E92 vs E101 vs E102

[Matt]

Originally Posted by E93

I think a good argument could be made that E92 should be multiple different sets. E101 and E102 are significantly different from all the E92 backs and from each other. It makes sense to me that they are different sets.

That's the point - it seems inconsistent - if he was going to treat the issue like T206s, then I think the E101s and E102s should be with the E92s; or at least seperate from the E92s, but in their own single classification. If we're going on the basis of different backs then all the E92s should be split out.

[Leon]

Burdick always said his catalog was a work in progress.....he would have no issue with our help, imo.

[E93]

The E92 backs all advertise brands or products, much like all the T206 backs. The E101 and E102 do not. They even specify different sets, one of 25 (actually 29 if I remember correctly) and one of 50.

I think the E92s should probably be classified as distinct sets, but I do not think E101 and E102 should be lumped into the same pile. I think Burdick's separation makes sense.

But those aren't the only sets we could be discussing here. E105 and E106 share many similar fronts.
JimB

[Matt]

Originally Posted by E93

The E92 backs all advertise brands or products, much like all the T206 backs. The E101 and E102 do not. They even specify different sets, one of 25 (actually 29 if I remember correctly) and one of 50.

I think the E92s should probably be classified as distinct sets, but I do not think E101 and E102 should be lumped into the same pile. I think Burdick's separation makes sense.

But those aren't the only sets we could be discussing here. E105 and E106 share many similar fronts.
JimB

Jim - why not then group E101 with E102 in the same classification? E105 probably belongs in this discussion as well - E106 was produced many years later so less deserving IMO.

[Leon]

It's interesting to note that Richard Egan, the famous hobbyist that wrote a handbook on US Early Candy and Gum Baseball Issues- ca.1969, had our same debate in mind. Forty years and we are right back to where we started .

[E93]

Originally Posted by Matt

Jim - why not then group E101 with E102 in the same classification? E105 probably belongs in this discussion as well - E106 was produced many years later so less deserving IMO.

Because the wording on the back of them seems to indicate they are different sets (See scans above.).

My personal opinion is they should probably all be considered different: Dockman, Nadja, Croft's Cocoa, Crofts Candy (I would consider Black, blue, and red to be variations within the set), Set of 25, Set of 50, Mello Mints, etc.

[E93]

Leon,
That Egan write-up is awesome. Thanks for sharing.
JimB

[philliesphan]

Leon:

What's the deal with Niagara D355's? Was there a huge number of these back in the day, and they have since just rested in private collections? Given how infrequently they are seen in the last twenty years, it is hard for me to envision how this set was catalogued by Egan and discussed forty years ago, when other caramel sets, like the E104s, are ignored...

[Peter W Thomas]

As someone struggling to put all of these sets together, I don't think that there are 62 Nadja's. In past posts for discussion, board feedback has confirmed 57 Nadja's. Ty Cobb has been seen by at least 2 people (very strange that Cobb would be so scarce - no graded Cobb). Other cards that have not been graded are Evers and Kleinow, but seen by reliable members. 5 additional cards have not been graded or confirmed by personal knowledge of board members are: Bob Bescher, Wild Bill Donovan, Larry Doyle (with Bat) & Heinie Zimmerman. I now think that there might only be 60 Nadja's - making the so called E92 group Dockman 40 cards, Croft's Candy & Cocoa 50 cards each, and Nadja's 60 cards.