Question for the E90-1 Experts

[tedzan]

I looked at my old records dating back to the mid 1980's when I acquired my first E90-1 card....Mitchell (Cinci).
Here is the ranking of rarity according to my experience collecting these cards in completing a set of 120 cards.

1st Most difficult group......alphabetically listed

Clarke (Pitt)
Duffy
Graham (Bost-NL)
Mitchell (Cinci)
Shean
Speaker
Stahl
Sweeney (Bost-NL)
Walsh
CYoung (Clev)

2nd most difficult group......alphabetically listed

Bemis
Demmitt
Joss (pitching)......horiz.
Karger
Keeler (NY-NL)......horiz.
Lobert
McLean
Richie
Upp
Willis

3rd most difficult group......alphabetically listed

Bescher
Bransfield (pink)
B. Brown..............horiz.
Hartzell (bat)
Gibson (back view)
Hall.....................horiz.
Keeler (red)
Overall
Seigle..................horiz.
Tenney

This list of 30 cards is based on my anecdotal experience. And, these cards were all most likely included on the
last sheet, which was issued in the Spring of 1910.



TED Z

[Steve D]

On what level is the Wagner (Throwing)?

I haven't even seen one for sale in the last few years. I'm going after the HOFers, and still need the Wagner, Cobb, Joss (Throwing), Keeler (Red portrait), Speaker, Walsh and Young (Cleveland).

I've seen multiples of all of them except the Young (I've seen one) and Wagner.

I've also seen multiples of the Clarke (Pittsburgh) and Duffy. I've seen multiples of Mitchell, Sweeney, Upp, etc..... In fact, the only tough card I haven't seen for sale is the Wagner (Throwing).

Am I just blind, or is this particular Wagner really that tough?

Steve

[3-2-count]

Steve, the Wagner throwing card is about as tough as it get's from the set and when found it's usually in rough shape. Very much so like the Duffy card from the set.
Finding even Good to VG examples of either is a real chore.

[tedzan]

This card of Wagner is certainly tougher than Wagner's batting pose. But, I cannot quite link it to the last series
of the E90 set. My experience in completing this set, and working on a 2nd set, tells me that this Wagner is not
as tough as a Mike Mitchell or a Tris Speaker.

However, I find it interesting that the sunset & mountainous scenes of the Speaker and Wagner are very similar.
Implying that the same artist designed both these cards; and therefore, they were printed on the same sheet.
Having pointed that out, I am still quite ambivalent regarding what series to identify this Wagner with ?






TED Z

[3-2-count]

Ted, Wagner throwing is most definitely more difficult than both Mike Mitchell and Tris Speaker from the E90-1 set.
I'm willing to bet if a poll was taken today by E90-1 collectors who have attempted the set within the last 3-4 years
they would agree as well, hands down.

[White Borders]

Thank you everyone for your replies. Your expertise is greatly appreciated. I am getting the feeling that E90-1, though much smaller than T206, could be nearly as challenging (or frustrating?). Is it a "Mini-Monster"?

Best Regards,
Craig

[tedzan]

In the 1980's and early '90s, this Wagner was not that tough to find as you are saying....not at least at East coast BB card shows
that I attended.
Since those days, I'll agree it appears to have gotten tougher. Between the numerous Auctions and the Grading of cards since the
mid-1990's, there has been an appreciable change in the relative scarcity of cards across the entire spectrum of sportscards issues.

For example....the Mike Mitchell in 1985 was considered "the KEY card" in the E90-1 set; and, the most valuable. The Joe Jax was
just another star card. I acquired Jackson for less than $200 back in the late '80s.


TED Z

[FrankWakefield]

.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I looked at my old records dating back to the mid 1980's when I acquired my first E90-1 card....Mitchell (Cinci).
Here is the ranking of rarity according to my experience collecting these cards in completing a set of 120 cards.

...

TED Z

Hi Ted,

What do you think of the scarcity of Biff Schlitzer?

This is a card that Lew Lipset listed as being tough in the '80s, but (back to the original post) the SGC set registry gives it the "weight" of the most common card.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Regards,
Blair

[tedzan]

Regarding your......
" we simply can't think of the distribution as "series 1, 2, and 3"......can you elaborate further on this ?

Here's my take on how this set was produced......
Given that we have evidence of 30-card uncut sheets of Caramel cards, then my theory is that the 1st series was issued in
late 1908. It consists of 30 cards [many Phila. A's are in this series (incl. Joe Jax)]. The cards in this series are most plentiful.

The 2nd series of 30 cards was issued in early 1909. The availability of these cards is comparable to the 1st series cards.

The 3rd series of 30 cards was issued in late 1909 and they are certainly tougher than the first 60 cards.

The 4th series of 30 cards was issued in the Spring/Summer of 1910 (we know this since Keeler's horizontal card shows him
with tht NY Giants (signed with the Giants May 6, 1910). And, Duffy became Manager of Chicago (AL) in the Spring of 1910.
And, needless to say, these 30 cards were Short-Printed.

Actually, you can track the goings-on during the 1908-1910 era and pretty well figure which players were in which series.

P.S....The 1910 series includes many Boston and Cinci players (which are missing in the earlier series). I attribute this to pos-
sible "player's rights" conflicts with the 1909 Ramly issue. Add to this mix the T206 issue having possible conflicts with Ramly,
as there are very few Boston (AL) players in the T206 set.

I look forward to your comments ?


TED Z

[tedzan]

Biff Schlitzer is tougher than many E90 cards, but not as tough as the short-printed cards in the 1910 series.

My guess is that he was issued in the 3rd series, of which I talked about in my last post here.

TED Z

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Biff Schlitzer is tougher than many E90 cards, but not as tough as the short-printed cards in the 1910 series.

My guess is that he was issued in the 3rd series, of which I talked about in my last post here.

TED Z

Thanks for your reply!

Cheers,
Blair

[edhans]

Ted,
A complete reply to your last post would take my several pages and all day to write. I doubt my boss would look favorably on that. I have given a great deal of thought to this topic and eventually hope to set forth my theories in some written form. I would welcome your input on this project. I would point out just a couple things-1) We also have evidence of 25 cards sheets of caramel cards. That possibility has intrigued me for some time now. 2) Forgive the repetition, but if you look at your lists of the thirty toughest cards (which I substantially agree with) they simply could not have been printed in the same quantities. Hall and B. Brown, for example are at least ten, if not twenty, times more common than Walsh or Shean. No calculation of survivability rates can account for this. I would love to compare notes with you on this topic, but perhaps that would best be done off line at this point. My email is edhans@monkberry.com.

[tedzan]

I will be emailing you to continue this discussio.


TED Z