E96 Spencer. Never noticed this.

[caramelcard]

I never noticed that the E96 Spencer shows St. Louis A.L. as his team on the front but Boston A.L. on the back.

This is especially strange since there are no other St. Louis A.L. cards in the set.

Haven't researched to see if it was just a mistake by the factory or if Spencer was traded away that year.

Surprised I have never noticed this before.

Rob

[sox1903wschamp]

Hi Rob,

I noticed this several years back when I thought I needed an E96 Spencer for my Boston AL collection. No dice as the card was issued under St. Louis (Browns) despite what the back of the card checklist says.

Tubby Spencer played for St Louis from 1905-08 and then joined Boston in 1909 where he is represented in the T-204 and T-206 sets as a Boston American. Since E96 was issued in 1910 there really seems to be no excuse for releasing his card under St. Louis. The E96 image of Spencer is just about the same image as the Ramly. I often wonder if there is a Boston AL version of his E96 card. It would be kind of like the E97 Sullivan Boston/Chicago cards.

[sox1903wschamp]

Here is my T-204 Ramly and the E96 Spencer (from the old Cardboard site).

[caramelcard]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the info.

There's definitely no variation in e96, but it might suggest that the Phil Caramel company came up with the idea (checklist of players) of the second part of the 55 cards (E96) in their baseball series at the same time as when they developed E95. They must've changed the front at the last minute.

Rob

[ErikV]

Rob,

I completely missed this oversight. During the research of my book,
I was puzzled by four of the St. Louis players cards in the set (Spencer,
Karger, Murray and Mowery). Spencer, Karger and Murray were all
traded from their respective teams on 12-12-1908. All three were playing
for a St. Louis team when they got traded. Their E96 cards all portray
them playing for St. Louis.

Your post mentions the checklist of the E96 set being developed at the
same time of the E95 set. The book doesn't state this, but I seem to
agree. See my Net54 post (towards bottom of attached link).

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...MEL#post737836

I believe the fact that Mowery was traded on 8-22-1909 from Cincinnati
TO A ST. LOUIS TEAM (which his E96 card indicates) would suggest
that the E96 set/checklist was compiled likely as the E95 set was just
being released (late in 1909 baseball season). In fact, Claude Rossman
who was also playing for St Louis (indicated on E96), but was traded to the
Detriot Tigers on 8-20-1909.

Food for thought.

ErikV
www.PhiladelphiaCaramel.com

[sox1903wschamp]

Originally Posted by caramelcard

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the info.

There's definitely no variation in e96, but it might suggest that the Phil Caramel company came up with the idea (checklist of players) of the second part of the 55 cards (E96) in their baseball series at the same time as when they developed E95. They must've changed the front at the last minute.

Rob

I agree with you and Erik on this notion. I also think that they changed the Back of the E96 Spencer card to his correct team but kept the front as the old team.

[caramelcard]

Thanks for the additional information Erik.

Your book has revitalized my interest in these two sets, along with E79, E80 and the non-sports sets.

If any you guys have not read Erik's book, "Sweet Recollections..." do yourself a favor and pick up a copy.

Rob

[jp1216]

I always wondered about my E96 - Rossman. Card says Cleveland (front & back), but he only played for the Naps in 1906....