D350 Standard Biscuit

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>I am very confused on this set of 3 different types and hoping some one can clarify it for me. According to SCD there are 3 sets D350-1 (1916), D350-2 (1917) and D350-3 (1921). All these sets have card numbers on the fronts bottom center. Now here is the thing I don't understand and can't find any reference to it. Mastro has a D350 Standard Biscuit with no card number from 1915.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=71522" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=71522</a><br /><br />Where can I find information on this set. Or if you have the specifics please tell me here.<br /><br />Thanks in advance...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>I viewed that auction a few days ago and immediately said: "That's not a D350 [D350-1]" and just moved on. I assumed it was a D350-2 since it was to big to be a D350-1. I didn't pick up the fact that it did not have a number. <br /><br />Upon reviewing the card now, I believe it is a D350-3 since it indicates: "80 to the set," which corresponds to the D350-3. The "1915" on the flip is a total whiff by SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RC McKenzie</b><p>Bob, I think that is an '80 to the set' type 3 e121 style card. I collect the type 1's but still get them all confused. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>BlackSoxFan</b><p>typo fix - <br /><br />This is the E121 type D350-3 from 1921. It has not been properly cataloged by anyone (myself included - due to shortage of time).<br /><br />Here's the deal:<br />M101 type=D350-1<br />E135 type=D350-2<br />E121 type=D350-3<br /><br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Black Sox Fan<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><a href="http://www.blacksoxfan.com" target="new" border="0"><img src="http://www.blacksoxfan.com/images/art/sig.jpg"></a><br /><a href=mailto:shoelessjoe@blacksoxfan.com?subject=Ne t54>email me</a><br /><a href="http://blog.blacksoxfan.com/" target="_blank">The Black Sox Blog</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lyman</b><p>Yes, there is much confusion about the D350 subsets and I remain among the confused. <br /><br />I've attempted to sort out the three D350 subsets on the Old Cardboard website at <a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/d/d350/d350.asp?cardsetID=994" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/d/d350/d350.asp?cardsetID=994</a>. We include a table with front and back examples for the three subsets and links to other related sets. Please let me know if you disagree or see any errors so I can correct. <br /><br />Thanks, Lyman<br /><br />PS: This set would make a good article for Old Cardboard magazine if anyone wants to volunteer. --LJH

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>Lyman,<br /><br />That is the way I have it as well, SGC threw me off by stating the year being 1915 when it is 1921. You just did that because I checked it out last night and you only had images for 2 cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>I always believed that the production years were 1916, 1917 and 1921. Also, I thought the ACC numbers were in sequential and chronological order (1916=D350-1, 1917=D350-2, 1921=D350-3).<br /><br />I only have the 2006 Standard Catalog but that is the way that Lemke lists them as well. Or should I say: since Lemke lists them that way that is what I believe.<br /><br />I only have one, which is graded by SGC, and they did not list an ACC #. Although it states 1915, I believe, like the M101-5s, the accepted print cycle date is 1916.<br /><br /><img src="http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2859/blfsislerap8.jpg"> <img src="http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2783/blrsislerjg5.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Also Lyman, not to get to technical, but the D350-1 (although your website presently states _D350-2s_ = M101-4s) may be more closely related to the M101-5s than the M101-4s.<br /><br />The Standard Biscuit Sisler above is numbered 166 and identifies him as a Pitcher by the "P" designation, as does the M101-5. The M101-4 of Sisler is numbered 164 and indicates he is a first baseman with the "1st B" designation on the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Cat -<br /><br />Can you send me that Sisler so I can take a closer look at it? Purely for research purposes.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Richard:<br /><br />How about a REALLY big scan instead? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Cat -<br /><br />That's ok. I'll enlarge the back of the sisler for you:<br /><br /><a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/rman444/D350-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>That the D350-1 (akin to M101-4) is the thinnest one (1-5/8"x3"). Looks like Old Carboard has the -1 as the -2. The D350-2 is 2"x3-1/4". Not sure about the -3, but I think it has the same dimensions as the -2 (the larger one).<br /><br />I have 1916 for the -1; 1917 for the -2; and 1921 for the -3.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>correlate to both m101-4 and m101-5, although the latter are more frequently found. And yes, Cobby and/or Cat got the issue dates and relative sizes correct, although I'm still fuzzy on how all these circa 1921 cards were issued.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Lyman</b><p>Thanks to those who have provided input about the D350 Standard Biscuit set--both in this thread and via email. We will be reviewing the Old Cardboard webpage in the near future to make any necessary changes. There seems to be some discrepancy between the listing in Burdick's American Card Catalog and other hobby lists in use today. The ACC listing states:<br /><br />D350--Am. & Nat. League Baseball Stars, Standard Biscuit .... .30 [as in 30 cents!!]<br />1--Large cards (80), 2--1-5/8 x 3 (200) about 1916, B&W<br />Like D352 & 2nd Sporting News series M101-5.<br /><br />From this, the ACC seems clear in classifying the D350-1 as the Large format series and designates 350-2 as the smaller format cards. That is the way they are shown on the OC web page. The ACC does not mention a D350-3 series.<br /><br />There also appears to be a descrepancy between the ACC and some hobby checklists about the set size for the two (three) D350 subsets. We are trying to determine these differences and gain a concensus among interested parties. Based on the concensus, we will make any needed adjustments to the Old Cardboard website in the next week or two.<br /><br />Any additional input or comments about the D350 set (either on or off-line) is most welcome.<br /><br />Thanks again to all who have posted.<br /><br />Lyman <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As we discussed earlier today on the phone I always go back to the ACC first and The Sports Collectors Bible (Sugar) after that for categorizing. To me it's a consistent way of looking at numbering...and lastly I go to the SCD. I feel we should always start at the ACC (Burdick) and move forward since he was the Grandfather of Collecting and started the numbering system. I believe the D350-1 should be the one that has no number and is large as E121 and says "80" on back, as he said. The D350-2 is obviously the M101-5 size and the D350-3 is the other one and uncatalogued by Burdick, which says "200" on back. It has the number on front like E135.....Those are my suggestions and the basis for my thought....best regards<br /><br />edited spelling<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I think Burdick deserves credit for his work, but he screwed up on this one. He has the latest of the three sets with the lowest number, and even if he didn't know about the other set, he got it wrong, assuming chronology is of any importance. Morever, there should probably be four designations, because the "Sporting News" size Standard Biscuit can be found in association with either m101-4 or m101-5. He missed altogether the set that correlates to E135, which is surprising, because that set is not scarce, yet catalogued the unnumbered series of 80 set that may correlate to e121 and is hard to find.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am not disagreeing but this debate has been had before....Unless we redo all of the ACC I am not sure where you stop? How many things are really miscategorized in the ACC? W503 isn't a strip card in it's truest sense....Old Mill Cabinets should have T instead of an H....etc etc....I always go back to Burdick as, even when he is wrong, he is right in my book......Personally I use a lot more W575/xxx than most people too....but hey, that's part of what makes this fun. I try to be as technical to the ACC as I can.... Still sticking to my guns (not that it matters <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>)....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />I would like to scrap the ACC and start over with a more logical scheme for cataloging vintage baseball cards. It is borderline nonsensical that, with respect to the so-called M-101 types, for example, we have a D- designation for Standard Biscuit backs and an H- designation for The Globe backs. And that is not an isolated example. But, like the "qwerty" keyboard, I fear we are stuck with it.