 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Should E98 Old Put be classified as caramel or tobacco? | |||
| caramel |
   
|
30 | 71.43% |
| tobacco |
  
|
12 | 28.57% |
| Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
06-03-2012, 09:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Erasing errant marks and......caramel vs tobacco
I don't want to get into too deep of debates in the pick up threads so am posting this new thread to discuss erasing errant marks from cards. Also if a card is stamped by a tobacco company, but has always been categorized as a caramel card, should it be now be classified as a caramel or tobacco issue?
As previously stated I have no issue with removing an errant mark that wasn't put there at time of mfg. Many times I will leave them if they provide some kind of informational value. As for the categorizing of an Old Put E98, I would still put it in the caramel category. I am not dead set on that so maybe some responses will change my mind?
__________________
Leon Luckey 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| American Caramel E121 series of 80 survey revisited | brianp-beme | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 33 | 01-11-2012 03:46 PM |
| Caramel cards...whats the deal with all the writing on them?? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 12-07-2007 09:51 PM |
| SOLD 1910 E75 American Caramel - Near Set 16/20 | Archive | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 0 | 05-29-2007 10:07 PM |
| E96 Philadelphia Caramel Connie Mack "Signed" FT | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 4 | 08-31-2006 08:31 AM |
Threaded Mode