Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   More m101-4/5 minutiae (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=257221)

nolemmings 07-07-2018 04:45 PM

More m101-4/5 minutiae
 
Felix Mendelsohn changed seven photos from m101-5 to m101-4, so as to correct the captioned subjects. To my knowledge, only one of the m101-5 players has remained unidentified(although I reserve judgment on Strunk)– the player who is supposed to be Ray Fisher. Many checklists do not recognize that there are two different players shown, but on every other card where Mendelsohn changed the photo he corrected an error. Also, while the m101-5 shot partially obscures the subject’s face, so does its replacement, so I doubt Mendelsohn made the change simply looking for a better picture. Here are the two cards, with m101-5 on the left:
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...e/fisherx2.jpg
I believe that the first photo depicts Russ Ford, who was Fisher’s New York teammate in 1910. That was the only season when both played for New York where the team would have worn dark hats and plain uniforms. Although the below enlargement of the m101-5 card is blurry, it sure looks like me to be Ford, whose black and white photo and t205 card are shown for comparison.
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...e/fordtrio.jpg
I am willing to listen to alternative explanations, but for now am satisfied with the ID---I know how this has kept so many of you up nights :)

timn1 07-08-2018 01:45 AM

Convincing!
 
Todd,
I think you’re right based on those photos. Looks like Russ Ford. Nice work!

Tim

Luke 07-08-2018 11:58 AM

When I saw your blown up scan, I thought Russ Ford immediately as well. Nice work!

Leon 07-08-2018 05:23 PM

Thanks for sharing your research, Todd. Well done.

brianp-beme 07-08-2018 06:37 PM

Definitely looks like Ford to me...nice research. By the way, what is the deal with the Strunk card that you hinted at?

Brian

nolemmings 07-08-2018 11:09 PM

Thanks guys
 
Good to know I'm not alone on this ID. Brian, the Strunk card in question is the m101-5, shown here on the left and next to the m101-4 corrected photo. Many believe it to depict Olaf Henriksen, but I am not yet fully convinced. I have no alternatives, but something just looks a skosh off to me.
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover.../huge/amos.jpg

t213 07-10-2018 03:22 PM

Todd,
Who are the seven players with changed photos?
Thanks,
Andy

nolemmings 07-10-2018 03:31 PM

Andy,

The seven corrected photos depict:

1) Ray Fisher (m101-5 shows Ford)
2) Ed Murphy (m101-5 shows Danny Murphy)
3) Roger Peckinpaugh (m101-5 shows Gavvy Cravath)
4) Bob Shawkey (m101-5 shows Stuffy McInnis)
5) Amos Strunk (m101-5 shows Henriksen?)
6) Oscar Stanage (m101-5 shows Boss Schmidt) and
7) Clarence Walker (m101-5 shows Ernie Walker)

Leon 07-11-2018 01:25 PM

Not sure if this adds, is found now to be incorrect, or helps validate anything, but I was going through some early Trader Speaks for sale and saw this article. I am hungry and going to lunch but thought I would post it on my way out of the door. Good stuff, Todd et al..This is from The Trader Speaks May 1972...and a letter I had no idea i had until a few minutes ago :)....stuck in the copy.

http://luckeycards.com/m101x.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/m101y.jpg
http://luckeycards.com/note.jpg

nolemmings 07-11-2018 08:31 PM

very nice
 
Wow, thanks Leon. There’s a lot to unpack there, but I do see where Buck Barker notes the seven photo changes, even though he incorrectly states they represent different photos of the same player.

He should not feel bad about not wandering into the F&B store as a four year-old in the Fall of 1915, as the cards would not have been there at that time anyway. I feel a bit sad he regrets that his parents found him–must have been a tough childhood :)

Curiously, Barker reports that as of 1971, the M101-4 and M101-5 cards had no set identification and were blank-backed. He states that these were not checklisted until Orem did so in the 1950s. He does quote an ad from TSN in October 1916, but stumbles in his logic, for he says this stood as “proof” that m101-5 was issued in 1916– the numbers of the players available in the ad match up with the same numbers from m101-5--yet elsewhere he claims that m101-5 was issued in 1915 and m101-4 the following year. In any event, I still find it odd that the two Mendelsohn-issued cards with advertising that are now most commonly found–Sporting New and Famous & Barr, were either unknown or just discovered as of 1971, while some of the others had been known for more than a decade (three decades in the case of Standard Biscuit).

