E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

To me this is just a little extra black ink bleeding into the design.

Look at Scott's example in post #46. Many of the letters, both at the top and bottom, have some loops with shaded areas and others which remain white. Could that be a variation? Was that deliberately designed by the artist? Doesn't make sense to me.

why does have a variation HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE?

it was a mistake at the Press, i know that, they were never intended to be different....

BUT, it only shows up on specific cards, and it is not common...

if it happened only once, or it wasnt predictable, then it means nothing....

BUT ITS PREDICTABLE WHAT CARDS HAVE THIS...


PS....NO CARD, even the SHADED version, have ALL of the areas shaded...they have areas (especially the left border) that usually remains clear...


it must have been an older plate that was worn down, thus the spots that were meant NOT to have any ink, got some....BUT again, this doesnt happen in all the cards, and proves that some were created at different times (separate print run)...

we all know this set was made for a few years and nobody knows the series breakdown....

this could be the first step in deciphering a specific series print run within the set!!!

if this is predictable, no matter what you call it, why cant it be recognized?

wish Rich Klein would chime in (mr errors and variations)

Brian, your on the right track!

[barrysloate]

Scott- it doesn't have to be deliberate, I was just pointing out it was an inadvertent error that was caused by a little ink bleeding. As such, it doesn't strike me as a variation. But that is one area of the hobby where we have vastly different opinions.

To me, the Magie misspelling is a variation, the while the Nodgrass is not. The printers designed a new plate to correct the Magie error; while the Nodgrass was a result of a small foreign substance lodging itself on the plate during the print run. But I know the hobby considers the Nodgrass a bona fide variation.

[ShoelessBob]

Darn...I think I this was one of the "Shaded" variations but somehow it got erased.

[brianp-beme]

Typical grading company blunder...that Bridwell pose (as seen with blank back in previous post) does not exist in the E90-1 set. E92 Dockman is a probable contender.

Brian

[ShoelessBob]

Thanks Brian!

I did not realize this was an e92 Dockman. Would it be worthwhile to get re-graded?

[sreader3]

Bob,

I have just two E90-1s [Joss (Portrait), Wallace]--and no shading.

Scot

[brianp-beme]

Not to throw off the E90-1 discussion, but to answer the question on the blank back card...the problem is, this card could E92 Dockman, E92 Nadja, E92Croft's Cocoa, E92 Croft's Candy, E101, E105 (although if it were E105 it would be much thinner stock, and thus easier to pin down), or possibly E106(not sure which Bridwell pose is in E106).

The bigger error that the grading companies continue to perpetuate is their need to designate blank cards such as these as coming from a particular issue, when, because of shared poses between different sets, they can not be accurately pinned down. The vast majority of M101-4 and M101-5, and their associated sets that share designs and photos, as well as the M135 and associated sets are also examples of this (recently saw 'Boston Store' blank backs--how can they know?) haphazard designation by the grading companies.

Brian