e92 Nadja and associated questions

[fkw]

I think the 12 not found with any other back but Nadja are many of the common players from both StL teams (poses are from E90-1) and even a couple are found with blue backgrounds (missing yellow ink) or green backgrounds (variations). I dont have my books so this is from shaky memory

PS just looked it up... this is what I have written on my site....
"The checklist is similar to other E92 sets except Nadja includes a group of St. Louis AL and NL players not found in the other sets."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by fkw

I think the 12 not found with any other back but Nadja are many of the common players from both StL teams (poses are from E90-1) and even a couple are found with blue backgrounds (missing yellow ink) or green backgrounds (variations). I dont have my books so this is from shaky memory

PS just looked it up... this is what I have written on my site....
"The checklist is similar to other E92 sets except Nadja includes a group of St. Louis AL and NL players not found in the other sets."

Ok, that makes some sense sometimes E90-1 blank backs are called E92. I personally use the lowest common denominator (or ACC#) when speaking of blank backed cards with similar poses. I am curious why this is an e92 instead of an e90-1?

[fkw]

Leon I wish they were E90-1s , then this McLean I have would be worth 10++X more (McLean is one of the toughest E90-1s). These may be all from the same find, as mine was graded only 2 cards after yours.

technically the McLean also could be a E101 too... and your Miller "fielding" can be a E102 (used to be known as an extremely rare card, but more have surfaced since Lipset said he knew of only 1)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by fkw

Leon I wish they were E90-1s , then this McLean I have would be worth 10++X more (McLean is one of the toughest E90-1s). These may be all from the same find, as mine was graded only 2 cards after yours.

technically the McLean also could be a E101 too... and your Miller "fielding" can be a E102 (used to be known as an extremely rare card, but more have surfaced since Lipset said he knew of only 1)

Hey Frank
No doubt they could be any series with the same front. As I said before, it's my personal preference to use the lowest common ACC set #. (I just changed it on my site too. I had it the way SGC had it labeled..) ** This is just my personal preference. I doubt there is a right or wrong way.

[rainier2004]

So is this a debatable topic?

My undersatnding goes like this for e92's...4 "different sets"...
40 cards in the Dockman
50 cards in each of the Croft and allen and crofts cocoa
62 nadja caramels...

When I ask about the 12 nadja (all StL) I refer to the ones that do not have either croft back or a dockman back. Are these considered 4 seperate sets then? Are e104s and e92's the same thing? I have 2 different checklists for these.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

So is this a debatable topic?

My undersatnding goes like this for e92's...4 "different sets"...
40 cards in the Dockman
50 cards in each of the Croft and allen and crofts cocoa
62 nadja caramels...

When I ask about the 12 nadja (all StL) I refer to the ones that do not have either croft back or a dockman back. Are these considered 4 seperate sets then? Are e104s and e92's the same thing? I have 2 different checklists for these.

I think it is generally accepted, though debatable, that the E92's are 4 sets just as you said. The E104s have 3 subsets and are generally considered different than the E92 Nadjas. Hope that isn't more confusing...regards

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Leon

The E104s have 3 subsets and are generally considered different than the E92 Nadjas. Hope that isn't more confusing...regards

The e92 nadja are not one of the subsets of the e104s correct?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

The e92 nadja are not one of the subsets of the e104s correct?

I have never seen them be presented that way but they were distributed by the same company, as far as I know.