[nolemmings]

Rats60,

I don’t care how long you’ve been in the hobby, it’s clear to me you know nothing of m101s. Comparing these cards to unlicensed sets such as Broder’s or, as you did in an earlier post, SSPC, shows you have a lot to learn.

I'll start with number 4. I've seen a pack of cigarettes that contained 3 t206s. So you are wrong.

Ooh, you sure showed me. After you claimed that one could not buy a pack of m101s, I pointed out one could not buy a pack of T206s either, rather they were available 1 or 2 at a time in cig packs. The fact that you know of situations where a cig pack contained 3 changes nothing, Sherlock.

To #1. M101-4/5 has never been called a rookie until the last 10-12 years. I've been in this hobby for almost 50 years. I asked a dealer yesterday about that card, someone I've been buying cards from since the 70s, and he confirmed this. The card doesn't fit the definition of rookie. These cards were sold as sets, they were repackaged as adverting. In 1999, the card commanded no premium over other Ruth cards.

Read my post to Jay above concerning the confusion about rookie card classifications. What’s ironic is for a guy who pisses and moans about the rookie craze and dealer manipulation of the market, you sure seem to claim to be the sole arbiter of what defines a rookie card, when most everyone else here recognizes that the issue is at least debatable.

By the way, if not m101-5/4, what is Ruth’s rookie? If you say the Baltimore News, tell me how “widely distributed” that set was? What, within a 200 mile radius of Baltimore? Show me “proof” that individual cards were wrapped in the newspaper, and/or that the cards were not available as a set, since those seem to be critical to your analysis.

As for 2 [that the Sporting News was sold nationally]& 3[that the cards were available individually and in groups of twenty], those statements require proof. 118 M101-4 on ebay, less than a set, tell me that these were not widely distributed, just printed up by a guy in Chicago. That doesn't seem any different than what a guy named Border did in the 1980s.

Really, I need to prove that the Sporting News actually was distributed nationwide? Why don’t you show us any anyplace in the country where it was not received. There were questions posed in the weekly issues by subscribers from all over the country–do you suppose they just might take the paper to read the responses or that they just asked the questions for the hell of it?

As for the others, I should have to prove that they were sold as expressed on the backs and not just in sets? Again, prove that they were not. Holmes to Homes and Morehouse Baking have been found with cancellation stamps on the back, do you suppose that might show they were part of a product redemption promotion? Newspaper advertisements for the cards have been shown in this forum from Texas and Pennsylvania, showing the cards were given out in groups of twenty. That’s not proof?

At most times, there are as many m101s available on ebay as there are Cracker Jacks and yes, less than a set. This makes them obscure and not widely distributed? So Cracker Jacks cannot have rookie cards either? BTW, they too were available as sets in 1915, so is that set disqualified from having rookies? Also, if you picked E135 as the Ruth rookie, you know of course that you are one year later than m101, and that these cards were distributed almost exclusively in certain regions only --the West Coast (Standard Biscuit and Collins- McCarthy), Louisiana (Weil Baking), and Illinois (Boston Store). Any proof that these cards were available in Florida or New England? Finally, there are far more m101s available at any time than E135 or the caramel sets from the early 1920's. Are these latter sets thus excluded from having rookie cards too?

You are welcome to your opinion, uninformed as it is, especially as to what card is the most overrated. But since your comments are at least borderline condescending and more importantly false, they cannot go unchallenged.