Identifying E101 and E102 purely by the front (E8, E78 tie in)

[G1911]

The two attached cards (not mine) are stated by SGC to be an E101 Cy/Irv Young and an E102 Sherry Magee.

This image of Young, with the same caption, is used in E90 American Caramel, E92 Crofts Cocoa, E92 Crofts Candy, E92 Dockman, E92 Nadja, E101, E105 Mello Mint, D355 Niagara, and T216.

This image of Magee, with the same caption, is used in: E92 Crofts Cocoa, E92 Crofts Candy, E92 Dockman, E92 Nadja, E101, E102, E105 Mello Mint, D355 Niagara, and T216.

The backs on both cards are E78, a rare and anonymous boxing issue about which nothing is really known and is not even proven to be a candy set at all yet. The reverses are similar to E77 by American Caramel and E102.

Is there any way to identify that the two cards are indeed from E101 and E102? Or did SGC just make something up again? As far as I can tell there is no way to actually ascertain this and they could from several of the above listed issues that use the pose and caption on similar stocks. It also seems unlikely that these are from 2 different sets (Young does not appear in E102). Am I missing something? Positive identification could have significant value in research trails for E78, which is my motive as right now trying to find primary source information on a set of an unknown time by an unknown issuer made by an unknown lithographer is a serious of seeking unknown unknown's in a massive haystack.

[brianp-beme]

As far as the E101/E102 fronts, I don't think there is a real way to tell the difference. Some other sets that share the same artwork, such as E105 (thinner stock) or E106 (the colors look less refined and 'blobbed' together) it is easier to tell. Since both of these subjects are in the E101 set, I would lean toward that. But then again they are both also in all of the different E92 sets, so why not that designation?

I am fairly unfamiliar with boxing issues, so no help there with the cool baseball fronts/boxing backs. Good luck on exploring the mystery of it all.

Brian

[x2drich2000]

The Young is mine. E101/102 don't have any real front differences that I am aware of. In addition to the differences Brian stated, some individual players with the same images have other minor differences in other sets. Crawford has a spacing issue, Mathewson has a text size difference, etc. Personally, I think they should all be classified as E92, but the proof is just circumstantial. E92, particularly Cocoa, are littered with all sorts of issues (miscut fronts/backs, overprint, upside down backs, etc). These types of errors aren't nearly as common with the E101/102 sets.

There is also an example of an e92 with a miscut back that shows evidence it was printed on the same sheet as a different set. From memory I think it was a Nadja Stone with American Caramel text, but I don't have access to my notes right now.

I also believe both these may have come from the same sheet as the offset on the back is nearly identical. Likewise, I think all the menageries may have come from the same sheet for the same reason. The menageries are interesting because there are at least 2 examples from non-sport sets that also exhibit the same offset. I cant prove they are from the same sheet and that multiple sheets werent just printed wrong. If they are from the same sheet though then that also points to multiple sets being printed on the same sheet.

[G1911]

Thank you guys. Very cool run of Young's

The only thing I would bet on is that the Magee and the Young are from the same set and are thus not E102 or E90.

I would think it most likely these were run through a different sheet's back by accident, rather than E78 being on the same sheet and appearing on these because it was run upside down. E78 is markedly scarcer than than most of the options here, to the extent that it wouldn't make sense to be on the same sheet. At the same time, the same is true for E79 and E80 that clearly did, for at least some of production, share sheet space with E95 and E96.

I believe American Caramel is the only one of these caramel companies possibly involved for which a printer is known.

[RCMcKenzie]

I think I own that Magee. DJ may have a better memory than me. I can look later.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I think I own that Magee. DJ may have a better memory than me. I can look later.

If you come across it and under close examination find a message written in invisible ink on the back detailing the production of the card, please let me know