Question about 1916 M101-4 issue [Archive]

View Full Version : Question about 1916 M101-4 issue

Archive

03-12-2006, 07:45 PM

Posted By: BrianI had a question about M101-4s. Do they always carry an advertisement on the back, or were some of them printed with blank banks? Any idea which is more common? Thanks for the help!

Archive

03-12-2006, 08:04 PM

Posted By: jay behrensA use of the search function should give you the ansers you are looking for as this topic has been covered a few times. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

03-12-2006, 08:09 PM

Posted By: CatSome come with blank backs. [insert smiley emoticon here]

Archive

03-12-2006, 08:15 PM

Posted By: JasonMost typically the 1915s come with only blank backs. the 1916s come either or. There is no way to prove when a blank back was actually produced condsidering the numbers are the same. I just wanted to help unlike others around here that cannot take 10 seconds to type a response. I won't make you search for it. Jason

Archive

03-12-2006, 08:20 PM

Posted By: BrianJason, thanks. My speed-reading skills are not what they used to be, and fortunately, I did not have to wait too long for your response! Thanks again.

Archive

03-12-2006, 08:32 PM

Posted By: Tim NewcombBrian, It isn't nearly as simple as Jason says. His post is actually riddled with misinformation. I'll take a little time to offer corrections: 1. Blank backs appear in both M101-4 and M101-5 and are the most common back found in both sets. 2. MOST of the numbers are different between the two sets, so that a card of a given player can usually be assigned to one set or the other based on its number. However, in a few sections (#1 to about 10, again around 140-155, and 190-200), the numbers are the same in both sets, and there identification can be difficult. 3. there are some backs that appear only in M101-4, others only in M101-5, and others in both. Jay is right, this topic has been discussed extensively in a number of earlier threads. A quick search of "M101 backs" will pull them up for you quickly. Jason, the others who posted and recommended the previous threads WERE trying to be helpful. Instead of flaming them, maybe in future you yourself should take the kind of time you criticized them for not taking, and do a little basic research on your facts before posting such elementary errors. Tim Newcomb

Archive

03-12-2006, 08:34 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzBoth m101-4 an m101-5 date to 1916. They are mostly distinguishable by their numbers, although 30 players share the same number. Of these, a handful or so can be distinguished by team or position changes. M101-4s are often found with blank backs, m101-5s even moreso are blank-backed. Damn Tim, you're quick <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

03-12-2006, 09:23 PM

Posted By: JasonTimmy- I did not intend to "flame" anyone. Maybe I came across the wrong way. As far as my knowledge goes......the blank backs were mostly printed in 1915. Correct me if I am wrong. I do have my facts striaght by the way. regards, Jason

Archive

03-12-2006, 09:30 PM

Posted By: CatResearch in the last year indicates that the m101-5s and m101-4s were both printed in 1916. The m101-5s are still believed to be the earlier print cycle. Also, I believe there is some evidence that the blank back m101-5 was the earliest of all print cycles. The information on these cards seems to be a bit fluid so I am not sure the sands have stopped shifting.

Archive

03-12-2006, 09:34 PM

Posted By: jay behrensFor someone not wanting to come across the wrong way, you are doing a good job so far. I don't think anyone here refers Tim as Timmy. That's you what you would call a child named TIm. As for me repeatedly mentioning that people should make use of the search function, why bother having it if people aren't going to make use of it. You obviously haven't in regards to the m101-4/5 set or you'd know that has been proven that both sets were issued in 1916. I'm pretty knowledgable about most sets, but a lot of "known" info about this set has changed over the past year or two and I haven't completely gotten straight what is now considered correct and what isn't, so it was much easier to point the person in the direction of the search function so that they could get the correct answers. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

03-12-2006, 10:17 PM

Posted By: Tim Newcomb"I do have my facts striaght by the way." -- Jason

Archive

03-13-2006, 05:55 AM

Posted By: JasonI disagree. Some WERE produced in 1915. It was more than likely late 1915 but some were printed then. We can debate this on and on but there is no way to prove either side. In the end, does it really matter?

