1921-23 E220 National Caramel Dating Re-evaluation

[rhettyeakley]

Phil, where did I "criticize" Rookie card collectors? I simply stated that if one had paid a premium for an E220 for the 1921 date then they probably wouldn't like the theory that these are from 1922 and not 1921. You should know me better than that by now I think, there is no "right way" to collect cards, whether you collect Rookie's, Minor Leaguers, PSA 8's, or anything else it is up to each of us to figure out what floats our boat.

As to your point about too many exceptions, you and I are in disagreement. My premise is that if the E220's were produced at ONE TIME, which the fact that the back states 120 subjects and there are exactly 120 cards known today would indicate then it doesn't matter how many exceptions there are as unless the National Caramel guys could look into the future they couldn't have known that those two players I pointed out earlier (Burns (Cin) and Dugan (Red Sox)) would be with those teams in 1922, thus making 1922 the earliest possible date for the issue.

-Rhett

[brianp-beme]

I haven't done any research on the players in the E220 set, but I know there is a third variation of backs out there. This variation has the backs switched...instead of reading top to bottom, they read bottom to top.

Is it possible that National Caramel had separate 120 card runs of these at different dates? It looks like if this is the case they didn't change any of the player info, just the backs. If so, Rhett's theory would still work (dependent upon thorough examination of all the player's) in that the earliest examples would have to be considered based upon the team designations that pinpoint a later date. Having collected these for many years I don't know of any glaring rarities in the set, though as usual some have been tougher to come by.

Brian

[bcbgcbrcb]

Rhett:

Sorry, no personal attack was meant against you. It has just become very frustrating seeing posts that question dates of issue, particularly those sets which have a range of years in "the catalogue". Each time one of these types of posts has appeared recently (except maybe for Kevin's regarding the Novelty Cutlery P/C's), the status of that issue's "Rookie Cards" is always brought to the forefront and, as I mentioned before, I believe that this discourages collectors (by creating confusion/doubt) from pursuing this type of collection, which I for one find very much enjoyable and challenging and have spent a lot of time and effort trying to promote within the hobby.

[brianp-beme]

I thought that I would mention that particular E220 cards can be found with different back variations. I have personally seen around two dozen that have two different backs. I have not encountered a card that has all three back variations. This could indicate multiple printings, short-prints, and the possibility that these were issued over a span of years.

Just something to ponder (E220's are one of my favorite sets...this lower condition collector loves all the miscuts!)

Brian

[HRBAKER]

As a rookie card collector wouldn't one want to know if the previously accepted dates of issue in "the catalog" were wrong?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Jeff:

As I mentioned in a previous post not too long ago, these Net 54 discussions regarding possible date(s) of issue changes for vintage card sets seem to rarely if ever translate into the updating of the Standard Catalogue nor the major grading companies' flips. If these "hobby standards" are not looking to make the necessary changes then I don't feel that the "Rookie Card" collectors need to embrace the changes either. After spending years amassing a collection along with a lot of money spent strictly because cards are "Rookie Cards", one does not really want to hear that their cards are not "Rookies" after all unless a brand new discovery is made that preceeds a previously documented "Rookie Card".

[nolemmings]

I'm not certain of that at all Phil. I remember years ago when this forum or its predecessor pointed out how Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store were issued in 1917 rather than 1916. That change was made and is now accepted. Same for m101-5 being issued in 1916, not 1915. R315s are now accepted as not being a 1928 issue. All of these changes arguably had their genesis here on this forum, so it can't be said that these discussions "rarely" lead to changes in the hobby. Sorry if that upsets rookie card collectors, but I prefer scholarship and accuracy, and I would hope most feel the same.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I'm not certain of that at all Phil. I remember years ago when this forum or its predecessor pointed out how Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store were issued in 1917 rather than 1916. That change was made and is now accepted. Same for m101-5 being issued in 1916, not 1915. R315s are now accepted as not being a 1928 issue. All of these changes arguably had their genesis here on this forum, so it can't be said that these discussions "rarely" lead to changes in the hobby. Sorry if that upsets rookie card collectors, but I prefer scholarship and accuracy, and I would hope most feel the same.

Was a consensus ever reached that all Leafs were issued in 1949, I can't remember.

[HRBAKER]

Phil,

Thanks. I understand your position, I am not sure that it answered my question though. I would say that most date changes in the hobby guides don't happen unless there is pretty significant evidence that the previously believed date was incorrect (1948 Leaf baseball perhaps), that part I get. I don't think that it means that there is no benefit in a discussion of the dates and their validity if there seems to be some evidence weighing against them just because it might make a change in a rookie card definition. Rookie cards although an extremely important part of the hobby is a niche like many other things, all IMO.

Jeff

[Myachelydra]

Nice research Rhett. I enjoyed reading your analysis.