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

Archive

02-27-2005, 04:59 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisI do NOT profess to be an expert on either the M101-5 set or the M101-4 set... so I have some questions for those of you who are. First of all, the reason why the M101-5 set is NO LONGER considered to be from 1915 is because Mordecai Brown and Ed Roush played in the FEDERAL League in 1915... but are listed with their 1916 teams in the M101-5 set. This is solid proof that the M101-5 set HAD to have been printed AFTER the Federal League folded and the players were sent to new teams on January 1, 1916. And, I have learned that OTHER players (Roger Bresnahan, George A. Davis, Jr., Herbie Moran) were shown with their 1915 teams in the M101-5 set -- but had actually RETIRED after the 1915 season -- so they were "dropped" when the M101-4 "update" set was printed. The question remains, then, as to when exactly was this M101-4 "update" set printed?? For instance, the "update" M101-4 set still lists Ed Roush as being with "New York"... but he was actually TRADED to Cincinnati on JULY 20, 1916. So, it would seem logical that the "update" set was printed BEFORE this trade was made, or it would have been reflected on the card. BUT... here is my BIG question for you experts out there: Are there any players who were TRADED between the 1915 and 1916 seasons and "accidentally" shown in the M101-5 set on their 1915 team and then "updated" in the M101-4 set to be shown on their proper 1916 team??? ??? Or do ALL of the players who appear in both sets appear on the SAME teams??

Archive

02-27-2005, 05:30 PM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)eom

Archive

02-27-2005, 05:39 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisOK, now we are getting somewhere!! April 8, 1916: Boston purchased Tilly Walker from the St. Louis Browns. SO... the M101-4 set HAD to have been printed AFTER April 8, 1916 (because of Walker)... but BEFORE July 20, 1916 (because of Roush). <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> The fact that the update set shows Walker on his NEW team is important, because it shows that the "update" set WAS concerned with listing the players on their CORRECT teams... so Roush would certainly have been shown with Cincinnati on the M101-4 set if it had been printed AFTER his trade. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> SO... Any OTHER players in the sets shown on different teams???

Archive

02-27-2005, 06:06 PM

Posted By: PaulHal, I hope you get somewhere with this effort. But I don't think the July 20th date of the Rousch trade can be looked at as a definitive "no later than" date for M101-4. The set may have been distributed, for example, in September, but with a drop-dead date of July 15th to make changes to the set. That would allow the printer time to set up all of its printing equipment, run its presses, and ship its product. There's also a possibility (though probably a small one) that the Rousch trade was simply overlooked by the publisher. And then there's the possibility of unexplained stupidity. Here's an example. On Sept. 20, 1979, Ralph Garr was traded from the White Sox to the Angels. This fact is noted on the back of his 1980 Topps card. The card even shows his stats with the Angels. But the front of the card not only shows Garr in a White Sox uniform, but lists him as a member of the White Sox. One other thing, if you can explain why on earth Frank Chance is included in this set as the Cubs first baseman, you should get a Nobel Prize. He hadn't been with the Cubs since 1912, when he went to the Highlanders to be (mostly) there manager, though he did play occassionally. I don't know what he did in 1915. But by 1916, he was managing LA in the Pacific Coast League.

Archive

02-27-2005, 07:22 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisOK, we have another HOF'er (Frank Chance) who was included in the M101-5 set but dropped for the M101-4 set. But it is VERY WIERD that Chance had quit playing for the Cubs in 1912 and quit playing period by 1914... but is listed in the M101-5 set as the "Cubs Firstbaseman"?? <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-27-2005, 07:29 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisI see also that legendary Jim Thorpe was included in the M101-5 set because he played a few games for NY in 1915... but was dropped from the M101-4 set because he was NOT playing major league baseball in 1916. (although he later returned in 1917 and played a few more seasons) BUT... I am still hoping that some of you can weigh in with MORE players like "Tilly Walker" who are shown on DIFFERENT teams on the two sets.