Archive

03-13-2006, 07:27 AM

Posted By: BrianThanks to everyone for the help.

Archive

03-13-2006, 08:02 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzNONE were produced in 1915, zip, nada, nil. If you any evidence to the contrary, please provide, and please don't claim it's because the guides once said so. Perhaps you should search and review. The player and team combinations make clear that these cards were all printed in 1916.

Archive

03-13-2006, 08:49 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzThere's a link to the Old Cardboard website on the main page of this forum that provides valuable information when we're looking for stuff about cards. Here's a link to their gallery of m101-4 and m101-5 backs (although I disagree a little with their order of scarcity): <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/m/m101-4/backs-gallery.asp" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/m/m101-4/backs-gallery.asp</a>

Archive

03-13-2006, 10:56 AM

Posted By: jay behrensJason, the change from 1915 to 1916 didn't just happen because SCD felt like changing the date. A lot of detailed research went into proving it. Now, how about providing some detailed research to back up your claim. I enjoy shooting my mouth off here, but I will never pass along bad information, especially when I can double check the info with the search function before posting. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

03-13-2006, 11:42 AM

Posted By: PaulBob Lemke has recently written an article showing that there were three print runs, not two. So the sets could be labelled M101-5A, M101-5B, and M101-4. However, the first two print runs (5A and 5B) are so similar that he is leaving them under a single designation, M101-5. The first print run (5A) includes cards of Bobby Wallace and Beals Becker, who are not in the second or third print runs. I believe Bob found a few more changes between the two print runs, but not nearly as many differences as between M101-5 and M101-4. If these differences had been noticed when the ACC was written, this group of sets probably would have been give three separate designations.

Archive

03-13-2006, 12:54 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzPaul, there were likely four print runs--2 in m101-4 as well.

Archive

03-13-2006, 01:00 PM

Posted By: PaulTodd, I'd like to hear more about that. Paul

Archive

03-13-2006, 02:43 PM

Posted By: JasonI did not get my information from the standard. I got it from resources that I thought were experts on these issues. I still do not believe these were all printed in 1916 only. Jason At the end of the day who really cares?

Archive

03-13-2006, 04:12 PM

Posted By: fkwSorry, Your resources/experts had old info. Both M101-4 and M101-5 are now known to be from 1916. Also E135's have recently been changed from 1916 to 1917.

Archive

03-13-2006, 04:23 PM

Posted By: Zach RiceYes, use the search function, you will see why both of these sets are now dated to 1916 not 1915 and 1916. And who cares you ask ? I imagine most anyone who owns a card from this set would like to know what year it was made.

Archive

03-13-2006, 04:33 PM

Posted By: AnonymousI still believe there was a print run in 1915. I just don't think it is that important either way. Someone who dwells on this issue needs to find something more to do with their time. At the end of the day.....is it really that big a deal when the first run was printed?

Archive

03-13-2006, 04:50 PM

Posted By: Zach RiceHere is a thread that may intrest you-<a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1029216286/M101+Sporting+News+Issues+-+New+Twist" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1029216286/M101+Sporting+News+Issues+-+New+Twist</a> BTW where would we be in this hobby with a bunch of people with your attitude saying who cares who year a card was issued, nowhere.

Archive

03-13-2006, 07:18 PM

Posted By: JasonZach- It is not that I care about the hobby, this issue just isn't worth the argument. The only card relavent to wether it was printed in which run is the Ruth anyway. I believe there was a run in 1915. I cannot say for sure because I was not around in 1915. Unless you all were I would be sure you don't know 100% either. jason

Archive

03-13-2006, 08:10 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultznever mind--what's the point?

Archive

03-14-2006, 12:52 AM

Posted By: jay behrensedited for being way too harsh on someone so clueless. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

03-14-2006, 01:05 PM

Posted By: steve fReckon Anger Management does work then.