I stumbled upon a collection of 39 cards from this series and really don't know what to make of these cards. They are very crude in their construction, and some are extremely thin while others are on pretty sturdy cardstock.

All the cards I got have the Plow Boy brand back, however, even with this I count at least 4 different backs with this brand advertised in large letters at the top. Also, it appears that all the cards I got also feature blue printing-unlike the several colors featured in the gallery on this site.

As the backs state that there was a redemption offer for one having a set of 24 cards #ed 1-24, are there known scarcities in this set?

The distibution of the 39 cards is somewhat puzzling as there is not as wide a variety of the 24 subjects as I would prefer, here is what I did get
#2 - 3 cards
#5 - 1
#6 - 2
#11 - 4
#12 - 8
#13 - 5
#14 - 1
#15 - 1
#16 - 2
#18 - 5
#21 - 1
#22 - 2
#23 - 3
#24 - 1

Also, how many different printings on the front are know, I will picture below my (8) cards #12, and of the 8 I think I only see 2 real "duplicates" as there are subtle differences in nearly every one. I will also picture below my (5) #18's to show the same thing. Any help on this enigmatic set would be appreciated...

#12's:


#18's


-Rhett

.

from THE GALLERY

.

http://www1.coe.neu.edu/~dan/N385/go.html>

.

.

.

Dan, unfortunately my #24 is probably the worst one I got, but you are free to use this scan in your gallery...

-Rhett

Looks great to these ole eyes....thanks

just thought it was funny that this very series and the Mayo die-cut dancers were my last two purchases when I was chasing all known "N" types.... I was buying both examples at a show in Manhattan from Paul Gallagher (RIP) - quite a character. I think we decided on 40$ for the pair - and JUST as the deal was concluded - I had an epiphany of sorts. I realized I was paying real money for cards that may have been scarce - but were also ugly (in my mind - although every one is special ). That and the idea that I still had about 250 cards to go - assuming an ugly rate of 1 in 4 and endless series with actresses and charwomen - that Burdick struggled with some cards with extremely low population numbers - I gave up on the spot.

Well, I had a little time on my hands tonight and really sat down and took a look at these cards, and I think I may have figured them out (at least as much as I could). Anyways, there are 4 different "Plow Boy" backs that I had in my group, and I noticed when I had multiples of the same subject the front and backs were always consistent with each other. See examples below...

Here are each of the 4 backs with subject #12 "Camel"


When viewed on the front the 4 different backs each had a different front (for clarity, "A" in picture 1 corresponds with "A" in picture 2, etc.)...


I had multiples of some of the different backs and they were all consistent, meaning when you have Type C back it will have the same image on the front (only slight shadow differences existed-which could merely be a result of lighter or darker printed cards). Also, it is interesting to note that the "B" back is the one that will have the number on front printed within the image of the subject, this was consistent within the gouping I got -- every "B" back (regardless of # in the set) had the number within the image.

Anyways, this info was from my small grouping and I'm sure the set is more complex than this, but I found it very interesting.

-Rhett

In the images that appear to be REDRAWN by a different artist - like "D" and the smooth headed Rhino - the typography on the card verso appears to have been centered better - "corrected" - suggesting a true separate printing - perhaps a different lithographer - although the stock looks similar? The differences in fonts and style is harder to figure. I thought the ones with large #'s would all be in the "redrawn" group - but the camel bottom left appears to be the redrawn - and the numbers are of the smaller and lower variety. I'd need to see a much larger sample to hazard a good guess. It's late - I'll play with this later. Good questions - I love a mystery. My "type" is gone but I'll try and look into the WTI....

it's interesting how casual (maybe sloppy) Spaulding and Merrick's general approach to cards was - from these somewhat crude cards - to the baseball cards which sometimes captured and errant leg or arm in the 1910's - to the advertising cards series featuring indians. Compare them to larger companies with bigger budgets that produced more professional looking cards and it's easy to see how these might not make sense.

I would take a guess that the card #24 showned by Rhett Yeakley as a back of type A.

another big thanks to our image editor, Roger Nisly

Claude, you are correct, the #24 is "Type A" based on the earlier picture. Both #12 and #24 both have the "2" written in the same way--I assume that is how you made the guess?
-Rhett

Yes that's how I guessed it, don't know anything about the cards though.

Only 22 cards in the set. Number 3 and number 20 do not exist.

they wanted to be REALLY REALLY sure there was no redemption by not printing TWO cards....?

I think you mean #3, & 20 don't exist, as there is a #22 pictured in the gallery, and I got 2 #22's in my lot as well.

-Rhett

Edited to add: I just saw your post on my BST thread, and you did mean #20.
Thanks
-Rhett

I edited it to look less stupid.

Except I just received a scan, from another collector, of Card #3. So we have a mystery. I just assumed #3 and #20 were the missing numbers since we had pics of all but those two.

Eric, we were missing #3, 20, & 24 until I just posted the #24 shown above, so maybe it was just the #20 that was short-printed or witheld from distribution, or maybe they were all distributed.

The "22-cards in the set" was not my observation, it was published in the WTI I believe.

I pulled this black back off an ebay auction (a bunch of nice ones just sold); this would seem to indicate that number 20 is indeed the non-existant or super-tough card in this set. Murray's catalog lists 24 (unchecklisted) cards, with 23 "normally available."
--Tim
[IMG][/IMG]

thanks to Jim Van Beckum, I added the back that shows
that card 20 is indeed the scarce card in the set.
(or one of the scarce cards)

http://www1.coe.neu.edu/~dan/N385/go.html
.
.

IMG][/IMG]

I have a number 3 ! So it does exist, also no 24 is different from the one shown

I was planning to sell them.

sorry for the size again, i just cant work out how to do smaller sizes

and credit given....thanks Darren...

Dan, no credit thrown my way? I'm deeply offended!

Obviously, I'm just joking, it seems like a few of this sets mysteries have been solved.

-Rhett

..I, on the other hand, make mistakes/omissions and sit back and wait
for our "editors" and "contributors" to keep me honest.

(Two more "credits" given for the N285 web page.)

And seeing all the images that have come forth on this unusual
set, I feel there could/should be 2-3 more names added.
.
.
.