1916 M101-4 The Sporting News Weil Baking Backs

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>I know the weil Baking backs are tough on this set but how tough?<br /><br />I have a nice SGC 40 Cicotte and was wondering if I should trade it for some more common versions.<br /><br />Any thoughts on the value of this card?<br /><br /><br />What is a rarity scale on these backs? I image the black backs are the most common.<br /><br />Thanks as always.<br /><br /><br /><br />James G<br /><br />Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>I'd rate Weil as fairly common, a little scarcer than Sporting News and Standard Biscuit backs, but not nearly as scarce as many of the others. A Cicotte is always a nice card to have, however.<br /><br />Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Based on my experience, Weil backs are actually quite difficult. Around 3x multiplier for a common and 1.5-2x for a HOFer on pricing and quite a bit scarcer than those multipliers for population in reality.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>and others may have found Weils tougher, but I stand by my earlier assertion. Based on my intense(maybe obsessive) accumulation of M101-4s for a few years now, here's my estimate of back scarcity (this is research in progress that I hope will culminate in an article):<br /><br />These rankings pertain only to M101-4; M101-5 is a different kettle of cards.<br /><br />Most common by far: Blank <br /><br />Slightly scarce:<br />Sporting News<br />Standard Biscuit<br />Weil Baking<br /><br />Mildly scarce:<br />Gimbel's<br />The Globe<br />Famous & Barr (very common in M101-5, but a lot less so in M101-4)<br /><br />Somewhat scarce:<br />Herpolshimer<br />Indianapolis Brewing*<br />* The availability of the Indianapolis Brewing back has recently been raised by the appearance of a complete set in very low grade. I believe this is somewhat misleading, and that in terms of the number of copies per player, this back may be as scarce as some of the ones below. <br /><br />These seven backs, listed alphabetically, are all extremely scarce. Nobody really knows which is the toughest, because the reported numbers are so small that it’s difficult to study them: <br />Altoona Tribune<br />Block & Kuhl<br />Burgess-Nash<br />Everybody's<br />Green/Joyce<br />Morehouse Baking<br />Ware's Basement<br /><br />Almost never seen:<br />Mall Theater<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As you know I also have a keen interest in these and have followed them for several years. I think you are pretty darn close....However, right now, I put the Everybody's and Holmes to Homes as #1 and #2 in scarcity, respectively..I have actually seen 2x-3x more Mall's than these other two....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>I agree with you on Holmes to Homes, but they are only found on M101-5s, right? So I didn't include H2H in my post above. They are the toughest back of the -5s, with Successful Farming next.<br /><br />In M101-4, I'm inclined to think that Everybody's may be as tough as the Mall Theater, as you suggest. Though I think I have seen a couple more of them than of Malls... But we are working with such small samples (like, in the single digits) that it's hard to draw really solid conclusions.<br /><br />Tim<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>Thanks for the responses. So is the M101-4 set eaiser to assemble then the M101-5?<br /><br />It seems like both these issues are close but the rarity of the backs vary from issue to issue.<br /><br />I like these damn cards but between the two sets and all the backs it seems damn tough to complete a set with all the same backs.<br /><br />Is this something that is even feasable ro should I just worry about the set and not the backs?<br /><br />In the limited searches I have done it seems these cards sell for well about guide, what should a soild VG M101-4 Cicotte with a Weil back go for?<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />James Gallo <br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Just a SWAG guess but whatever a Cicotte with a common back would go for, you might add about 1.5x to 2x value to it....again, just a guess...On any given day a Black Sox collector could go wild over it (well, there would have to be 2 to go wild if in an auction).....otherwise, I only collect backs and believe I have the only complete back set with the 3 Gimbels variations. If I were going for the set I would not include the backs in the endeavor...The M101-4's are more common than the -5's......Hope this might help you with your decision making...I think these cards are undervalued compared to some other series....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>than others

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>I only own a few examples from this set. After reading this post I realized that one of my cards might not be a M101-4 but rather a M101-5. I always assumed that it was a -4 because that it was how it was sold to me. It is one of the 30 that has the same number in both sets. Any guesses? M101-4 or M101-5?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1169341633.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>m101-5

