E107 McCarthy

[e107collector]

Out of curiosity, is the back blank on the Authentic one?

Tony

[sb1]

There are two different fonts on the type 1's which does make the captions shorter or longer on several of the cards. This does however look like a type 2, with the darker grey stock.

After looking at the original auction in 2010 the cards all appear to be type 1's and it IS a different abbreviation.

[shammus]

Darren, can you post a scan of the back? If it looks like grayish cardboard stock, I'd say that what you have here is an uncatalogued type 2. There were font/caption inconsistencies on several cards between the type 1s and type 2s

[Cat]

I don't think it is going to be much help:

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Cat

I don't think it is going to be much help:

You need to give that card a bath!

[terjung]

Here is a similar comparison from a Type 1 and Type 2 Keeler. Note the alignment of the font compared to his jacket as well as the cardboard color difference.

I'm still thinking that the number of known Type 2s just went from 9 to 10 and the master set grew by 1.

The thing that is interesting to me on the McCarthy, aside from the font and color differences, is the right side border thickening/smudging on both cards (just above ear level).

[shammus]

Going to borrow Brian's Type 1 Keeler for a comparison with this Type 2 Keeler that I used to own. This helps illustrate the point I was making about the captions being different in Type 1s vs. Type 2s. Notice in mine, they spell out "New York" but in the Type 1s, it's "N.Y." Certain words would get abbreviated in the position or city in one Type, and sometimes weren't printed the same way in the other Type.

I noticed that black smudge on the right border of the McCarthy as well. However, that's something that was more of a flaw in the photo and it makes sense that that would exist no matter which paper stock the card was printed on.

131231a-copy_lg.jpg

I think there are eight Type 2s currently known with the Waddell being the most recently discovered. Brian, I could be missing one though?? I'm also somewhat skepical about one of the other cards too. So this McCarthy would hypothetically be #9.