uncatalogues Mendelsohn M101 ruth-type

[ls7plus]

I have come across a Babe Ruth card which features the same pose depicted on the classic M101 Ruth Rookie, but is printed on paperboard, rather than cardboard stock. While the photocropping and border is similar to that of the known counterfeits (which I believe I read originated with Larry Fritsch, but were clearly marked "reprints" by Fritsch), an examination of the reprints/counterfeits under magnification (one of which I have for comparison) clearly reveals that the print dot pattern on the reprints/counterfeits to be random, rather than regular and linear, meaning the card was produced by taking a picture of a real card, and a plate made from that picture to actually print the bogus card. On the other hand, the regular and linear print dot pattern which the subject card has, clearly indicates that the card was made from the original plate, albeit cropped differently. This card also has the "rod" which seems to eminate from the Babe's left hip, just as quite a number of known genuine M101 examples do. The printing "Babe Ruth" and "P.--Boston Red Sox" and "151" at the bottom of the card is also made up of straight, unbroken lines in absolutely the proper font and type style, as compared to the counterfeit, which has print comprised of dots. In other words, the subject card appears quite clearly to be a real Mendelsohn circa/type M101 card, except for the lighter stock and different photo cropping and borders. My guess is salesman's sample (lighter weight stock would allow many more to be carred by traveling salesmen making their rounds), or possibly printer's proof.

Can anyone add any insight to the mysterious origins of this card?

Best regards, guys, and look forward to hearing from you.

Larry

[ullmandds]

Do you have any scans?

[ls7plus]

I do not have a flat scanner, Peter, but I'm going to see if Kinko's/Fed Ex will scan it for me. I have had mixed experience with them in the past, with the most recent try resulting in an employee telling me it was now against their policy due to possible copyright infringement. If I can get it scanned, will post here.

Thanks for responding,

Larry

[nolemmings]

Hi Larry,

I too would be interested in seeing a scan; however, I am skeptical that what you have is genuine and period. There are really no known salesman samples, unless you count the mailer that Hank Thomas auctioned through Legendary(?), which contained six attached "cards", none depicting Ruth, and all with a different-styled caption containing no numbers. Moreover, these six were placed so close together side by side that any attempt to cut them into singles would have left extremely narrow borders if not no border at all on at least one side.

There were some of what I call promo cards from Successful Farming that were sold in the last REA auction, but they too were unnumbered, had the full ad on the back and almost certainly emanated from the sponsor itself. Again, no Ruth. There was also the mystery Lajoie card discussed here last March, but that too was unnumbered and used a different font and/or caption.

I doubt that they were a printer's proof either, as it sounds like the card was in all respects finished, down to the font and numbering. Seems unlikely that they would print the final version on something other than the stock they intended to use unless there was a financial reason for doing so, which I do not see here.

Finally, I am naturally suspicious that a heretofore unknown single card emerges of Ruth rather than some common player. Why no Fred Luderus or Carl Weilman? Also, there seems little reason to change the cropping to such a minor degree as apparently exists between your card and the known, genuine m101-4/5, which minor change just so happens to match up well if not perfectly with known reproductions.

I have no problem being wrong on this, as it would add another mystery to Mendelsohn's card-making, but unfortunately I am a natural cynic.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Hi Larry,

I too would be interested in seeing a scan; however, I am skeptical that what you have is genuine and period. There are really no known salesman samples, unless you count the mailer that Hank Thomas auctioned through Legendary(?), which contained six attached "cards", none depicting Ruth, and all with a different-styled caption containing no numbers. Moreover, these six were placed so close together side by side that any attempt to cut them into singles would have left extremely narrow borders if not no border at all on at least one side.

There were some of what I call promo cards from Successful Farming that were sold in the last REA auction, but they too were unnumbered, had the full ad on the back and almost certainly emanated from the sponsor itself. Again, no Ruth. There was also the mystery Lajoie card discussed here last March, but that too was unnumbered and used a different font and/or caption.

I doubt that they were a printer's proof either, as it sounds like the card was in all respects finished, down to the font and numbering. Seems unlikely that they would print the final version on something other than the stock they intended to use unless there was a financial reason for doing so, which I do not see here.

Finally, I am naturally suspicious that a heretofore unknown single card emerges of Ruth rather than some common player. Why no Fred Luderus or Carl Weilman? Also, there seems little reason to change the cropping to such a minor degree as apparently exists between your card and the known, genuine m101-4/5, which minor change just so happens to match up well if not perfectly with known reproductions.

I have no problem being wrong on this, as it would add another mystery to Mendelsohn's card-making, but unfortunately I am a natural cynic.

