E90-1.....and the "Dirty Thirty" theory

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I think it would be interesting to conduct a survey, debate, or whatever
regarding the scarce cards in the E90-1 set. I have started with my list
of 20 cards that I recall from completing this set. Most of these are re-
cognized in price guides; but, I think there are more that haven't been.

My theory for expanding this list is based on my speculation that this set
was printed on sheets comprising 30 cards. There is a precedent for this
theory as an uncut sheet of 30 cards exists for the E93 Caramel set. And,
the E93 set was printed in the greater Philadelphia area, as was the E90-1.
No uncut sheets of E90-1 cards have been found, so this is just a theory.

Last Series (scarce) cards......

Fred Clarke.........2nd card....corrected team to Pittsburgh
Hugh Duffy.........Became Manager of Chicago (AL) in 1910
George Gibson.....2nd card (back view)....Pittsburgh
Jerry Upp...........1-year career with Clev. (in 1909)
Ed Walsh............Chicago (AL)
Vic Willis............Traded to St Louis (NL) in 1910
Cy Young...........2nd card....traded to Clev. in 1909

Boston Players excluded in the earlier Series....

Peaches Graham (NL)
Ed Karger (AL)
Dave Shean (NL)
Tris Speaker (AL)
Jake Stahl (AL)
Bill Sweeney (NL)

Cincinatti Players excuded in the earlier Series....

Larry McLean
Mike Mitchell

All 5 Horizontal cards in set I think were printed in Last Series....

Buster Brown.......Boston (NL)
Charlie Hall..........Boston (AL)
Addie Joss..........1910 was his last year (2nd card)
Willie Keeler........depicted as NY Giant (3rd card)
Johnny Seigle......Cinc.

OK guys.....let's get your inputs or your criticisms ?


Additional Last Series candidates.....as of 7/8/06

Harry Bemis.........Clev.
Bob Bescher........Cinc.
Hans Lobert........Cinc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary Nuchereno

Lobert belongs on the tough to find list and possibly Leach batting. Would this mean the color variation on Keeler
portrait was not just a color variation?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Gary

Thanks for noting Hans Lobert, his card is definitely a "toughie". And, he is
another Cinc. player left out of the earlier Series. He will be added to the list.

It's interesting that you mention the PINK Keeler card. As there have been
some who have thought that this card is just the result of a color printing
error of his normally RED background card. But, the PINK Keeler cards are
quite available, which would suggest that it is in the set by design.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian C Daniels

you know an awful lot for a young guy!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

Ted - Gary N. mentioned the Keeler portrait Red. Is it possible that the Keeler portrait card was re-issued in the last series using the same red background color as the red in the Keeler Throwing variety ? That would mean that it was not just a "color variation" but a distinct issue in and of itself. Doesn't it seem odd that it is considered the only "color variation" in the E90-1 set ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

Looking closely at the Keeler Portrait Pink, Keeler's flesh tones are washed out and blend in with the pink background. Maybe the card was re-issued with the red background (on the final print sheet?) to better contrast with his face tones. This re-issuance on the final print run would explain its scarcity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

B.C.D.

Thanx for making me feel younger....but, according to the recent Thread
regarding members' age....I think it indicated that I'm the oldest.

This is my 30th year in this hobby and you can learn an awful lot in that
time; especially if you are an avid vintage set collector as I am. Of more
importance....you meet a tremendous group of people in this hobby that
have become great lifetime friends.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Shannon

E90-1 Keeler Pink and Red

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Interestingly, a pink card could be nothing more than a red card missing some ink. As Ted knows, red 1949 Bowmans can be found with pink backgrounds and are considered nothing more than color variations. But in E90-1, the pink and red variations are considered distinct and both are needed to finish the set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Gross

Ted (et al),

I just don't know ...... Been on this e90-1 ride for almost two years, and am 115/120th of the way home. Every theory I hear for the variances in quantities makes total sense, but so does the argument against each theory.

Obviously cards were added in later prints. Were they added or just replaced others, I don't know (but lean toward replacements). Although there is no check list, I have to think a “chase” incentive was there (by design, I don't know). The “team” aspect is so blatant, it can't be overlooked. If you add Fromme to the tough list (and maybe not top 30, but close), then ALL (6) Cincinnati are tough. The Boston situation is real also. Conversely, of the 12 Phila. A's players, only Jackson is “tough” (but an oddity). Also, other than HOFers, Brooklyn, Detroit, NY AL, StL NL, and Washington, have no super rarities. Notable, but hard to explain.

I do have to theorize that “100 Subjects” was probably never a set number. Ol' American Caramel knew this promotion was going to last a few years, and the 100 mark would be reached at some point. I almost take a “it just happened that way” approach, in that Am. Caramel kind of went along it's merry way, adding, replacing, correcting, dropping players over a period of time.