Archive

02-27-2005, 07:32 PM

Posted By: hrbakerI am following this thread with great interest as dating these sets has always puzzled me. Wanted to pass along that I discover a new back while perusing ebay tonight - the "Famous Bare" back: ebay #5170491605

Archive

02-27-2005, 10:10 PM

Posted By: Hal Lewishrbaker: I have a hunch from your name that you will be interested to know that I have a rare back 1916 M101-4 "Famous & Barrs" PSA 8 "Home Run" Baker card up for auction in the Robert Edward auction coming up. I know it ain't the "Famous Bare" back... but apparently the "Famous & Barrs" is much harder to find on the M101-4 cards than it is on the M101-5's.

Archive

02-27-2005, 10:13 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisBy the way.. I do NOT necessarily agree that the M101-5 was "distributed" before the M101-4. It sure looks like it was PRINTED earlier... but that doesn't mean anything about when the cards hit the market. For example, I could argue just as effectively that the M101-5 set was "REJECTED" because the printers realized that it contained a lot of errors... so the printers immediately printed the M101-4 set and shipped it out for distribution to the biggest customers. This would explain perfectly why there are ZERO cards from the M101-5 set with "Sporting News" backs... because they did NOT ship out any of the "rejected" M101-5 cards to that HUGE customer. BUT... when the M101-4 cards turned out to be a huge success nationwide... the printer realized that it had a ton of "rejected" cards sitting in the warehouse that it could sell to little "mom and pop" shops OR just give out with blank backs. SO... the M101-5 cards were pulled out of the closet and distributed AFTER the M101-4 cards. Don't you think there is SOME reason that Burdick (the card guru) assigned the FIRST number to the M101-4 set... and the later number to the M101-5 set??? The point is... we don't know SQUAT... except that BOTH sets were issued in 1916. Trying to GUESS which one was sold first is crazy at best.

Archive

02-28-2005, 06:14 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranHal, Boy can you rationalize with the best of them and make yourself believe almost anything. ALL of the facts point to the M101-5 set being produced and issued before the M101-4 set. There is no reason to believe that the M101-5's were produced then sat in a warehouse for months while the M101-4's were issued. That is completely unlikely, and there are enough M101-5's around to conclude that they are not printers scrap. When you finally admit to yourself that you need a TRUE M101-5 RUTH ROOKIE for your collection, I know where you can find one. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> My Famous & Barr Ruth ROOKIE will be in the Robert Edward Auction in April.

Archive

02-28-2005, 06:25 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisBoy Andy, you change your mind so much that you get me dizzy! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Now you are saying (because you are SELLING ONE) that the 1916 Famous & Barrs is the "true" Ruth rookie... while not too long ago you were trumpeting the 1914 Baltimore News as the REAL Ruth rookie. All of this because your "Famous & Barrs" print runs top to bottom or vice-versa?? I have a definite M101-4 card with "Famous & Barrs"... so the ONLY "assumption" that can make your card an M101-5 is that the print runs a certain way? And I am the one making a stretch? I think I will just stick with my Ruth rookie, since it is BLANK-backed just like a LOT of the M101-5 cards. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="http://www.lewisbaseballcards.com/classes/baseBallCard/images/827Lg.jpg">

Archive

02-28-2005, 06:47 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranHal, Like you, I do not collect minor league cards, so I NEVER stated that the Baltimore Ruth card was Ruth's rookie. You must have me confused with someone else. I have ALWAYS stated that the M101-5 was his TRUE Rookie, which is why I own the Famous & Barr (for now). I specifically sought out this back to ensure that I had a true Ruth Rookie for my collection. I was the one who worked to change the year of M101-5 from 1915 to 1916. Would I have done this if I was overly concerned about the effect on the value of the card? I had nothing to gain, and potentially something to lose if people like yourself started to believe that since the 2 sets were issued in the same year that the Ruth card would be a Rookie in both sets. It was in my best interest to leave the date as 1915, but I spoke up because I wanted the truth about the sets to be known to the hobby. I didn't start any of these threads. I just happen to have a Famous & Barr Ruth ROOKIE coming up in auction in April. It seemed appropriate to mention it since the issue has been raised, and you yourself have already stated that I am a capitalist.

