E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[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

[caramelcard]

Scott,

You're right. If the shading did tell us something about the production dates or shed light on the issue in any significant way, then this would be important.

So, what does it tell us?

I agree that a variation is something that was intentional, but it doesn't matter if this is a variation or not if it reveals something about the set.

Have you been able to identify any patterns? Have you found more than one example of the same player with the shading?

Rob

[JamesGallo]

Well I checked over 50 different E90 cards and none of them were shaded. That being said unless they can be pinned down to a specific group then I think it was a dirty plate or something like that.

James G

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Well I checked over 50 different E90 cards and none of them were shaded. That being said unless they can be pinned down to a specific group then I think it was a dirty plate or something like that.

James G

That is my point, it can be predicted which cards have this shading....

for instance, all of the "common" cards have no shaded version....

if you see the card on Ebay, its probably not shaded...

the sHADED cards all are Lower Population cards...

this is very Significant in my book....

so dont even look at the H Jennings, the SUmmers, Tinker, Lajoie, Baker, Mathewson, Young, wallace, crawford, j jackson, chase etc....these "commons" dont have shaded versions...

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by caramelcard

Scott,

You're right. If the shading did tell us something about the production dates or shed light on the issue in any significant way, then this would be important.

So, what does it tell us?

I agree that a variation is something that was intentional, but it doesn't matter if this is a variation or not if it reveals something about the set.

Have you been able to identify any patterns? Have you found more than one example of the same player with the shading?

Rob

yes and yes...

[ScottFandango]

is it a "variation" if one players cards predictably comes in both shaded and non-shaded versions?

for instance, when a player has a shaded version, they also have a normal version....

if the player ONLY had a shaded version, then this would have no significance..

but when you can hold 2 cards of the same player next to each other, and one back is shaded and the other is normal, this has significance....

Again, if EVERY card in the set had a shaded and regular version, it would have no significance...BUT not every card does!

[edhans]

I looked at each of my 99 E90-1s (93 diff, 6 dupes). Found only two with the shading, both Fromme. The shading is not identical on the cards. The other Cincinnati players (Mitchell, Bescher, and 2 Siegle's) do not have the shading. I'm inclined to agree with the majority that it's not a variation, just a dirty or worn plate. As Scott points out though, if we could establish definitive patterns it might help to solve the elusive mystery of e90-1s series.

[ScottFandango]

confirmed here also...

Fromme is one!

not a dirty plate, but a DIFFERENT plate....

a dirty plate would leave smudges on the inside AND outside of the lines...

no smudges are found on the shaded variation...in fact they are quite "clean"

[fkw]

Originally Posted by Leon

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

wish they would have put E90-1 on this blank back McLean ......the E90-1 McLean is one of the toughest in the set (high book is $5,000).
IMO all the blank backed cards like these are E92s, even though this could be a E101 as well

[edhans]

Scott,
I applaud you for your research and effort, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions. Some of the "confirmed" subjects with the shading are common E90-1s; In particular Keeler (pink), Wagner (bat), Harry Davis, and Miller. In fact none of the cards mentioned should be considered among E90-1s rarest. Until we find a Mitchell (Cin), Walsh, Duffy, Shean, etc. we can't conclude that only the rarest (last series) of E90-1s were printed with this "variation". It is incredibly unlikely that the 28 or so subjects mentioned in this thread were printed on the same sheet. For instance, I believe G. Davis to be a card which was discontinued early and Willis obviously a much later issue (note the trade during the off season after 1909). No way they were printed on the same sheet. I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest that this is just a printing anomaly that occurred on multiple sheets.

[ScottFandango]

" Ed you said "in now way were these printed on the same sheet.." why are you so sure about this?

wouldnt the artists and American Caramel Printing executives use one artist (and therefore noticably simialr styles)

the RED background cards with the shading all look VERY Similar, and are dfiferent than anyting else in the set...why assume these similar cards (sheckard, marquard, wagner batting, demmitt, tenney) were printed in different print runs....to me is seems obvious (and intuitive) that they would have all been made at the same time (also the color red is very VERY similar in all these)

i think we need to step back and take a look at the artwork and background color of this set...it may reveal more than you think....

hint hint...all the know rarities have a textured colored background not found in any other cards , again suggesting simialr style and colored cards were made together.