Question for the E90-1 Experts

[White Borders]

Most of my collecting the past few years has been on T cards (T206 in particular). But I enjoy learning about the other cards as well.

I've been spending some time becoming familiar with the E90-1 set, but there's something I don't understand:

For McLean, Shean, and Upp, both PSA and SGC gives them weighting factors of 1 - 2 for their registrys. But when I look in the Standard Catalog (2009), I find that they are valued at about 14 times that of a common.

Can someone please explain why there is such a discrepancy between the PSA/SGC weightings and the Std Cat value?

Thanks for your time and best regards,
Craig

[edhans]

Craig,
I'm not certain exactly what SGC's "weighting factors" are designed to represent, but those three are among the most difficult "commons" in the E90-1 set; some would say on a par with Mitchell (Cin), Graham, Sweeney (Bos), Dougherty and Stahl.

[FrankWakefield]

.Upp's card is much less plentiful than a common E90-1. Same for Shean. And McLean to a lesser extent.

I'm with Ed, probably more so. I don't know hardly anything about PSA or SGC registry stuff. And I put very little faith in what they may have. Consider that if a fellow had 50 or so E90-1s, and he was inclined to get a few of the less common ones graded, then if he had one of the Upp cards that one would be an excellent candidate to get graded. The process itself skews statistics...

The E90-1 card of Jerry Upp is his only major league card, I believe. One season, 7 games, started 4, won 2, all in 1909 for Cleveland.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl.../uppje01.shtml

and in the minors

http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...d=upp---001geo

This being his only card puts a bit of demand on an already difficult card.

Mine....

[3-2-count]

Not sure where the weighting factors originated from but they're very false. All three cards are as Ed states very tough.
Between the 3 cards of Upp, Shean, and Mclean I've seen less Mclean's pop up going back the last few years.

[cfc1909]

been watching this set for some time-thinking about making a run at it-have only seen low grade Upp examples -like to see a vg or vg-ex example.

after 206, i would like to go after something not so large but colorful-the Bell and a few others are really attractive from this set.

Craig-we seem to have very simular taste.

[tedzan]

Here is the Jerry Upp card in my E90 set. It is a difficult card, as are the other 20-29 cards issued in the Short-Printed last series
of the E90 set that were issued in 1910.

This card is crease-free and is probably one of the nicest Upp cards in the hobby. Why it got an "AUTHENTIC" grade is mystifying.
I acquired many, many cards from Frank Nagy (since 1980) and I never saw any of his cards having even a hint of being altered.

Note....I show my Tinker, and my CROFTS McGraw, for comparison. The Tinker card is also from Frank Nagy.





TED Z

[Matt]

Ted - hard to say from the scan, but the bottom edge might have been trimmed.

[tbob]

Upp was tough, McLean was very tough but Shean was next to impossible. Those were my experiences in putting the set together.
My tough 5 as far as toughness were:

1. Shean
2. McLean
3. Walsh
4. Upp
5. Speaker

[chaddurbin]

don't follow the set that closely...but i see an Upp 3-4 times year. a nice bvg 1.5 just sold for cheap i thoughtt. i never see a shean tho. don't see walsh or speaker in the wild alot, but is suspect it's because they're hof's (with the mystique of being tough cards) and when they do exchange hands it's from one collector to another where it stays for another 3-5 years instead of going to dealers/flippers.

[caramelcard]

I agree with Quan.

I see relatively more Upp cards than some of the other toughies.

Here's my Upp card.

[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]

.

[caramelcard]

I agree on the Jackson card. It's not hard to find if you have some cash.

The wagner throwing on the other hand is very difficult and I agree with Tony that it's easily one of the toughest in the set.

Collectors don't pay attention or don't realize how hard it is because they see the pose a lot since it's found in so many sets. Those throwing versions that we see are all E92s, E101s, E106s. I've even seen a couple E105s of late. I'm sure there have been a couple for sale, but I can't remember the last E90 throwing.