Archive

02-28-2005, 06:58 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerThis is why collecting rookie cards is so stupid. You guys are advanced collectors and you can't even agree as to what the rookie card of a particular player is. I thought the rule was no minor league cards and the card had to have "wide" distribution. This eliminates the Baltimore News Ruth(minor league) and the Reccius Wagner(distribution). Since, if I remember correctly, Famous and Barr backs appear on both M101-5 and M101-4 there is no way of knowing which is the "rookie". You need to find a back that only appeared on M101-5s to really be sure you have a rookie. BTW, blank backs fall in the "I don't know" category and should not be considered rookies. Also, I think the majority of the hobby believes that M101-5s came first and until that changes that is the Ruth rookie. I don't give a hoot about rookie cards but it sounded like you guys needed a referee.

Archive

02-28-2005, 07:09 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI can be mature about this, and offer the following response to Andy: <img src="http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-022.gif"> <img src="http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-022.gif"> <img src="http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-022.gif"> <img src="http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-022.gif">

Archive

02-28-2005, 07:30 AM

Posted By: Josh K.Hal - LOL. Andy, Im just starting to collect cards in these sets. Can you explain one thing to me about the dating of the m101-5's - Ive read that the reason that the issue date was changed from 1915 to 1916 was b/c Mordecai Brown and Ed Roush are pictured with their 1916 teams and not their Federal league teams that they played with in 1915. Do we know when those players signed with their new teams? In other words, is it not possible that they signed with their new teams immediately after the Federal league folded and if so, did that happen after the 1915 season - thus leaving several months at the end of the year to issue a set. Just curious.

Archive

02-28-2005, 07:52 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI apologize for the immaturity of my last post. I retract it, and offer this peace offering in its place: <img src="http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-075.gif"> <img src="http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-075.gif"> <img src="http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aktion/action-smiley-075.gif">

Archive

02-28-2005, 08:49 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)and Tim, please contact me about your article. Hal may be correct about the distribution of m101-5 coming after m101-4. 1. Both sets reflect several team designations that account for trades made on February 10, 1916. Eight, count 'em 8 Cubs were traded/sold that day out of the Fed Lg and into the NL. Since m101-5 shows all of them on the Cubs, m101-5 was printed on or after 2/10/1916. 2. Mendolsohn's ad appeared in TSN on 4/6/1916, less than 2 months later (56 days). It promoted m101-4 as evidenced by the fact John (Dots) Miller was included among the players available, and he is only found in m101-4. Three weeks later, Mendolsohn's ad is identical except it adds Ty Cobb as one of the players available. He too is found only in m101-4. 3. I'm going to assume that Mendolsohn did not run the presses the next day(Friday)following the Cubs acquisition, and waited until at least February 14, the following Monday. I'll also assume that the April 6, 1916 ad in TSN actually ran a few days beforehand, as the dates carried on the publications generally don't match the date of actual release. Finally, I'll assume that print ad needed to be submitted to TSN in advance to make it to the printers on time. With these assumptions in place, the 56 day/8 week window is actually much smaller. 4. The player selection and team designation for m101-5 point to it having been printed first. So when would it have been released? I've looked at all TSN issues from 1916, and a few months on either side, and there is no ad for these cards as such--just the m101-4s. There is nothing to say that Mendolsohn didn't advertise elsewhere (especially since the m101-5 seems to have no affiliation with the Sporting News), but it seems somewhat unlikely, don't you think? The TSN ad corresponded nicely with the MLB season, which opened the following week. Does it make a lot of sense for him to have promoted the m101-5 set in February or March and then turn his attention to m101-4 by April? There are other factors that remain unaddressed, that I'll keep to myself for now. My point is I remain unconvinced that m101-5 was in fact released prior to m101-4.

Archive

02-28-2005, 09:09 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranTodd, That is interesting information, and it sounds like you may have more to share at a later date. However, I don't believe that the fact that there are no ads for M101-5 in The Sporting News is any indication that M101-5's were not already in distribution. We have determined that the majority of Famous & Barr cards are from the M101-5 series. There is no reason to believe that they would have chosen to place an ad for these cards in the Sporting News. Here is another theory: Perhaps Mendohlson originally only planned to sell the cards to companies like Famous & Barr, but when the M101-5 Famous & Barr cards were a success, they decided to sell their blank back cards direct to collectors. If they were already producing M101-4's at that time, it would make sense that they would use these cards in their Sporting News Ad since they were more current. This sounds more plausible to me than the theory that the M101-5 cards were produced before their "updated" set, but not distributed until after the updated M101-4 set.

