1921-23 E220 National Caramel Dating Re-evaluation

[brianp-beme]

I thought that I would mention that particular E220 cards can be found with different back variations. I have personally seen around two dozen that have two different backs. I have not encountered a card that has all three back variations. This could indicate multiple printings, short-prints, and the possibility that these were issued over a span of years.

Just something to ponder (E220's are one of my favorite sets...this lower condition collector loves all the miscuts!)

Brian

[HRBAKER]

As a rookie card collector wouldn't one want to know if the previously accepted dates of issue in "the catalog" were wrong?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jeff:

As I mentioned in a previous post not too long ago, these Net 54 discussions regarding possible date(s) of issue changes for vintage card sets seem to rarely if ever translate into the updating of the Standard Catalogue nor the major grading companies' flips. If these "hobby standards" are not looking to make the necessary changes then I don't feel that the "Rookie Card" collectors need to embrace the changes either. After spending years amassing a collection along with a lot of money spent strictly because cards are "Rookie Cards", one does not really want to hear that their cards are not "Rookies" after all unless a brand new discovery is made that preceeds a previously documented "Rookie Card".

[nolemmings]

I'm not certain of that at all Phil. I remember years ago when this forum or its predecessor pointed out how Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store were issued in 1917 rather than 1916. That change was made and is now accepted. Same for m101-5 being issued in 1916, not 1915. R315s are now accepted as not being a 1928 issue. All of these changes arguably had their genesis here on this forum, so it can't be said that these discussions "rarely" lead to changes in the hobby. Sorry if that upsets rookie card collectors, but I prefer scholarship and accuracy, and I would hope most feel the same.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'm not certain of that at all Phil. I remember years ago when this forum or its predecessor pointed out how Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store were issued in 1917 rather than 1916. That change was made and is now accepted. Same for m101-5 being issued in 1916, not 1915. R315s are now accepted as not being a 1928 issue. All of these changes arguably had their genesis here on this forum, so it can't be said that these discussions "rarely" lead to changes in the hobby. Sorry if that upsets rookie card collectors, but I prefer scholarship and accuracy, and I would hope most feel the same.

Was a consensus ever reached that all Leafs were issued in 1949, I can't remember.

[nolemmings]

I can't strictly answer your question about "consensus", but Ted Z. says yes--all baseball Leafs 1949. I will defer.

[brianp-beme]

As I mentioned in my previous posts, I have seen three different E220 National Caramel back variations--the two that Rhett has scanned for us, which are printed from the top of the card to bottom, and the other one that I mentioned, which is printed bottom to top.

After re-examining examples of the bottom to top printing variation (all variations fellow board member J.Hatch first pointed out to me years ago), I noted that it has the same printing layout as Rhett's second example, the one that the 'B' in the word 'Base' lines up under the second 's' in the word 'consists'.

Why is this of any relevance? I have two back variations of each of 18 cards. 14 of these pairs consist of Rhett's first top to bottom example (the one where the 'B' in the word 'Base' falls under the first 's' in the word 'consists') and the bottom to top variation I have mentioned (which lines up like Rhett's first example). The other four pairs have a combo of Rhett's back variation one and back variation two.

What can be deduced by this? Perhaps that the bottom to top back variation was not a separate printing by itself, because it appears that the same card does not exist as both top to bottom type 2 and bottom to top. Anyone out there feel free to prove me wrong. An educated guess would be that these two were from the same printing, but for some darn reason the backs on some of the cards were printed upside down on the sheets.

The type one back seems to be the most readily available...I have 118 different of the set (minus the Ruth and Cobb--hey, usually I blanch at the big bucks), and I can vouch that at least 99 are available with type one backs. I would venture to guess that all 120 are available (see list below for ones that it would be nice to verify as well) with this back, but perhaps only a portion are available elsewise.

How this helps out the dating of this issue I'm not sure...perhaps it is for more probing minds like Rhett's to extract the meaning of these observations and carry on with the filling in of the gaps of logic (I really stretched to make a few dental references).

Here is the list of players with unconfirmed type 1 backs--feel free to let us know here if you have any:

George Burns (Cleveland)
Ty Cobb
Frank Frisch
Hank Gowdy
Charles Grimm
Heinie Groh
Chas Hollocher
Rogers Hornsby
Walter Johnson
Pete Kilduff (leaping)
Carl Mays
Emil Muesel
V.J. Picinich
Eddie Rousch
Babe Ruth
George Sisler
Earl Smith
Frank Snyder (crouching)
Frank Snyder (standing)
Milton Stock (batting)
Fred C. Williams



Brian

[HRBAKER]

Phil,

Thanks. I understand your position, I am not sure that it answered my question though. I would say that most date changes in the hobby guides don't happen unless there is pretty significant evidence that the previously believed date was incorrect (1948 Leaf baseball perhaps), that part I get. I don't think that it means that there is no benefit in a discussion of the dates and their validity if there seems to be some evidence weighing against them just because it might make a change in a rookie card definition. Rookie cards although an extremely important part of the hobby is a niche like many other things, all IMO.

Jeff

[Myachelydra]

Nice research Rhett. I enjoyed reading your analysis.

[Kenny Cole]

I don't want to slam any rookie card collector, least of all you. However, if the scholarship of this board reveals that a previously attributed date to a set is wrong, it really doesn't matter how long it takes the catalogues to catch up, IMO. If research reveals without much dispute that a card was issued in 1922, the fact that it was previously attributed to 1921 isn't a reason to keep it that way. It was issued when it was issued. That isn't a money thing, its just a factual thing.

Kenny