Rob

[pkaufman]

If you want to collect trimmed and/or altered cards, then nothing is that tough.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[pkaufman]

Hi Frank, you are always very knowledgeable and I enjoy reading your responses. In fact, over the last ten years I have seen a couple of trimmed Mitchells. One that I know of even got into a PSA holder with a numerical grade. As far as the whales you mentioned, I know for a fact that even one of the whales only could procur a VG-EX Wagner throwing with all the money in the world at his disposal.

[FrankWakefield]

I think that in the 70s and 80s the demand for Wagner cards and Jackson cards was less, relative to cards in general. Mitchell was the key card then.

It isn't that the Wagner throwing or the Jackson is less plentiful than Mitchell, but now there are more folks who want a 'Jackson' card or a 'Wagner' card, so one from E90-1 will do. That demand has made it tougher to get one of these cards, of late. If money were no object, a super whale buyer could more readily find Wagner throwing or Jackson cards to buy, and not as many Mitchell's, Sweeney's, Graham's, Shean's, and maybe even Upp's.

[pkaufman]

Frank, no slam at all....just saying that over the entire realm of supposedly tough cards just mentioned, ie - Shean, Upp, McLean, Wagner Throwing, etc. you could probably find an example much easier if you didn't mind having one that was trimmed. As we all are aware, this sort of trimming was fashionable in the early days of collecting.

[FrankWakefield]

.

[pkaufman]

I certainly can't argue with your supposition that some cards are much rarer than others irregardless of condition. I have personally found the Shean, McLean, Stahl, Walsh, Speaker, and Wagner throwing to be among the toughest, no matter what criteria one is using.

[FrankWakefield]

I agree that some cards got trimmed just to 'fit' into a tobacco card stack, or into sleeves or holders. But I am satisfied that there are fewer Walsh's, and Sweeney's out there, than a bunch of the other E90-1s. And if accepting one that is trimmed is ok, that still doesn't drop the card down to 'common' in terms of availability. So if your point was that condition did not matter, then more all of the Mitchells out there would be acceptable, instead of only settling for a slabbed 9 of Mitchell for the Northern Hemisphere's Toughest Want List, for example.

Still. Mitchell is tough. Sweeney and Graham are tough. Notwithstanding condition.

[pkaufman]

Please refer to post #24 for your answer.

[FrankWakefield]

Right.

[Steve D]

Thanks for the clarification on Wagner guys! I guess I might not be so crazy after all.

Here are scans of all my HOFer cards:











Seven more to go.....

Steve

[edhans]

Ted,
While I substantially agree with your lists of e90-1s toughest subjects, we simply can't think of the distribution as "series 1, 2, and 3". It's vastly more complicated than that. A simple comparison of the toughest card on your list (pick any one from the first list) and the easiest (Hall?, B. Brown?) must lead to the conclusion that they were not part of the "last series". There's simply too much disparity in the difficulty of Mitchell or Shean vs Brown or Hall to think they were printed on the same sheet in the same quantities. I see E90-1 as at least six distinct printings, with subjects added, deleted and changed as the process went along. One could even make the argument that there was a regional distribution, as most (not all) of the Philadelphia and St. Louis subjects are rather common and most of those from Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Boston tend to be much scarcer. There seems to be a relationship between American Caramel's other issues (E91, E90-2 and E90-3) and, as you have previously observed, tobacco issues like T204 and T206. I have even wondered if E90-1s distribution might follow a similar pattern to E95/96. It's a most fascinating set that certainly merits further study.

[JamesGallo]

As I have collected about half the set over the last few years I think one thing that is very obvious is that finding just about any card in VG or better is very hard. There are some of the common commons that can be found often in VG but a even slightly tougher card you just don't see them. This set seems to have cooled off a bit over the last year or so and Cobbs are cheap as hell right now which I don't get.

I owned a low grade Wagner throwing that I bought on ebay and shortly after resold. I have not seen one since. I have a few of the lesser tougher cards like the Brown and Hall which I do think show up more then some of the other tough cards like Upp and Mitchell. I do not think the Jackson is a rare card at all, just one with high demand. I do see more Mitchell's around which is likely because they tend to be pulled out of sets and sold as single cards. I think the Speaker is very tough and really considered the one that was just on the BST.

This is a very tough set and you will have to spend some big bucks on common cards, even more so then the HOF, but I still hope to finish it after my run on the Boston Store set is done.