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>Ok so how the hell do you know the difference in the sets. Beyond the number. So for the 30 cards with the same number how would you know which set it is from?<br /><br />James Gallo<br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>For the cards that have the same number in both sets, it can be very hard to tell. With a blank back, there's really no way to distinguish them. This has led to some controversy over how you identify an M101-5 Babe Ruth "Rookie" card, but since I can't afford that type of card I haven't paid close attention to it. <br /><br />The only way to tell those numbers apart is by the backs. Some backs appear only on M101-4s, some only on M101-5s. But about six of them (blank, Famous, Gimbel's, Herpolshimer, Block & Kuhl, Morehouse, and Standard Biscuit) appear in both sets, so it's anybody's guess. The Famous & Barr backs are reversed relative to the front in each set, so that can usually be spotted. <br /><br />The M101-4s are definitely easier to assemble than -5s. I'd say there might be two -4s for every -5.<br /><br />Tim<br /><br />John-- I think that's an M101-4 based on the orientation of the back compared to the front-- or (Todd, help me out) am I getting those mixed up?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RC McKenzie</b><p>How does the d350-1 designation fit into all of this for the Standard Biscuit backs? For example, I believe I have standard biscuit backs that are not listed in the 2006 scd under, d350-1, m101-4 or m101-5. I have to search thru what I have and will post some more info, #'s etc., on what I have tommorow. I may be confused or mistaken as to how some of my cards are classified. Regards<br /><br /><br />edit to add- I just looked in the 1999 scd and the first 2 cards I just looked at (donovan and shawkey) with standard biscuit backs were the correct number listed as m101-5. I thought those 2 may have been d350-1, but I guess they are m101-5.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>If it looks like an M101-4 or -5, but has a Standard Biscuit back, then it is technically a D-350-1. But most people refer to all of the backs collectively as M101-4 or -5. The cards included in the D-350-1 Standard Biscuit set are almost, but not quite, the same as the cards included in the other sets that are lumped together as M101-4/5. Bobby Wallace and Beals Becker appear in the Standard Biscuit set. As far as I know they do not appear in any M101-4/5 set except the blank back set, and they were pulled from the blank back set very early and replaced with other players. No. 186 Wallace was replaced with No. 186 Wheat, and No. 12 Becker was replaced with No. 12 Boone.<br /><br />I'd like to know if anyone has ever seen a No. 186 Wheat in the Standard Biscuit set. In other words, did Wheat replace Wallace in the Standard Biscuit set, or did someone else replace Wallace, or did Wallace make it all the way through the print run? And the same for Becker and Boone.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RC McKenzie</b><p>Here's one for example that I picked up in a group recently....<br /><br /><img src="http://i17.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/82/18/4cdf_12.JPG"><br /><br /><br />Fournier is at the lower left. The other cards in the lot correspond to m101-5, but #43 in m101-5 according to 1999 scd is Jean Dale and m101-4 is Jake Daubert. So, does that make the Fournier an unc d350-1? <br /><br /><br />edit to add the Marquard in the picture was not part of the lot and is a "The Globe" back # 113

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>I just have this one. What is it??<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1169352512.JPG"> <br /><br />Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RC McKenzie</b><p>Hi, Frank, the 99 scd shows Chapman as #30 in the m101-4 series. Not sure how the Wares were numbered though.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Thanks.<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>is m101-4. Tim, the F&B backs are predominantly oriented bottom to top in m101-5, and top to bottom in m101-4, although neither is absolute.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>The D350-1 Fournier is actually card number 63 not 43. I guess there is damage thats makes it tough to read??? The #63 card would make it a M101-5 style card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RC McKenzie</b><p>Frank, You are probably right, I don't have the cards in hand yet, I'm going from the ebay scans... here is the supersize pic from the ebay seller...<br /><br /><img src="http://i17.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/82/18/4cdf_3.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RC McKenzie</b><p>This lot arrived in the mail today and the Fournier is clearly #63 as Frank stated. I guess I need new glasses. regards