E90-1 Blank Backs (also their shared sets: e106, e105, e101, e102, e92)

[bn2cardz]

I looked through old threads and there was a thread in 2007 that focuses on the Mclean e90-1 (which I assume is the same one currently on ebay?). In that thread there was controversy saying that there is no way to know if that card is for certain from the e90-1 set since it is a shared image with other sets.

Then I found a more recent thread in which leon questioned why his e92 miller couldn't be an e90-1. Then some pointed out there isn't a shadow on the e90-1 miller confirming that Leon's miller was indeed not an e90-1.

I couldn't find a thread about any confirmed e90-1 blank backs. I recently picked up a e90-1 blank back Krause (Krause doesn't have a shared image, so is considered confirmed) in the B&L auction that I just showed in the april pick ups. I was wanting to know if there were any other proven e90-1 blank backs?

[brianp-beme]

This image of Krause was only included in the E90-1 set. I don't think it is possible for any blank backed card that has an image shared with other sets could be conclusively proven to be from a particular set, so these type of blank back cards should not be associated with a set by the grading companies, in my opinion.

Nice pickup, by the way

Brian

[pkaufman]

None that I am aware of.....was surprised to see your Krause. Congrats!

[bn2cardz]

I was thinking about it last night while reading through the past posts.
1) Why would blank backs try to be associated with another set if it isn't possible on some (like McLean). Just like a Blank Back t206 isn't associated with piedmont. Since the E sets are defined mainly by their backs to determine what designation it has then why aren't blank backs just considered their own E set?

2) If this Krause is the only confimred e90-1 is it possible that Krause image was intended for issuance with another set with various blank backs associated with it (like e92), but he was pulled before the backs were printed?

[Leon]

I am not sure there is a way to tell what set a blank back came from unless there is some other difference to the card. Personally, as in other things, I use the lowest common denominator (ACC#) for my blank backs. So if I have a blank back that came in E90-1 and E92, I will go with E90-1. It is a consistent way, if nothing else. I will have to re-examine my Miller here, which is still in my collection, for the differences to E90-1..

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am not sure there is a way to tell what set a blank back came from unless there is some other difference to the card. Personally, as in other things, I use the lowest common denominator (ACC#) for my blank backs. So if I have a blank back that came in E90-1 and E92, I will go with E90-1. It is a consistent way, if nothing else. I will have to re-examine my Miller here, which is still in my collection, for the differences to E90-1..

The other thread I referenced in my OP someone pointed out that if your card was an e90-1 there wouldn't be a blue shadow.
From Oldcardboard


I also notice the e90-1 has white shoes and his sleeve doesn't go as far towards his glove (there is more arm showing)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The other thread I referenced in my OP someone pointed out that if your card was an e90-1 there wouldn't be a blue shadow.

That was it....Thanks Andy. So, as I was saying , without a differentiator such as this, it is impossible to tell. I had this conversation yesterday with another board member, pertaining to the T216 blank backs in the last Goodwin Auction. Once those are in hand I will probably post about them...