Archive

02-28-2005, 10:27 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)but that leaves very little time to determine that F&B was a success. Realistcally, I would have to believe the window between printing m101-5 and m101-4 was closer to 5 weeks than 8. That's not much time to get them to Famous&Barr (and the 8 other companies that adveritised on m101-5), find that they were a success, then print another set with a new marketing plan. BTW, not to throw another curveball, but you collectors know that there were at least three prinitngs of m101*, right? Todd

Archive

02-28-2005, 10:37 AM

Posted By: Josh K.do explain...

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:01 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranNow I am really happy that I am selling my Ruth. These sets are way too confusing.

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:09 AM

Posted By: wesleyShould have sold it to me Andy. Now that Todd and Hal are exposing the the M101-5 for earlier printed but later released test error proofs. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:13 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI don't necessarily think one was released to the public "AFTER" the other set... but very likely ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!! The April 16, 1916 advertisement for the M101-4 set means that this set was ALREADY printed and READY TO SHIP by that time. OPENING DAY for the 1916 season was April 12th!!!! From Baseball Almanac: "Did you know that the Opening Day (April 12, 1916) pitcher for the Boston Red Sox was Babe Ruth? He pitched 8.2 innings, allowed one run, and won 2-1 versus the Philadelphia Athletics." ----------------------- Thus, it is PROVEN that they started PRINTING the M101-5 set AFTER the February 1916 trades of those former Federal League players... and it is PROVEN that the M101-4 set was printed and already being ADVERTISED by April 1916. ----------------------- SO... while it still seems obvious that the M101-5 set was PRINTED first (early March?)... the M101-4 set was ALSO probably printed in late March... and BOTH of them were probably RELEASED to the public right around the same time (OPENING DAY)!!! ------------------------ This is CONSISTENT with the LACK of ANY OTHER advertisements for these cards PRIOR to opening day in any publications!!!! It just seems to make a lot of sense that they started printing the set... realized that there were some mistakes and immediately started printing NEW cards... but WAITED to distribute the cards AT ALL until they were ALL printed. -------------------------- Think about it: When they started printing the M101-5 set, they probably already had orders from a lot of stores who wanted to distribute the cards, so they probably planned on printing (just a guess) 200,000 sets of the cards. BUT... they soon found some mistakes, so they simply STOPPED after printing 100,000 sets... CHANGED a few things... and then FINISHED printing the other 100,000 sets. In other words... if there had NOT been any mistakes in the M101-5 set... they would have just printed 200,000 of that set and we would NEVER have even seen an M101-4 set.

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:17 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisAnd if the manufacturers of these cards KNEW (which obviously they did) that they were going to quickly print out an "updated" set and finish the print run... then WHY would they start PACKAGING and SHIPPING the M101-5's without just waiting for the M101-4's to finish? Makes no sense to pack and ship TWICE and bear the extra cost. Makes more sense to FINISH the printing of ALL the cards... THEN start the CUTTING process for ALL of them at once... THEN start the PACKAGING process for ALL of the at once... THEN start the SHIPPING process for ALL of them at once. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:23 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)but one reason I have kept alot of this to myself before is that I don't want anything I post to be construed as any kind of attack on someone's "rookie" card or their theories of what came out when. Since I don't collect rookies per se, I truly don't care about release dates for those reasons. Just looking for accuracy.

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:36 AM

Posted By: petecldYes Todd, some of us do know there were multiple printings. So you guys think they printed cards but had them sit around until AFTER more cards were printed with team updates and then distirbuted them???? That's ink, cardboard and warehouse space all going to waste. During war time??? That makes no sense to me. Since we do know that that for at least one sponsor the set was issued as a full sheet is it possible the initial printing of the cards was intended to be distributed as full sheets but in war time made the premium too expensive for customers so they made the decision was made to go to single cards. They would then cut down the sheets they had and distribute as single cards along with the next printing that had the team changes, etc. and the cards were all distributed at the same time.....

