SGC be nearly certain that this example was printed ca. 1910 AND distributed by Standard Caramel for it to be labeled an E93?

As an example, E92s, E101s and E102s were all printed around the same time, and probably by the same printer, but are all different sets/issues because of how (and through whom) they were distributed.

[barrysloate]

As I said Richard, SGC took a leap of faith. It very well may be exactly what the label says, but we don't know for sure.