E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by 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

I agree Brian. There is no way the TPG's can know which series many blank backed cards came from. The way I classify them, and a way that is at least standard, is to go to the least common denominator of ACC numbers. In other words if there is a blank backed T206 then I would use it instead of a series with a higher number, same thing on the E cards. If an E card has a blank back, and the front was in the E90-1 series, then that is what I use. It's at least a consistent system and one I would propose to always be used, again, for consistency. regards

ps...with regards to the original question I don't think these shading errors should be documented as true errors but as small print defects....or differences