Ok so something has been bothering me....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>So I have recently been chasing the Boston Store set but have also been looking into a lot of the M1014-5 cards as well as things line the Globe backs, Weil Baking and all the others.<br /><br />So since it seems all these are now thought to be issued in 1916 what does that do to the Ruth card? Does every one of these sets and backs now qualify as a Ruth Rookie card.<br /><br />Do you think someone would prefer one of the other?<br /><br />So with 21 different M1014-5 backs, Plus Globe, Weil Baking, Collins-McCarthy and Boston Store where does that leave us?<br /><br />I know there isn't a ton of good solid information on the M101 sets and that things are still developing, but going under the assumption that the cards are nearly identical except for the back and issued in the same year, then shouldn't they all be rookies especialy since they all share the same photo?<br /><br />Thoughts? Any if anyone wants to share some pictures that would be nice too <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Maybe throw the Jackson in for fun too.<br /><br />James G<br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>1. 1916 M101-5 and affiliated sets<br />2. 1916 M101-4 <br />3. 1917 E135 Collins McCarthy, Boston Store, Weil, and Standard Biscuit<br /><br />The M101-5/4 Babe Ruth cards were issued in the same year 1916 and can be considered his rookie. The E135 Babe Ruth card was issued one year later in 1917.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Dont forget the extremely super duper rare 1917 D-Unc. Merchants Bakery back. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><img src=http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1917merchantsruth.jpg> <img src=http://centuryoldcards.com/images/1917merchantsruthb.jpg><br />card is not mine, just a saved scan. I helped sell the card about 2 years ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>That certainly is a nice card, fkw. I'd not seen that before. Thanks for posting.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Nice card Frank.....that is only the 3rd one, including this one, that I have seen.... Mayer played with Phili Nationals from 1912-1918....<br /><br />Back to topic....Most likely the M101-4/5 series should be considered his major league rookie card...<br /><br /><img src="http://luckeycards.com/pe135sunrize.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat (ret.)</b><p>Collecting the Boston Store set is a tall order and I wish you luck. There are 3 HOF rookies that are all tough (Rice, Heilmann, Hornsby). I still don't have a Hornsby.<br /><br />The M101-5/4 are disctinctly different from the family of Boston Store 801-8, Weil Bakery D350-2, Collins McCarthy E135, or Standard Biscuit D328. The M101-5/4s are shorter and narrower.<br /><br />It does get a bit confusing since there is a Standard Biscuit (D350-1) back which overlaps with the M101-5 checklist (same fronts) and a Weil Baking (D329) back which overlaps with the M101-4 checklist (same fronts). I don't think the Standard Biscuit was produced in the M101-4 print series but I could be wrong.<br /><br />This is one of my favorite cards. It shows the early print cycle (m101-5) indicating him as a pitcher:<br /><br /><img src="http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2758/blfsislersq0.jpg"> <img src="http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7500/blrsislerbo0.jpg"><br /><br /><br />This is my absolute favorite family of cards (still need the Collins McCarthy):<br /><br /><img src="http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5643/bo7fricecx7.jpg"> <img src="http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3255/bo7rricesw7.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5450/bo8friceoi6.jpg"> <img src="http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4320/bo8rriceew9.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/1545/bo9friceuj8.jpg"> <img src="http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3299/bo9rriceet6.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat (ret.)</b><p>PS:<br /><br />Don't pay any attention to the dates on the flips.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Todd and I deal with the Ruth rookie question a little bit in our article, which is about ready to submit to Lyman. I can tell you that there's ironclad evidence that M101-5 was issued before M101-4 (in early 1916, before the E135s), so M101-5 would be the rookie. <br /><br />But since Ruth's number in M101-5 and M101-4 is the same, with many copies, especially blanks, it's extremely difficult to say which set they come from. Which has led to some controversy (although personally I'd be happy with either one <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>Ok so I know the M101-5/4 are disctinctly different from the family of Boston Store 801-8, Weil Bakery D350-2, Collins McCarthy E135, or Standard Biscuit D328, but these cards are all thought to be issued in 1916 and they all have either the same or very close to the same photo.<br /><br />That being said with all the cards being so close why wouldn't they all be considered his major league rookie card. <br /><br />Almost all modern day 1980 to current have more then one RC so why would this be the case with the pre-war cards as well?<br /><br />Are there other players with multiple pre-war RC? Are all those Rice RC?<br /><br />I can't wait to see that article on the m101-4/5s.<br /><br />James <br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat (ret.)</b><p>I think at one point folks did consider the Boston Store, Weil Bakery, Collins McCarthy, and Standard Biscuit to be Ruth rookie cards but as the print dates became further clarified, his rookie has been narrowed down to the m101-5/4.<br /><br />It is clear now that the M101-5/4 were printed in 1916 and the Boston Store et al were in 1917. AGAIN, NEVER MIND THOSE DATES ON THE FLIPS BELOW. Also, don't mind that damn sticker the Mile High put on the Std. Biscuit card.<br /><br />I believe folks have had to concede that both the M101-5 and the M101-4 are Ruth rookies since some backs occur in both print versions and the number (151) is the same on both.<br /><br />Tim and Todd know a lot more about this than I do, but they have said before (to paraphrase): "you'll have to read about it in Old Cardboard."<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2796/bjfruthms0.jpg"> <img src="http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/465/bjrruthxe3.jpg"><br /><br /><br />I had to have this one since it is a confirmed earlier print cycle:<br /><br /><img src="http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4705/bifruthbn4.jpg"> <img src="http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/1074/birruthtz4.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The Sisler Rookie card is an interesting argument. Are both the M101-5 and the M101-4 his rookie cards? It's easy to tell the difference in the print cycles: 1) the numbers are different - 166 in the M101-5 versus 164 in the M101-4; and 2) I personally believe it to be meaningful that the M101-5 designates him as a pitcher (see scan in post above) while the M101-4 declares him as a first baseman " 1B ".<br /><br /><br />All those Rice cards are rookies.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I hate to tell you, but Standard Biscuit backs are found with both m101-5 and m101-4. Still, the toning of your Ruth makes it more probable than not that it is in line with the m101-5 printing, IMHO.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat (ret.)</b><p>Todd:<br /><br />Good Info. I'd like to see the examples if you have them.