James G

[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

[ubiqty]

Ted and Ed,

As a collector of this set, I find this an interesting post and if there is anything you can post regarding your off-line conversations, I would love to listen in.

Thank you for your input.

Scott (ubiqty).

[edhans]

Scott,
Not trying to be secretive, just don't want to clutter up the board with long-winded posts. Post your email and I'll keep you in the loop. Of course, please feel free to add your own thoughts to the conversation as well.

[ubiqty]

scottg@accessmfgsys.com

[FUBAR]

set up a chat time and who ever wants to join in or peer in, then can do so

[ethicsprof]

very interesting thread.
Ted, i took a look at my 2 Nagy E90 cards and noted that they(Schlitzer
and Roy Thomas) are sgc Aut and look perfectly fine--as you say about your own Nagy E90 which received the Aut as well.
seems peculiar somehow.

best,
barry

[barrysloate]

Here's a tough question about E90-1:

We know that different artists were used to design the cards. For example, a Graham and a Sweeney look nothing like a Cobb or a Jackson. So my question is, is it possible to isolate the 25 or 30 cards from the last and toughest series just by observing which cards were drawn by the same person? Now we don't know if more than one artist designed each series, but the scarce cards do have a different look than the common ones.

[ScottFandango]

some great points...


as Ed points out, there are MANY series in this set...

i think the Shaded back versions were all from a single Series (none of the shaded back versions are of common cards)


...ps this set is very enjoyable to collect

[ScottFandango]

may i suggest a E90-1
conference in Buffalo sometime....

i feel we are getting closer to having a better understanding of this set and by sitting in the same room/pub we may be able to figure some more concrete things out!

[FrankWakefield]

You guys were talking about this guy, was pretty sure I could dig down to him...




And I think Barry's artwork idea has merit. What might be good is to carefully compare what we consider to be identical cards, to see if there was a change at the end, a dozen cards were added, a dozen deleted, some remained on the 25 card sheet.

[tedzan]

Earlier in this thread (post #14), I alluded to the artistry in this set providing us tell-tale clues as to which series
these cards were printed in.

" 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. "

If this is true then this Wagner and Speaker were printed in the last series, issued in the Summer of 1910.






Furthermore, it does not make any sense to me that these cards were printed on 25-card sheets. It is obvious to
me that they were printed on 30-card sheets, since there are 120 cards in the E90 set.
Many of the Caramel sets were printed in Philadelphia, and we have seen a 30-card uncut sheet of the E93 cards.

Regards ole friend,

TED

[caramelcard]

I don't think anything about researching this set is obvious.

Of course E93 was a 30 card sheet. There's 30 cards in the set like many of the other smaller candy sets.

However, 25 card sheets might make sense for this set since the back itself states "100 subjects."

Keep in mind that American Caramel didn't intend to print 120 cards. The clarke variation and keeler portrait color variation happen to make it 120. They printed Clarke with the incorrect team and then printed him again.

In terms of the artwork, there are a few cards in the set with a mountain and sunset theme similar to the wagner and speaker cards that are much easier to find, but you might be onto something there.

I do find it very interesting that the images on the following very tough cards are much better quality than the others:

Graham
Karger
Stahl
Sweeney Boston
McClean
Speaker

Rob

[edhans]

Barry S.
You are correct in your observation about the artists. Lew Lipset observed the same thing in his seminal essay 25 years ago. Clearly many of the rarest cards-Duffy, Mitchell, Sweeney, Graham, Young (Cleveland), and Gibson (Back) were drawn by a different artist. No doubt there are others. There are e92s done in the same style as well. Collins and Bender come to mind. This is just one of several criteria that need to be considered in trying to unlock the mysteries of E90-1s distribution.

Ted,
The fact that there are 120 subjects in E90-1 is purely coincidental. It has nothing to do with 30 card sheets. There would have been 119 had not some genius realized that Clarke had the wrong team designation.

Scott F.
It would be entirely appropriate if Buffalo hosted the E90-1 convention since the two finest sets in existence happen to reside here (not mine, of course). Shall I block out a couple hundred rooms at our new Embassy Suites downtown?