1921-23 E220 National Caramel Dating Re-evaluation

[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

[ValKehl]

Walter Johnson.

Kindly show a pic of a back that is printed bottom-to-top. I may be dense, but I really don't follow what you mean by this. Thanks in advance!
Val

[nolemmings]

Val, turn your Walter Johnson card over, with his head still pointing up, not down. Now, do you have to read the advertising starting at the bottom of the card toward the top, or from the top of the card toward the bottom?

While I don't collect the E220 issue, here are two examples of Famous and Barr, with the first being top to bottom and the other bottom to top:

[jrhatchjr]

Always nice to be remembered :-)

I do remember some of the correspondence I had with Brain about the E220 backs years ago. I seem to recall I was measuring the back lines in millimeters at the time and also found some backs in my collection to be reversed. Because I am easily confused and I'm pretty tired, for the sake of this discussion the 'B' below the first 's' is type 1, 'B' below the second 's' is type 2? If yes, then here are some verifications to Brian's type 1 list from my own collection:

Gowdy
Rousch
Grimm
Hollacher
Picinich
Burns, CLE
F Snyder crouching
F Snyder standing
Johnson
Frisch
Kilduff
E Meusel

In total, I have 85 of the type 1, 2 of the type 2 back and 21 of the type 2 upside-down backs. I also have a handful I can't identify. Are the 'normal' type 2 backs 10x as difficult as the 'upside-down' type 2 backs? And are those upside-down type 2 backs 4x as difficult as the type 1 backs? Probably not based on my meager sample but the disparity is interesting.

Here are some pics of dupes I have with different backs...

Frank Snyder standing with type 1 and type 2 backs...

e220fsnyderfront.jpg

e220fsnyderback.jpg

Zach Wheat with type 1 and type 2 upside down backs...

e220wheatfront.jpg

e220wheatback.jpg

[jrhatchjr]

Frank Frisch with type 1 and type 2 upside down backs...

[ValKehl]

Todd,
Many thanks for the pics and the explanation. Now, I comprehend.

For what it is worth, my eyes have an easier time distinguishing between the Type 1 and Type 2 backs by looking to see where the "B" in "BALL" is in relation to the "p" in "pictures" above it.
Val