Lipset Auction -- Ruth Rookie Question

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John Freeman&nbsp; </b><p>My last question caused quite a stir ("Old Judge Proofs?") -- hopfully this one will be more straightforward.<br /><br />Lot #8 in Lew Lipset's online catalog is a M101-5 #151 Babe Ruth card which has a Sporting News back. The description states that cards with Sporting News backs are only known in the earlier M101-5 issue and not in the later M101-4. I was always under the assumption that Sporting News cards were found in both series. I thought for sure that I had seen a Jim Thorpe before.<br /><br />Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Email has been sent out correcting this and two other mistakes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>There was a question posed to this forum about the Sporting News back not long ago. Someone asked whether anyone has seen any Sporting News card with a M101-5 exclusive player. If I remember correctly, not a single person had an example of a M101-5 only player with the Sporting News back.<br /><br />I will ask the same question again: Does any card of a player from the M101-5 set only exist with the Sporting News back? Or is every Sporting News card from the later M101-4 set?<br /><br />I know there is an abundance of M101-4 Sporting News back cards, but it appears that no one has seen a single M101-5 Sporting News back. So at the very least, even if they exist, if we see a card with the Sporting News advertisement, the card is more likely from the M101-4 set than the M101-5.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>I spoke to Lew about the Ruth card yesterday. It is definitely from the later M101-4 series, not the M101-5 series as he has it listed. He said that he would make the correction.<br /><br />As far as I know, the only possible backs that a true Ruth rookie card (M101-5) can have are Blank & Famous & Barr. However, it is my belief that the majority of Blank back cards out there are from the M101-4 series. With the exception of 1 card (a Bancroft owned by Brett Domue), every other Famous & Barr that I have ever seen is from the M101-5 series. A Ruth with any other back (including Sporting News) is from the M101-4 set. The only possible exception that I can think of is Holmes to Homes, but there are not enough examples known to make an accurate statement about which set(s) they are from. I don't think that a Ruth with a Holmes to Homes back is even known.<br /><br />If anyone is looking for an M101-5 Ruth Rookie with a Famous & Barr back, there will be one an SGC 40 holder in the upcoming Robert Edwards Spring Auction (shameless plug) <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Andy--What you are saying is wrong. I have M101-5's with Morehouse, Gimbels, Successful Farming, Standard Biscuit and Blank backs. Any one of those could be a Ruth rookie.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p> M101-5 M101-4<br /><br />Gimbels X X(angled letters)<br /><br />Morehouse X X<br /><br />S. Farming X<br /><br />Stand. B. X<br /><br />Blank X X<br /><br />Famous & B. X<br /><br />As far as I know, if you get a Famous & Barr,Successful Farming,Standard Biscuit or Gimbels(straight letter) Ruth it is a rookie. Blank back or Morehouse could be but you can't tell.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />Standard Biscuits and Moorehouse can be either set, but my experience is that the vast majority of cards with these backs are from the M101-4 set (my experience only). I've never seen a Gimbels that was from the M101-5 set, and I honestly don't know much about Successful Farming set, nor do I know if a Ruth has ever been seen with this back.<br /><br />I will revise my statement that the best chance of a Sporting News #151 Ruth to be from the M101-5 set is with a Famous & Barr back. All other backs are either less likely to be from the M101-5 set, or in many cases, impossible to be from the M101-5 set (like the Sporting News Back in Lipsett's Auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I believe it was I who first asked about this m101-5 TSN back about a year ago, as I had never seen one. Strange how these things develop. <br /><br />First, there was no response to my inquiry. Then, someone said Bob Lemke's book has a picture with TSN on the back of an m101-5, but it seems that the back pictures don't always match up with the front. Then, at some point, Mr. Lemke had it on authority from Lew Lipset himself that M101-5 had a TSN back. When I spoke with Mr. Lipset Thursday on a related subject he basically said that the TSN backs all came with m101-4, and now Andy also says an m101-5 Ruth TSN back would be impossible. So in about a year the matter basically went from yes, m101-5 certainly has a TSN back (per the guides) to no, it cannot have a TSN back.<br /><br />I will wait another year or two of collecting to see if m101-5 comes with TSN back, but if it does, it is scarce. As for a guaranteed m101-5 Ruth, it appears that Successful Farming and Holmes to Homes are your best bet, although the sample sizes of known examples from those two sets is very to extremely small, so I wouldn't count on ever seeing a Ruth. Far best bet is Famous & Barr, although F&B is also found in m101-4. I have seen m101-4's wth the ad running top to bottom and bottom to top, but have not seen an m101-5 running top to bottom. Perhaps our fellow board members who collect m101-5 can enlighten us on that subject.<br /><br />Todd<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Todd--I would say the best bet for the Ruth rookie is a straight letter Gimbels. In fact, I think (but wouldn't swear) I saw one several years ago. Otherwise, if you have a Ruth with a back that could be an M101-4 or a M101-5 you cannot call it a rookie because you do not know definitively which year it is from. Makes all those PSA graded Ruth "rookies" with blank backs pretty suspect. Bob Lemke should put this info out in the SCD catalog and the info should be deseminated to the grading services so such misrepresentations can be avoided. Makes you wonder what PSA's liability is to people who paid up for high grade Ruth "rookies".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PSA Passes</b><p>Jay,<br /><br />I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not but PSA does not make mistakes!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JDWeller</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57993&item=5128543605&rd=1" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57993&item=5128543605&rd=1</a><br /><br />Like the card but is the bottom right corner a bit "unusual?" <br /><br />Opinion?<br />Thanks