Should MELLO-MINT's be classified as an "R" set ?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have a few of these pretty gems; but, not enough to tempt me to put together this set.<br />With only 50 cards in this set....maybe all us Net54ers can pool our scans together....and, <br />complete a "virtual" set on this thread. I'll start this E105 Gallery with my Chance.<br /><br />So, come on gang....show off your Mellow-Mints<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/amellomint_chance.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/bkmellomintchance.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />Thanks for responding,<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am always good for 1!!<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216153938.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p><img src="http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/7677/e106gibsonag5.jpg"> <img src="http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2585/e106gibsonbackcf0.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>Mooney Gibson was from my hometown of London, Ontario. After all these years, still the best ballplayer to come out of our town of 450,000. It was less than 1/10th the size back when George was with the 1909 Pirates. In London, we call him "Mooney", but the encyclopedias list him as "Moon". He seemed to prefer his birth name, though, as he would only ever sign "Geo. Gibson" in a beautifully-flowing hand:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216156468.JPG"><br /><br /><br />Edited to add a few thoughts:<br /><br />As many of you already know, Gibson was also originally interviewed by Larry Ritter for his wonderful "Glory of Their Times" project. I don't know why, but his chapter was not originally included in the publication of that book. It did, however appear in later editions, along with a couple of other players excluded from the first edition. <br /><br />I had the pleasure of interviewing a few real old-timers who were managed by Gibson in the early 1930's. Howdy Groskloss told me that Gibson was a "backwards" man with little education and even less patience for rookie players. He preferred the tutelage of Jewel Ens, who he said was much more kind-hearted. Ben Sankey, however, said that he enjoyed playing under Gibson.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/zouraspm/bemisf.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/zouraspm/bemisb.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/kingyao/e92otherbacks/websize/E105BarryJackSGC20.jpg"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/kingyao/e92otherbacks/websize/E105BarryJackSGC20Back.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/frontsbacks/small/MMint%20Cobb.JPG"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/frontsbacks/small/MMint%20Cobb%20back.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Thanks everyone, we now have 6 pictures. And, 44 more to go, to complete this set.<br /><br />Come on guys and gals, I know these are tough. But, there has to be many more E105's<br /> in Net54er's collections ?<br /><br />You know what people....looking at a seldom seen Mellow-Mint....has to be more exciting<br /> than bashing Mr. Mint ? ?<br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>This Matty sold in the last REA:<br /><img src="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2008images/Item_10089_1.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Since you guys are "Slow to Show" your Mello-Mints....here is my Dooin......<br /><br />OK, people we have 8 of the 50 cards in this set....42 to go. Let's see some more ?<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/amellomintdooin.jpg"><br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott M.</b><p>Heres my lone type...<br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~jillmay5/baseball/Type/E105_Hartsel_Front.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p</b><p>My only E105 is a Hartsell, which was just posted, so no low-grade show and tell.<br /><br />Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Same one everyone else has..LOL<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/ebay/websize/e105.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob D.</b><p>I know Leon already posted his Lajoie, but this is a (very) recent pick-up that I like a lot, so ...<br /><br /><img src="http://members.aol.com/wolfie51sb/mellolajoie.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>My one and only. . . <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1216236615.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Rivera</b><p>I have the same one as Scott M. -Hartsel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Bruce,<br />That Cobb is awesome!<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>wow Bruce iszall I can say. Greg has one and the both of you are very lucky .AT one time I was missing the Matty - Wags batting-Cobb for the set. Brian or Greg has 2 really nice Benders in 5's.<br /><br />Man do i miss those cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Here we are 28 hours into this Thread and only 11 different E105 Subjects....I don't think<br />that we are going to complete this set this week....or perhaps never ! ?<br /><br />We have had some really sharp looking cards on display here; but, they don't have to be.<br /> Any condition will do....let's try to get the remaining 39 more Subjects. After all, this set<br /> of cards is not one you will find depicted in any Grading Co's Registry gallery.<br /><br />Incidently, my favorites in this set are the very colorful and artistic action depictions.....<br />what's your favorite ?<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/frontsbacks/small/MMint%20Wagner.JPG"> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/frontsbacks/small/MMint%20Wagner%20back.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>BRUCE B<br /><br />Thanks for the scan of your Wagner.<br /><br />And my Hal Chase, now brings us to a "lucky 13" different cards....only 37 more Mello-Mint's to go.<br /><br />Well, we have only 26% of this set in our Gallery......anymore out there ?<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/amellowmintchase.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/bkmellomintchase.jpg"><br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>chiprop</b><p>Super tough! I have never seen another Wagner throwing, but I have been told there is at least one other.<br /><br /><a href="http://s68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/?action=view¤t=WagnerMelloPSA.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/WagnerMelloPSA.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Here's my only Mello Mint...<br /><br /><img src="http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/greatwake/MelloMint.jpg"><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>S Gross</b><p>Wish I could contribute ............ but ............. I sold my only MM a while ago. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> !<br /><br />I did notice something "odd" however: Of all the images shown so far, NONE have the "vertical packaging crease" Mello's were "supposed" to have.<br /><br /><br /><br />((((The one I owned [Schlei] did have "the" crease.))))