Barker says it’s a “funny thing” that Sporting News ignored the Federal League but used photos of players in their Fed uniforms, many of whom he identifies. What I find “funny” (in the peculiar sense) is that if Barker would have been paying attention, he would have noticed that several of these players were captioned with teams they did not join until 1916–after the Fed league folded and the reason why there were no Fed players–and that therefore there was no set from 1915 as he had claimed.

There are a couple more nuggets in this article, and I appreciate your finding and posting it.

Leon 07-11-2018 09:00 PM

Hey Todd
You have done a yeoman's job on the subject. The least I can try to do is help a little since I collect vintage hobby periodicals. letters etc... (as many others do). I believe David K (hey David) has the ACC supplements and maybe one I don't have too. I can check and think I have the ACC supplements for '40, '41, '42 and '44. I also dug up a an official looking Checklists from Card Collectors Bulletin circa 1942. It's a small, brown crumbling manual. I need to look through it some more but at least I found definitively where the Hustler T206 mistake started. I won't divert this thread and leave it for another.
But I will check any of those supplements if need be and also the rest of these checklists in the booklet....I just need some more time to go over it adn some other stuff....
ps...it does seem Barker was winging it a bit?


Quote:

Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1794189)
Wow, thanks Leon. There’s a lot to unpack there, but I do see where Buck Barker notes the seven photo changes, even though he incorrectly states they represent different photos of the same player.

He should not feel bad about not wandering into the F&B store as a four year-old in the Fall of 1915, as the cards would not have been there at that time anyway. I feel a bit sad he regrets that his parents found him–must have been a tough childhood :)

Curiously, Barker reports that as of 1971, the M101-4 and M101-5 cards had no set identification and were blank-backed. He states that these were not checklisted until Orem did so in the 1950s. He does quote an ad from TSN in October 1916, but stumbles in his logic, for he says this stood as “proof” that m101-5 was issued in 1916– the numbers of the players available in the ad match up with the same numbers from m101-5--yet elsewhere he claims that m101-5 was issued in 1915 and m101-4 the following year. In any event, I still find it odd that the two Mendelsohn-issued cards with advertising that are now most commonly found–Sporting New and Famous & Barr, were either unknown or just discovered as of 1971, while some of the others had been known for more than decade (three decades in the case of Standard Biscuit).

Barker says it’s a “funny thing” that Sporting News ignored the Federal League but used photos of players in their Fed uniforms, many of whom he identifies. What I find “funny” (in the peculiar sense) is that if Barker would have been paying attention, he would have noticed that several of these players were captioned with teams they did not join until 1916–after the Fed league folded and the reason why there were no Fed players–and that therefore there was no set from 1915 as he had claimed.

There are a couple more nuggets in this article, and I appreciate your finding and posting it.


nolemmings 07-12-2018 10:46 AM

Quote:

ps...it does seem Barker was winging it a bit?
I probably shouldn't be too harsh on 'Ol Buck, who gave so much to the hobby. Reporting new findings can be exciting, but is oftentimes the product of incomplete information and inaccurate assumptions. At least we know he was passionate in his collecting:
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...14shotton2.jpg

Leon 07-23-2018 07:04 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Up in the air on Olaf too. This little picture (below) is Olaf from Wiki...

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1793354)
Good to know I'm not alone on this ID. Brian, the Strunk card in question is the m101-5, shown here on the left and next to the m101-4 corrected photo. Many believe it to depict Olaf Henriksen, but I am not yet fully convinced. I have no alternatives, but something just looks a skosh off to me.
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover.../huge/amos.jpg


spec 07-23-2018 08:33 PM

Another possibility
 
The erroneous Strunk looks a lot like Dutch Leonard, Red Sox LHP, to me.

brianp-beme 07-23-2018 09:30 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by spec (Post 1797481)
The erroneous Strunk looks a lot like Dutch Leonard, Red Sox LHP, to me.

Here's a couple of Dutch's Wikipedia photos...what do you folks think?

Brian

Baseball Rarities 07-23-2018 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianp-beme (Post 1797507)
Here's Dutch's Wikipedia photo...what do you folks think?

Yes, looks like Leonard to me.

brianp-beme 07-23-2018 11:35 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Another photo of the Dutch man.

Brian


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:58 AM.