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:43 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisAs a "modern day" example of this phenomenon... does anyone remember the Billy Ripken "f##kface" error card?? It was discovered very early in the printing process by Fleer... and a "corrected" version was printed from that time forward... but BOTH of them were printed BEFORE the cards were DISTRIBUTED to the public. I know this for a fact because I remember driving all over creation buying boxes of Fleer cards the VERY FIRST DAY they were distrubuted to the wholesalers... and SOME of the Billy Ripken cards in those boxes were the earlier-printed "error" cards... while OTHER wax packages in the SAME CASE contained "corrected" Billy Ripken cards. ---------------------- This was 1989 ... not 1889 ... so it just goes to show that these card manufacturers always print up ALL the cards BEFORE they start shipping them out.

Archive

02-28-2005, 11:54 AM

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)since it's pretty obvious just from looking at the catalogued checklists that there were at least three printings. I brought it up since there seem to be factions developing as to what came first. Mendelsohn's ad for m101-4s offered the cards either in sheet form or as singles, and the US did not declare war until 1917, I believe. <<Edited to add that by singles, I meant to say that you could acquire the whole set in cut up form, not that you could necessarily buy just one or some>>

Archive

02-28-2005, 02:02 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisThe Mendehlson ad is clearly for the M101-4 set, because it specifically advertises for a player who did NOT appear in the M101-5 set... and it appeared in the Sporting News on April 16, 1916. It is therefore going to be hard for ANYONE to deny that the M101-4 set had already been printed and was ready for shipment on April 16, 1916. --------------------- The M101-5 set lists players on teams for who they did NOT play prior to February 10, 1916. So even if they started designing the printing press for those cards on that very day... it would have taken a few weeks to get the die cast and the cards all printed up. It is therefore going to be hard for ANYONE to deny that the M101-5 set could NOT have been distributed to anyone prior to February 24, 1916. ---------------------- Given these facts... the LARGEST period of time that someone could argue between the two sets is AT MOST sixty (60) days. AT MOST! BUT... for someone to even be able to make that 60-day argument... they are going to have to come up with SOME PROOF (anything) that shows where the M101-5 cards were offered to the public in MARCH of 1916!! Until something like that appears... the logical conclusion (as evidenced throughout the years) is that ALL of the cards distributed to the public in 1916 (in EVERY set, not just the M101-5 and M101-4 sets) were first distributed right around the opening day of the baseball season. When someone finds an Advertisement for M101-5 in March of 1916, then I will have no choice but to admit that I was wrong. So happy hunting! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

02-28-2005, 02:26 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranHal, Here are a few more facts, the first of which I believe is indisputable: 1.) February 24, 1916 is earlier than April 16, 1916. 2.) Companies like Famous & Barr which used the M101-5 set would have no reason to advertise it in publications like TSN, so the fact that there are no ads does not in any way indicate that the cards were not in distribution. 3.) Just because Mendohlson was taking ORDERS on March 16, 1916, there is no way to confirm that the cards were ready to ship anywhere near that date. They may have had plans for that set (and even a few samples) by that date, but very well may have waited several months before going into production to wait and see what the demand would be. Companies do this today, so it's not inconceivable to think that they did that in 1916. If I have to prove that the M101-5 set was distributed by supplying an ad, then you have to prove that the M101-4 set was READY FOR SHIPMENT on April 16th by supplying a Post Dated Envelope. Without the envelope, there is no PROOF that the cards were ready to ship. None of your arguments PROVE that the sets were distributed at the same time, just like none of my agruments PROVE that the M101-5 was distributed prior to the M101-4. Therefore, I believe it is REASONABLE, PROBABLE, and to steal your term LOGICAL to assume that the UPDATED M101-4 set was distributed AFTER the M101-5 set.

