M101-4 / M101-5 [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

05-24-2003, 10:09 PM

Posted By: Brett DomueAll, In cayching up with the posts from the past year, I noticed a couple threads on the dates of M101-4 and M101-5, and based on the research, it appeared that the general consensus was that both sets were in fact 1916 issues, with the M101-4's being something of an update to the M101-5. My question here is whether these really are 2 different sets at all. As it is, any player who did not change numbers between the -4 and -5 set is completely indistinguishable from one to the other (for those backs common to both series). How could/should one decide if a Ruth w/ Sporting News Back is M101-4 or M101-5? Are they not, in fact, identical? How is this any different from a T206 pose that appears in both the 150 and 350 series? For those players who changed number or can only be found in 1 series, and perhaps for those backs that can be conclusively linked to 1 series, I can see differentiating. However, how can someone say that one Sporting Life Back Ruth is $14k while another is $8500? Brett Brett Domue okeedokee@pipeline.com <a href="http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/wantlist.htm" target=_new>http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/wantlist.htm</a>

Archive

05-25-2003, 02:53 AM

Posted By: royi need help on this card

Archive

05-25-2003, 03:39 PM

Posted By: RhettIn this set #'s 1-7, 65-71, 141-153, 198-200 are the exact same card in both sets. The pictures are the same, and there is absolutely no way to distinguish the one set from the other, in effect making #151 Babe Ruth what many would consider a Double Print. The only way you can be absolutely sure that these cards are from one set or the other would be to have one of the regional backs (Altoona Tribune, Burgess-Nash, Globe, Herpolsheimers, etc., etc.) on the cards that can be absolutely dated to one set or the other, due to having only been issued in one of the two sets. There are 17 players in each set that are found only in that set, for example M101-5 has a Jim Thorpe, Bresnahan, Chance, and Marsans while the the M101-4 has Bender, Griffith, Gandil, and Cobb. It has always bothered me that both the Beckett Almanac and SCD list the players found on the same card #'s in each set at different prices, do they know something that everyone else in the world doesn't? Also, having experience with this set it is obvious that M101-4 are far more common than the M101-5's yet the SCD book has M101-4's as being more valuable (I am going by what is in the 2002 SCD, not sure if the 2003 has changed this or not, as I only buy a new SCD every 2-3 years or so). In my humble opinion if you own a Ruth it is far more likely that it was originally issued with the M101-4 set than M101-5, even though they have almost all been slabbed M101-5 to make them his "rookie."

Archive

05-26-2003, 10:15 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)The m101-4s carry a little higher tag because they are more widely collected, i.e. greater demand. They are more widely collected for 2 reasons (IMHO)- more available and less likely to be reprints. Rhett, for what it's worth, I am not certain every one of the cards you identified is identical. I seem to recall at least one, Bob Roth(?)who had a different position in the two sets. Todd