sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>nolemmings (Todd)</b><p>I was looking at my old Beckett #3 last night, released in 1981, and saw that he identified both sporting news m101-4 and m101-5 as being issued in 1916. He/they identified the m101-5 set as essentially a continuation of the previous issue. I always wondered why the earlier issue of 1915 carried a "higher" set identification number. Did Beckett have it wrong 20 years ago or did new information surface? If the latter, what information and when? As always, any info appreciated. <BR>Regards.......Todd

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>I have also always wondered why the 1915 issue was listed as M101-5, while the later 1916 issue had the lower catalog number of M101-6. I hope someone can shed some light on this.

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>Also, the 1916 set is not a continuation of the 1915 set. There are many players that exist in both sets, but there number is different depending on the issue. Both sets were numbered alphbetically, based on the players in the set.

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>It was not Beckett who "numbered" the two Sporting News issues, it was Jefferson Burdick sometime prior to 1960. Might have been as simple as a typographical error or as complex as not having complete sets at the time upon which to base issue dates.

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>nolemmings (Todd)</b><p>I know it was not Beckett who numbered the sets-- I was wondering if back in 1981 there indeed had been a belief that both sets were issued in 1916. <BR>Incidentally, my 1956 reprint copy of Burdick's ACC makes no distinction of the two sets, instead referring only to M5 as "200 small, b&w, The Sporting News". Thus there was not even a distinction of m101-4 and m101-5, at least in my copy. Does anyone know when this designation first stuck?<BR>Finally, I wondered about the values associated for the TSN Ruth cards. As we know, the Ruth cards for both m101-4 and m101-5 are identical in picture and card number. Curiously, my 2000 SCD big book (my newer copies are at home)shows the earlier Ruth, ostensibly his rookie card, being worth less than the 1916 issue. Why is that? Has anyone seen a graded 1916 m101-4 Ruth with a sporting news back? I have seen the "rookie" m101-5, and wondered how the deceision was made to call it an m101-5 and not the other? Thoughts?<BR>Regards......Todd

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Whomever sends a Ruth m101-4 or -5 in gets to say what it is. I understand this is the way it is done. Would you rather have his rookie or 2nd year? Not being sarcastic as I have brought this up many times and that is always the answer I get....regards

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>And I recently noticed that it's identical to the other one--whatever that is.<BR><BR>Speaking of higher prices, why are some of the 1915 Cracker jacks more expensive than the 1914? Everyone knows the '14s were packed with the carmelcorn, and that you could get the '15s from Cracker Jack headquarters (though some were still packed with the candy). But look at the Cicotte--double the price for 1915! Gandil. I'm not about to get my 2002 guide out, but there're several. It doesn't make any sense.

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>The reason that 1915 Cracker Jack's are worth more than their 1914 counterparts is precisely because they are easier to find.<BR><BR>The 1914's are so hard to find at all, not to mention in high grade, that most advanced/deep-pocketed set collectors avoid the set. On the other hand, building a high grade 1915 CJ set is a function of money more than anything else -- if you have enough, you can put together an overall NM/MT set with enough time and money.<BR><BR>1914's are just so hard overall that they are ignored. Thus, the demand is not there, and the money flocks to the 1915s. There are a lot of vintage issues for which this sort of paradigm applies (e.g. easier to find sets are worth more simply because they are more widely collected)

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>...

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>that's why some of the weirda** issues that I love are not more expensive than they are <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ie....... E123 Curtis Ireland, Holsum Bread, George H Ruth Candy, Rogers Peet, etc.....thank goodness.....regards

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>lol

sporting news question
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>if they are prewar and have baseball dudes.....I do have a nice orange border....not sure which candy box they came from.......and a Lections ??....and some other crap.....