Archive

02-28-2005, 03:11 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisAndy: Let me ask you this and see what you think: Apparently there were some "minor" corrections made over time to the M101-5 set: #23 started off as Forrest Cady... but later print runs have card #23 as Mordecai Brown. #97 started off misspelled as John "Lavin"... but later print runs have card #97 spelled correctly as "Lavan." And we know that all 200 of the cards in this set were printed on ONE BIG SHEET and then cut up into 200 separate cards. ------------------------- SO......... I want to know how you can consider ANY card from the M101-5 set to be a "rookie" card UNLESS you can PROVE that it was printed on the SAME SHEET that included a #23 Forrest Cady card and a #97 "Lavin" spelled incorrectly card??? -------------------------- Wouldn't this also prove that some cards from the M101-5 set were produced EARLIER than others from the same set??? And under your argument, wouldn't you then say that those EARLIEST produced cards were also DISTRIBUTED to the public EARLIEST???? --------------------------- SO... it looks to me like the ONLY way we can solve your dilemma is to find some #23 Forrest Cady cards and some #97 "Lavin" incorrect spelling cards and see WHAT BACKS those have??? Can anyone help us with this??? -------------------------- But EVEN THEN... if those SAME backs also show up on #23 Mordecai Brown cards and #97 "Lavan" cards... then we will NEVER know whether a particular M101-5 card came from the FIRST "set" of M101-5 or the "later" set, will we?? ---------------------------- In other words... until an UNCUT SHEET appears that has a #23 Forrest Cady card on it... we may never actually see a "certifiable" Ruth rookie card that was from the EARLIEST production run of these M101-5 and M101-4 cards. Right?

Archive

02-28-2005, 07:24 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranHal, Let me take it one step further. How can we prove that any card from our collections is a rookie card? Obviously, when every set was produced, they were printed on sheet. And 1 sheet had to be the absolute first sheet to come off the production line. So using your reasoning, unless you are able to prove that a particular card came off the very first sheet in the very first production cycle, then how can it be a rookie card? If it came off the 2nd sheet, then there is 1 card that is earlier than it, so it couldn't be the rookie card. Your argument is off the deep end. You can't prove that the M101-4 cards were ready to be shipped on April 16, 1916. Can I prove that no M101-5 cards were produced after the first M101-4 cards were produced? No, I can't prove this, but it doesn't make LOGICAL sense that they would still be printing the old set when a newer, more accurate set was available. That would explain why there are backs that are common to both sets. LOGICALLY, when all of the inventory from the M101-5 set for a given back was depleted, they went ahead and printed M101-4's. This makes LOGICAL sense, period. Were both sets printed in 1916? Answer: Yes Were the M101-5's printed before the M101-4's? Answer: Most Likely Were the M101-5's issued before the M101-4's? Answer: Most Likely Were the inventory levels of the M101-5's depleted before the M101-4's were printed? Answer: Most Likely Were M101-5's printed after the printing began on M101-4's? Answer: Not Likely Were the M101-4's ready to ship on April 16, 1916? Answer: Who Knows, but there is no proof that they were The bottom line is that IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, the M101-5 cards were PRINTED and DISTRIBUTED before the M101-4 cards.

Archive

02-28-2005, 08:11 PM

Posted By: petecldTodd, I never said the US was involved in the war in 1916 and yes, it was early in 1917 we did declare war but don't think big industries weren't paying attention to what Europe had been going through for the last 2 to 3 years. I just said it was "war time". I'm sorry your statement didn't mean you knew something that could help this debate beyond the obvious. The fact that there were multiple printings, regardless of the checklist, of these cards and each just as each checklist has it's own specifics be that a player, team change and/or numbering system but each printing has it's own distinct characteristics in both printing and stock used. A huge comparison of cards would be necessary to determine which back was included with which printing and even though an exact date still wouldn't be known using the numbering you would know which cards/backs came from the 1st printing or a subsequent printing. A process explained by Hal in his previous post.

Archive

03-01-2005, 08:07 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI thought your point was that the set was intended to be issued in sheets, and then got cut up into indiviual cards due to circumstances surrounding the war. That is not true. The set was always available in cut form, as evidenced by Mendelsohn's ad and the Sporting News ads that followed a few months later. It also appears that any war influence did not occur until later, as evidenced by the relative spate of sets issued circa 1916 (all m101*, Tango Eggs, Collins-McCarthy/Boston Store/Weil, Fleischmann, BF2s) and the paucity of sets the following three years. As for adding something other than the obvious, I can do that. I believe the initial m101-5 set had Beals Becker and Bobby Wallace, yet they remain uncatalogued. The fact that other players are catalogued in their place further indicates multiple print runs of that set.