We may just be trying to make sense of something that really had no design .... but man, is it FUN !!!

IMHO, for the 30 toughest list, add:
Dougerty (another one of those familiar fronts, but tough e90)
Overall
Wagner/throw (not as HOF, but relative to batting pose)

(I might also lower Willis, Buster Brown, and Hall on the tough list)

Shameless ego-plug, check out July pick-ups .............

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Scott, you wrote that the Jackson is tough. Is that due to people wanting to keep that card and not sell it or does it really seem fewer exist?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jackson is considered a low level toughie, a bit scarcer than a typical common. But of course the demand on the card is enormous, making it seem even tougher than it really is.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Returning to my original post about the Keeler- because Keeler is the only player in the set with three poses, and because any player that appears twice has two distinct poses, do most people think the pink-red variation was deliberate or just a substantial print run where the red ink simply wasn't used. There are no other instances in the set where the same pose appears twice. That would of course reduce the number of different cards to 119, but hey, we still haven't worked out all the kinks.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Are there other red background cards that have more of a pinkish look? All the red background cards I have are nice rich red background with no signs of any low inkage. Those include the Cy Young Boston card (won in Barry's November 2005 auction BTW, thanks), Summers, Mitchell, McQuillan, Pastorius and Ellis. Do any of these cards exist with a lighter red / pinkish look?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Scott

Just checked out your two great E90-1 acquistions....great going. That is the 1st time
I have seen a "Big Ed" Walsh since I sold my set.

The skewed cut that is on your Walsh is the same (top & bottom cut) as was on my
Mike Mitchell. And, probably your Mitchell was trimmed as it had the same skewed cut.
Is there a possible pattern here (from this small anectdotal sample) that perhaps, we
can glean from these examples......that when E90-1 cards were cut like this, Quality
Control disposed of many of them ?

I know this is sort of a "stretch"; but, I am trying to come up with some additional ex-
planation for why players such as Duffy, Mitchell, Speaker, Bill Sweeney and Walsh are
on a higher level of scarcity than others in this last Series.

Scott....Can you please post these two cards on this Thread so readers can see what
we are talking about.

T-Rex Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

cmoking

Kitty Bransfield....PINK & BLUE cards

Tippy Hartzell......PINK & GREEN cards

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

King- I don't recall ever seeing any of the others with pink backgrounds, but I can't fathom why some of the Keelers would be printed with red backgrounds and then for no apparent reason they would be changed to pink- or vice versa. What is the thinking there? I understand a team change or a variant pose, but why change the background, and only on that one card?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- but the Bransfield and Hartsell are different poses.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach Rice

Here is a picture of my old Walsh, the scan doesnt give the orange background justice.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Barry and Ted,

I was thinking that if there were other red background cards that had a pinkish look to it, that would give some credence to the theory that the Keeler pink card was due to low inkage. In the absence of other red backgrounds and pink background cards (like the Keeler) with the same exact image, that theory seems to have less support.

Also, with the two pink background cards that Ted mentioned, it seems the printers deliberately printed cards with the pink background and it wasn't a low inkage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Barry

I am aware of the different poses....the only point I am trying to make is
that PINK INK was a normal background color employed on several E90-1
cards. I really don't think the Pink Keeler is a printing error; similar to the
1949 Bowman (or T206) "pink" cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

But in Ted's examples those were entirely different poses. The two Keeler poses are identical. Why would they change the color of the background in midproduction? What would be the thinking there?

[Archive]

Posted By: gary nuchereno

Maybe they just ran out of pink!!! or got a good deal on some red ink.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Operational considerations including running out of ink, changing printers, or including new ones, etc. as well as a deliberate design change are possible causes for the pink/red Keller variation; as is an inking problem.

However, viewing both pink and red Kellers does not show a corresponding color difference in the image. So, imo, the inking difficulty theory seems less supported than other possible explanations.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

First, it should be noted that there are actually 108 different players depicted in this set,
so the "100 Subjects" adv. on the E90-1 backs approximates the original intent.

We have been debating levels of scarcity.......but, there are also cards in this set which
appear to be quite available and were issued in a 1st Series (consisting of 50-60 cards);
here are two major ones......





AND, SOMEWHAT TOUGHER......probably issued in a 2nd Series (30-40 cards).



AND, VERY TOUGH.....issued in the last Series (20-30 cards)

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Two more real "toughies" from my current collection.

Jerry Upp had a brief pitching career in the Majors with Clev in 1909.

Hugh Duffy became Manager of Chicago (AL) in 1910.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

PAUL K.

Do you agree that the PINK Keeler was most likely in the 1st Series....the RED
Keeler was then in an intermediate Series; and, the Horiz. Keeler (NY Giants)
was in the last Series ?

Now, my question is why did the Phila. Caramel Co. print 3 cards of him ?

