1893 Just So

This set is cited on the Old Cardboard site as containing 14 cards, without specifying which players are represented:
http://www.oldcardboard.com/n/just-so/just-so.asp?cardsetID=687
On Baseball Almanac 15 Just So cards are defined with the associated players:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/baseball_cards/baseball_cards_oneset.php?s=1893jus01

Apparently neither source is aware of the Just So Ewing offered in the new REA and shown by Jay on our card set summary:
https://vbbc.forumotion.com/19th-century-cards-f16/just-so-t2199.htm

The cards represented in this set appear to reflect members of the 1893 Cleveland Spiders team. However some of the players shown had comparitively little team participation (Frank Boyd, George Davis, Tom Williams), while some starters (McAleer, McGarr) do not have known cards. Although this occurance is not unprecedented, I remain curious regarding both how many, and which players are in this set.

Do you know of Just So players other than those shown in the Baseball Almanac reference?

A little further checking reveals that (as usual) VCP has the list correct, at fifteen cards.
http://www.vintagecardprices.com/set-profile/155/1893-Just-So-Tobacco-Baseball-Card-Value-Prices.htm

The Almanac lists all of the players known except for Ewing, who as you know is a relatively new find. The last one added to the set was George Davies more than 15 years ago--from Barry Sloate. Looking at the Almanac again, I see where they incorrectly list future hall of famer George Davis, who was traded by Cleveland that season (for Ewing). The Just So card is of little known pitcher George Davies, who, while a regular in 1892, made only three appearances in 1893.

I would bet good money that Jimmy McAleer was part of the set, less so for Chippy McGarr, who only played about half of the season. I'd have to check to see when McGarr started playing 3b full time--I seem to recall that skipper Patsy Tebeau played that position. Of course, as you noted, lack of playing time doesn't exclude one from the set--see Frank Boyd, who played all of two big league games--ever.

Terry Knouse may have one at the National if you go--he has one about
every three years it seems. For anyone who has not seen one, the Just So cards are absolutely drop dead gorgeous--although Quan, I'm sure they lack the appropriate amount of color for your liking

The Baseball Almanac incorrectly lists John Connor as a member of this set.
Perhaps there was confusion with John Connor and Jack O'Connor similar to the George Davis and George Davies.
But who cares about details?

The baseball almanac lists Jack O'Connor, not John Connor, and Jack was in fact a member of the 1893 Spiders.

you're right--they list both. Connor is not part of the set, so 15 (with Ewing) is correct. The Davis/Davies confusion is understandable, as both were on the Spiders as of February 1893. I have no idea why Baseball almanac would include John Connor, who would have no similar connection. They also should have known that the set includes one O'Connor, so why they listed both Connor and O'Connor is perplexing--thye should have just picked one even if they got it wrong.

I can not view our scan inventory right now. https://vbbc.forumotion.com/19th-century-cards-f16/just-so-t2199.htm
But if I remember correctly, the O'Connor card has a caption which looks like O.Connor - as if "O" was his middle initial.

Both VCP and Baseball Almanac has it wrong. So I guess that the mistake is understandable.

The Just So card does identify J.O. Connor, but John Connor hadn't played baseball for eight years when the card came out, and never played for Cleveland. Minimal research would have shown that Jack O'Connor was intended, and again, even if they got the wrong guy, they should not have listed both.

So few people ever see these cards that I doubt it really matters. It's not like there's some guy out there with an almost complete set wondering how on Earth he's gonna find a John Connor card to complete his set. Still, in the interests of accuracy, they should change their records.

We now have images of 9 of the 15 cards in the set.
How many of these cards exist ~40?
In 2006 Rob Lifson offered the following opinion "Just So Tobacco cards are virtually nonexistent in the marketplace. We estimate that fewer than twenty-five examples are known to exist (probably far fewer)".
Patrick Preece states "1893 Just So Cigarettes
The rarest of all cigarette cards, with a single card know of each Hall of Famer".

If there are not many of these cards, perhaps we should seek to obtain images of all which exist - that have portrayals available.

And how were these cards manufactured? They appear to be similar to n300 Mayos which are not photographic cards. I imagine that they printed the images on the cards from photos, but what equipment was available to do that in 1893?

Response:
David Rudd Cycleback18 March 2010 at 23:10
Re: quick card ?
Gil, they are some form of photomechanical ink and printing press print. I would guess they are photoengravings (same as with the Just So, Sporting News, etc). However that's just an educated guess, as I've never seen one in person. Best wishes