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>FRANK W and chiprop....thanks for your inputs....we are now at the 30% mark in our Gallery.<br /><br />Let's see some more of your E105's ?<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>One of my favorite Mello-Mint action pix....new Gallery total = 16 cards <br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.oldcardboard.com/e/e1/e105/e105.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>By ACC standards, isn't this MELLO-MINT set actually one of the first "R" sets ? <br /><br />Why didn't Burdick classify these cards as an "R" set ? Me-thinks this is another case like the 1910 Coupon cards'<br /> debate, where Burdick got it wrong. I understand that the E105's are "copycats" of the E101 and E102 sets; and<br />I'm sure the E105's were printed in Pennsylvania....where most of the E-type (and T216) cards were produced.<br /><br />Furthermore, due to the E105's timeline and similarity to its E-cousins, Burdick probably "fudged" this set (excuse<br /> the pun) into the confectionary category. But, there is really no debate here....these are GUM cards.<br /><br />I'm wondering if any one else has ever raised this question ? ?<br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Ted, <br />Great insight--and it's after 3 in the morning where you are!!!<br />Burdick got it wrong; you are correct.<br />Now we have another reason to get that volume going which will 'update' Burdick's<br />seminal work!<br /><br />best,<br />barry

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Hi Ted,<br />I wish I could add scans but I no longer own an MM cards.<br /><br />To answer your question, "R" is for 1930+ Candy/Gum issues.<br /><br />The only set that I know of that is an "E" set that should be an "R" set is the 1933 E285 Rittenhouse Candy set.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>"I did notice something "odd" however: Of all the images shown so far, NONE have the "vertical packaging crease" Mello's were "supposed" to have."<br /><br />My Jack Barry SGC 20 has the vertical crease.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Add to the list of shoulda been an R the E282 Oh Boy Gum movie set. Going by the dates of the movies in the set, the set was very likely a 1930 issue. Most of the films with known cards were 1929 releases. The latest film release date I've found is for Welcome Danger, which released October 12, 1929. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>The answer, Ted, is yes.<br /><br />And Colgan's Chips are gum, too. so if E105s receive a new designation, then E254s and E270s should, also. And when that is done E270s should be split into separate designations for 'TinTops' and red borders.<br /><br />All of that could be accomplished if 'we' get together and publish a "Revised Catalog of North American Baseball Cards" or a "Revised American Card Catalog". Maybe "Revised Catalog of North American Baseball Cards, 1869 to 1975" would be best, that would get your mini cards in there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ed Hans</b><p>So are we also going to move the E92 Dockmans over to the "R" side? I always thought that the "E" designation stood for "early candy and gum" and the "R" was reserved post 1932 gum cards. On that basis, we should move the Rittenhouse cards to "R", but I personally would like to see the early candy AND gum cards remain as "E"s.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I agree with Frank Ward......until Mello Mint becomes dated 1930 or later they need to stay as an E card......<br /><br />Ted- you are so enthusiastic about changing the ACC why don't you just go the route Bert Sugar did and write your own catalogue? Then you will be happy......Heck, I have no issue with a new catalog but changing the ACC will never happen and shouldn't imo). It has/had many mistakes but it's just not going to change, and for that I am happy......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>My Bridwell in the above scan has been folded....I have enlarged the scan and denoted the fold line.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/bridwellmellomintfold.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have no real interest in changing the ACC, as I do no have the expertise of a Burdick.<br /><br />Having said that....there are three categories that I can say I have sufficient expertise<br /> to challenge Burdick's classification of......<br /><br />19th Century<br /><br />Goodwin Champions (N162) is an 1889 issue....not an 1888.<br /><br /><br />20th Century (Pre-WWII)<br /><br />1910 COUPON is a T206 issue....not a T213.<br /><br /><br />20th Century (Post-WWII)<br /><br />1949 LEAF BB is a 1949 issue, PERIOD....not a 1948-1949.<br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I agree with most of your suggestions/statements.....though I am the lone hold out on the T213-1's....Burdick was a genius in getting as much correct as he did. I have been going over old hobby publications the last few days....What we learn in 1 day on Net54 could have taken years in snail mail....Can you imagine?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Here is CYoung......# 17 in our Gallery.<br /><br />We have only 1/3rd of this set on display here....I would like to think we can do better than that ?<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/cyoungmm.jpg"><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/bkmellomintchase.jpg"><br /><br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>We lost the Wagner (throwing) scan....so, I'll show my E90-1 Wagner to maintain the pix in this Gallery.<br />The E90 is the identical artwork.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/e90wagnerfranknagy.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />Hey Net54er's....how about a few more Mello-Mint scans ?<br /><br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"To answer your question, "R" is for 1930+ Candy/Gum issues."<br /><br />For as thorough as Burdick was, how did he decide to simply ignore all Candy and Gum issues from 1900 to 1929? It is not like Mello Mint was questionable in any way on how it was distributed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>E cards may have been distro'd in packaging that allowed the purchaser to sight the card vs. R cards that were theoretically sealed up in an opaque wrapper. Also, E card dimensions are closer to T cards and 30's R's are closer still to the modern dimensions.