This reminds me of Chase in the T206 set (T206 also has a PINK card of Chase).
Keeler played in only 19 games with the Giants in 1910 and then retired, so the
bigger mystery to me is why he is included in the last Series ?
And, not the PINK vs RED color controversy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Shannon

Zach, Check the orange out on this one!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Gross

A few personal opinions (hardly written in stone):

Keeler:
Red replaced Pink just because it had better contrast.
...
NYN replaced Red (or was added along with Red) for team change. But, why update a player at the end of his career ???????? Because he was WEE WILLIE KEELER !!!!!!!!!! Hit'em where they ain't. The Baltimore Chop. At the time highest BA in history (tied with Delahanty). He was a popular dude.

Trimmed/angle cut:
Bob's Walsh above is a beautiful card with an angle cut (adds to charm IMO). The more I look at mine, the more I am convinced it is trimmed (angle on top not as harsh as on bottom). ((which is fine, I bought it as a trimmed card, and was happy get it)) My Mitchell is obviously trimmed. I do not think these were trimmed to fool anyone, or trimmed to get rid of angel. I think they were trimmed (like many other caramels) to fit the standard Tobacco size (as discussed on this board before).

.... three Walsh scans, maybe not so tough ....

Something else to keep you up at night:
Turkey Mike Donlin played for NYN from 1904-11, but not during the 1907, 1909, or 1910 seasons (career in vaudeville, and "other" activities). His card is with NYN, and is a semi-toughie. QUESTION: Was he printed in the first run or the last run ?????
He could arguably be in the first run, since he played with NYN 1904-06 and 1908 (as with Butler, who's career ended in 1908, and Seigle, who's ended in 1906). Conversely argued he was in the last run to recognize his return to the team (like Keeler, a popular player).


Once, again, I don't know, but it keeps me honest ......

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Kaufman

Ted - I believe, as I first stated, that the pink Keeler portrait was changed to red in the final print run because the pink just washed out his facial tones. The contrast was much better with the red background and really highlighted Keeler's face. I also think that it is possible that the Red Portrait and the Keeler Throwing were both in the last print run. The Portrait Red was probably not viewed by the company as an additional Keeler card, but merely an improvement of the first one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Scott G.

You don't have to excuse your "trimmed" Mitchell, or any other E90-1 card....as
this is one set of cards where "trimmed" cards are acceptable. If it means you
are able to acquire a Mitchell, or a Duffy (look at mine, talk about trimmed), or
a Bill Sweeney, or a Walsh, at a reasonable price to complete your set....then
you go for it.

I would say Mike Donlin was in the 1st Series of cards. His card was also in the
1st Series of the T206 set (in fact he is a tough 150-only card in the T206 set).
He returned to BB for the 1911 season and after 12 games with the Giants was
traded to Boston (NL) in Aug 1911. By early 1911, all 120 cards in the E90-1
set were already issued; so, I am certain that Donlin was not in the last Series.
Anyhow, I never found Donlin to be a tough card. Perhaps, other's have ?

Interesting side note, you noted Donlin's break in BB to go into acting, when he
left BB he eventually moved to Hollywood. Also, he was a pretty good hitter.....
his career BA = .333 for 12 years in the Major Lgs. with his best season in 1905
hitting safely 216 times in 150 games with a .356 BA playing for the Giants.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Paul K.

You really think the RED Keeler was included in the last Series of 20 (or 30) cards ?
Well, I cannot argue with you on this as I cannot disprove this.

Years ago, I picked up an album which (along with T206's) had several E90-1 cards
glued in it. These E90-1 cards all appeared to be from the 1st Series. I still have a
few of these cards and they are Chase, Criger, Hartsell, Jennings and a PINK Keeler.
There were others; however, I can't find them. But, I definitely recall that there
were no real "toughies" in this group.

I still maintain the E90-1 cards were issued in three Series and each Series included
a different Keeler.

Here is my toughie Keeler (NY Giants)....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Paul

As usual our email server (princeton u) is down again. So, I hope you get
this, and my question is....you referred to uncut sheets of E-cards in the
latest Mastro auction....but I could not find them. Do you have lot #s ?

Pls. post them here, as it might be a while, our email system will be down.

Ted Z

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- if you have the latest issue of Old Cardboard magazine they are pictured in their ad.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Barry

Thanks much for the info on the uncut sheets.

Look for a letter with photos in the mail from us.

Best regards, Ted

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Thanks Ted- weren't in today's mail, but will call you when they arrive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Fandango

sorry to bump this thread but i think its a great thread and its unfinished...

what is the update on the uncut E sheets? how many per sheet??????

Paul, Ted, Tony?

thanks!!

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I agree with King. In the absence of other normally red cards with a pink variation, I would have to conclude that it is intentionally pink, whatever the reason.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I still think that the E90 set was printed on 30-card sheets.

