E90-1 "shaded" back variations?

[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"

[ScottFandango]

"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought." --Albert Szent-Gyorgi

thanks Ted for this quote that puts things in perspective..

[bijoem]

scott - there are a many ways this could happen on press through poor quality control..... or simply during the initial setup (make-ready) for the run.

for instance.... all one has to do is run too much black ink (or not enough water) and you will achieve that plugging in (you call it shading). If a pressman saw that the black was running heavy, he would have adjusted and kept running. What you see is the bad printing that was fixed.

This is not a variation.

no matter if is on just one card, some cards, or all cards - this is a print defect..... as the issue can happen on the entire sheet or on a specific part of the sheet.


As far as printing plates....
and your mentioning "DIFFERENT" plate....
I mentioned this before -

Printing plates only have so many impressions in them.
I don't know the number of sheets that could be run off by a plate in 1910ish.... but I would bet it wasn't more than 10,000 sheets - probably less.

To compensate for the short life span of printing plates - multiples of the same printing plate are produced.

So.... for just about any mainstream card we collect - - there were MANY plates created for the same card. As plates outlived their usefulness, a pressman would take off the bad plates and put on the new (but same) plates.

[ScottFandango]

so i will use the word VERSION instead

SHADED VERSION....


only certain cards have the shaded Version....


better?

[bijoem]

Scott....

I think the thread is awesome.

And I love the observation.


you really could call this anything you want.

I was just trying to be a constructive participant of the thread.

[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.

[edhans]

To a certain extent, the styles play a role in the "series" of E90-1. There are several other variables that are more important. I think the same artist was responsible for most of the artwork. It doesn't necessarily follow (and can't possibly be) that all of his work was released all at once.

I'm not sure what you mean by "textured colored background", but I again disagree with the contention that background colors found on the rarities can't be found on commons. I'll cite just the two examples that come quickly to mind: Duffy/Chase (and several others) and Walsh/Dygert. There are others.

Of course, I'm not certain about the G. Davis and Willis cards. One really can't be certain about most things regarding E90-1. But an examination of their playing records make it very unlikely that they were produced at the same time.

On the surface of it, the five cards you mention could have been printed on the same sheet. But how then do we account for the discrepancy in rarity? Demmitt and Tenney are significantly more difficult than Marquard and Sheckard and miles tougher than Wagner (batting).

[ScottFandango]

marquard and wagner may be more available because they are HOF's..but those red cards i feel, have the same degree of toughness....

why arent there any SHADED backs for sale out of the 300 on ebay?

as for the rare card TEXTURED background..i think its very easy to see....use the peaches graham as an example, also the bemis, ed walsh, gibson back view, and Mclean, although different colors, they all have the same (speckled/textured background)...its clearly different than the other 100 or so cards....scans would help i guess..

the lobert also shows this textured/stippled/speckled style

[edhans]

No way Tenney and Demmitt are as common as Wagner and Marquard. The ratio is probably something like 10:1.

There aren't any shaded backs on ebay because they're scarce. That doesn't mean that any card with a shaded back is a difficult subject. The four examples I cited in an earlier post are proof of that. None of the cards "confirmed" in this thread Are among the most difficult in the set. And several, most notably the Keeler (pink) are rather common.

Now I understand what you mean by "textured". I refer to them in today's modern terminology as "pixilated". Those subjects include Mitchell (Cin), Sweeney (Bos), Graham, Gibson (back), Young (Cle), Duffy, and a few others I'm sure. Interestingly, there are cards from other series done in this same style; notably E92 Collins and E90-3 Schulte. Bemis, Walsh and McLean are not examples of this style. And yes, all of the above E90-1s are quite scarce.