Need help with year of "Standard Biscuit" Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>Lemke no longer lists the S.B. sets separately, but refers you to T.S.N. and American Caramel--my Ruth doesn't match EITHER checklist; it's number 147. Shows Ruth in a follow-through, says "P., Red Sox" under picture. It would seem to follow that it's from the 1916 set, but you never know--that is, I never know, until someone tells my what set it's 147 OF.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p> There are three different Standard Biscuit sets -- one related to the M101-4/5 Sporting News sets, one related to the E135 Collins McCarthy set, and one related to the E121 American Caramel set. Bob Lemke has said that he messed up the various Standard Biscuit listings in the 2004 edition and plans to fix them.<BR><BR> Based on the pose, team name, and card number, sounds like yours is related to the Collins McCarthy set. The Collins McCarthy set used to be listed as 1916, but is now listed as 1917. Whether the Standard Biscuits were issued at exactly the same time is anyone's guess, but they should be within a few months or a year at most.<BR><BR> If you ever want to get rid of it, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.<BR><BR>Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>Actually, it's already spoken for. It is indeed a checklist-mate of the Collins-McCarthy set (I was looking at the 2004 Guide, and Lemke doesn't mention the C.M. set--you have to go back to 2003). <BR><BR>Another question (for trading purposes): If a card has--for instance--typing on the front, as well as deep creases and rounded corners, is it just "poor" or is it "poor minus"?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p> I read once that old time collectors had a grade lower than poor: "bad." But I think that's fallen out of fashion. The grading companies don't go lower than poor-fair, which is a notch above poor. So, I'd say poor is about as low as it goes these days, and poor minus is just an unnecessary insult. I would love to see it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1074409166.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>that's the scan I sent him. Not bad, huh? The back is clean..you can see Ruth--what more could you want?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>If Ben doesn't want it, I'll take it. I've given up finding one in better condition than this that doesn't require a 2nd mortgage.