Archive

03-01-2005, 08:29 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisVERY INTERESTING TODD!!! I see now that "Boone" and "Wheat" were inserted into the set EXACTLY where you would expect to see "Becker" and "Wallace" in alphabetical order!!! I see that Becker retired after the 1915 season... and that Wallace was a very part-time player by then... so this would indeed make sense!!! WOW!!! So the M101-5 set is ACTUALLY an "update" set itself!!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-01-2005, 11:16 AM

Posted By: chris cathcartDamn, I wish I had that one instead of my lowly 4. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Too far out of my price range and you wouldn't be selling anyway I assume. How much would a "fair market value" be on that one now? Best as I can tell at the moment, the M101-x Ruth would sell for roughly the following prices at each grade: PSA 8 - $100,000 PSA 7 - $45,000 PSA 6 - $30,000 PSA 5 - $24,000 PSA 4 - $19,000 PSA 3 - $15,000 PSA 2 - $12,000 PSA 1 - $10,000 In other words, take the price of a '52 Topps Mantle in each grade and multiply by approximately 3. Andy's "qualified" 4 will go for about, what, the price of a PSA 3?

Archive

03-01-2005, 11:39 AM

Posted By: Hal LewisI think you are just about right, except that I think a 7 would be around $50k with the juice and a 6 would go for about $35k with juice. Sure wish I had an 8 !!!

Archive

03-01-2005, 11:39 AM

Posted By: Andy BaranChris, My Ruth card is slabbed in an SGC 40 holder with no qualifiers.

Archive

03-01-2005, 11:56 AM

Posted By: WesleyMastro had a SGC 3 Ruth RC in the December auction. I believe it was a part of the Richard Egan collection. Does anyone know how much that card went for?

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:02 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranI think Mastro also had a PSA 7. If my memory is correct, there were 3 M101-4/5 Ruth's in various grades in the December auction.

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:06 PM

Posted By: WesleyThe last regular auction had one PSA 6 and one SGC 40 Ruth RC. I have the catalog or pricesheet at home, so I will confirm the numbers tonight.

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:11 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisAndy: I think he meant "qualified" as a GOOD thing. He meant that your "rare back" qualified your card for a price bump upwards. That's how I took it, since he said it was a 3 but deserved a 4 price.

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:11 PM

Posted By: Andy BaranAre you sure that their wasn't a 3rd that was part of a lot? I am pretty sure that I remember noticing 3 ruths. I'll try to remember to check as well.

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:13 PM

Posted By: WesleyThere may have been three, but the real question is whether they were M101-5 or M101-4. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:25 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisWesley: Don't forget about the M101-5.5 set that we have now determined came out BEFORE the M101-5 set. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:29 PM

Posted By: WesleyHal, I think you need to buy the Baltimore card and get it over with. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-01-2005, 12:30 PM

Posted By: Wesley....what if the red borders were distributed before the blue borders?

Archive

03-01-2005, 01:02 PM

Posted By: Hal LewisGood one, Wesley!! ONE of the two sets was printed first... but which one?????? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-01-2005, 10:30 PM

Posted By: chris cathcartI gather Andy had his regraded with SGC, if it's the same one that he bought in a PSA slab with an (MK) qualifier for markings on the reverse or something like that. I really don't know if moving it to an SGC holder is better or worse nowadays as far as respect or realized prices go, but that last SGC 40=3 went for about $13k with juice. Or maybe that was after juice. The PSA 6 went for around $32k after juice IIRC. As far as what's the Ruth RC, it sounds like both the M101's qualify as a rookie card by pretty standard definitions even if the M101-5's were made first. (I think even an '89 Topps Traded Griffey qualifies as a rookie card even though there are other cards produced earlier in the year that still garner more respect and attention, just as a card from a subsequent year -- say like an '86 Fleer Jordan over the '84 Star, or an '87 Fleer Bonds over an '86 Topps Traded, or the '52 Topps Mantle over the '51 Bowman -- can gain more respect and attention even if they aren't technically their rookie cards.) The best definition of "rookie" card as far as I can determine is: A player's card from the earliest year in which he appears in a major league set. The '14 Baltimore News is a pre-rookie. The '85 Topps McGwire should be considered McGwire's rookie card.