My guess is that there were 3 series, as follows......

1908.....60 cards

1909.....30 cards

1910.....30 cards (the tough series)


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Hans

Ted,
Your hypothesis is a good starting point, but it fails to account for the vast disparity in difficulty among the cards. For instance, in your hypothetical "last series", the toughest card (presumably Mitchell) would be many multiples more difficult than the 30th toughest card (Overall?, Fromme?). The distribution of E90-1 must be far more complicated than this. I suspect that there were at least 5 separate printings spanning late 1908/early 1909 through at least mid 1910. I have been giving this a good deal of thought lately, and I hope to propose my own theory at some point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

Hi Ed ,
I'm not so confident that M Mitchell was the toughest card from this last printing.
Wasn't Duffy, Stahl, Sweeney (Boston), Graham, Speaker & Walsh in this last group
as well?

Tony A.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Hans

Tony,
Those six, and at least one or two others are candidates for the toughest card in the set award. I was just trying to point out that there is a huge gulf between the toughest card (whoever it may be) and the 30th toughest. Stay tuned.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

10-4 Ed. I'm just thrilled to see that there's finally some discussion about this great set.

Tony A.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Ted, the 30 card printing seems plausible. Ed, I agree that it isn't as simple as 30 - 30 - 30 - 30. There is no way that Young is as difficult to obtain as Mitchell.

So I can see that as things progressed, the plate of 30 was altered. Some cards deleted, some added. Still, it seems that this would have been done several cards at a time, not an altering for just one card.

It is one interesting set of cards... kinda like wading into quicksand...

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

ED

Having completed a 120 card set when it was more affordable (1980's - early '90s), I used to think (like you) that
this set was printed in series of 20 cards. It made sense, since the backs of these cards stated...."100 Subjects".
And, then they added a final 20-card series in 1910 to increase the set to 120 cards. However, I have discarded
that thinking when the E93 sheet of 30-cards surfaced. Most of all the Caramel cards were printed at the same
facility in PA.

Guys......

My recollection of the "toughies" is that most of them are Subjects representing either Boston teams, Cinci & Clev:

Boston (AL or NL)......

Buster Brown.....horiz.
Graham
Hall.....horiz.
Seigle.....horiz.
Shea
Speaker
Stahl
Sweeney


Cinci.......

Karger
Lobert
McLean
Mike Mitchell


Cleveland......

Bemis
Joss (pitching).....horiz.
Upp
CYoung


Additional "toughies"......

Clarke (Pittsburg)
Duffy
Keeler (NY Nat'l).....horiz.
Walsh



TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

Ted Z ,
I would add these to the list:

Boston -
Karger (Amer)
Richie (Natl)

Cin -
Bescher (Natl)

Toughies -
Dougherty (Amer)
Keeler Red Port (Amer)

Tony A.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I can't believe I left out Karger; who, covers both tough teams....as he was traded from Cinci to Boston in June 1909.
Karger was one of the last cards I needed for my set.

Lew Richie is a definite tough Boston guy.

Also, I agree with you on Bescher....another Cinci candidate.

I haven't had a problem finding Keeler (red portrait); but, I've heard that other collectors consider this one tough.

So, if my theory is correct regarding 30-card sheets, then we have to come up with another 6 "tough" candidates.

Thanks,

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

Ted Z ,
Below is a list of some other toughies from the set IMO. Lets pick those toughest 6 from this group you mention above.

O'Connor
Leever
Wagner throwing **NASTY TOUGH** Dont know how we missed this one in the 1st list.
Leach batting
Gibson back view
*interestingly enough, all above are Pitts Nat'l players

Stone left hand showing
Bliss
Hartzell batting
Donlin
Oakes
Willis
Wiltse
Overall
Tenney
Howell ball in glove

Tony A.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Based on my (anecdotal) experience collecting the E90-1 set and additional cards from this set, here is my take.......

DONLIN....Many say he this card is tough. However, he could not have been in the last (tough) series issued in 1910.
Turkey Mike suspended his BB career at the end of 1908 and returned to BB in 1911.

WAGNER....I have not found his Throwing pose as tough as the "usual suspects" in the last series. I would guess that
this Wagner card was issued in the 1909 series of 30 cards (semi-tough).

Here are my candidates from your list.....

Bliss
Gibson (back view)
Hartzell (batting)
Overall
Tenney


And, one you didn't mention....Demmitt


TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

Ted ,
Here's my choice of 6 from the group I'll add. I didn't include Demmitt because in my opinion he is only semi tough, and I have to disagree with you "Big Time" on the Wagner (Throwing) as only being semi tough. It's definitely "Nasty Tough"!!!!

Bliss
Wagner Throwing
Tenney
Willis
Hartzell batting
Overall

Tony A.