I am right there with you Todd. I agree with pretty much everything you said. Now, that being said, here is an enlarged M101-4/5 type card (quite a bit bigger than a standard M101-4/5) which we don't really know much about except for what is stamped on it. Even though I am skeptical I am always hopeful too!!

[nolemmings]

Hi Leon,

I've never held one of those, although I have seen the Hofman posted by another board member and thought I had a scan of a third (Cole?). I am leaning against it being a Mendelsohn product, but admit my reasoning is not overly strong.

I suspect that Mendelsohn had a hand in the rather muddy looking M-UNCs or W-Uncs from circa 1915, of which you own a few. We know that he also then produced m101-5/4 the next year, where he was somewhat of a perfectionist changing poses, captions and players to be as current as possible. In 1917 he made at least a prototype of a larger and clearer version of m101, of which three are known. Later that same year he went even larger and gave us the wonderful m101-6s that are nearly all new photos.

My point is that he was always seeking to improve and get both bigger and better with his sets. That card you show, if truly from 1911, would seem to already fit the bill-- it seems at least as advanced as the several Mendelsohn issues that followed. Why regress to smaller, less clear cards, and wait four years to begin doing it if you've already hit upon something you like? I realize this argument is far from infallible and that there may be several explanations, but that's where I am coming from now.

Frankly, the card looks a bit too advanced, if that makes sense, which has always made me wonder if it was produced somewhat period but later, perhaps as a commemorative issue (although there was nothing overly memorable about the 1911 Cubs). Alternatively, perhaps it was not cost effective at the time, and was shelved, although in that event you might think that Mendelsohn would revive it at the proper time rather than trying new and again smaller designs.

Finally, the only true "card" sets I recall from that era with the year of issue stated on the front (except for some E-104) are the Zeenuts, which coincidentally began circulating in 1911 also. Since Zeenuts had ties to Collins-McCarthy and yours almost bears more resemblance to that issue than Mendelsohn's, maybe the same folks are behind your card, although that does not begin to explain how it ended up with a Midwest advertiser, unless it turns out that the E135 cards really started in Chicago as a Boston Store release before heading west. See how all this thinking can get a guy's head messed up?

[sreader3]

Max B. Sheffer.

[Brian Van Horn]

Oh, well. Might as well post mine now that Todd mentioned it:

[ls7plus]

I've had the two cards scanned (the one I am quite positive was printed from the original plate plus the known--and rather obvious-- counterfeit) at Fed Ex/Kinkos and put on a flash drive. I will get them posted just as soon as this rather ignorant computer guy can figure out the process for doing so!!! Let me also make it completely clear from the outset that I am definitely not out to make some money from this card, as it is not for sale and I don't anticipate that it will be at any time in the foreseeable future, for the reasons discussed above and which continue below.

The comment made by Todd above re why Ruth, and not a common player, is a very reasonable one. The answer would also be quite obvious IF--AND THIS IS OF COURSE, A VERY BIG IF--THE CARD IS INDEED A SALESMAN'S SAMPLE. Such a sample would be used by traveling salesmen to promote purchase of the set from Mendelsohn, and it should be superfluous to note that one does not promote a set by employing samples of players [now] like Gerald Laird, or [then] Joe Schmo utility player. We now know that both the M101-4 and 101-5 sets were likely printed in 1916. Ruth at that time was a rising, rapidly emerging young star who had won 18 and lost just 8 in 1915, together with a 2.44 ERA (which was approximately 17% percent BELOW the league average, AS A 20-YEAR-OLD ROOKIE. The entire league batted just .212 against him, and it would be rather naive to think that such a rookie, who seemed to be emerging as one of the top left-handed pitchers in the American League, would not have been just as heralded then as now. Add in the fact that this kid also hit .315 with 4 homeruns (a rather rare event then) IN JUST 42 GAMES AND 92 AT BATS, WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS (with the obvious exception of the rare regional 1914 Baltimore News minor league schedule card), and this new kid could obviously be expected to be quite valuable in helping to sell orders for the Mendelsohn cards to various businesses--he was in fact a sensation, from the start. It is worth mentioning that I have also seen the Jim Thorpe card, with the correct dot pattern, but different borders and photo cropping many years ago, in a PSA holder. Thorpe was not far divorced at that time from his magnificent Olympic victories, and he and this fabulous new kid certainly could have been expected to hype the set by their presence.

I have considerable experience in examining cards through a 16X loupe, which began in the early '90's when I was looking for such cards as '84 Fleer Update Goodens, Pucketts and Clemons, as well as several Eric Lindros cards, which were known to have been counterfeited. The counterfeit cards could be easily spotted by examining the dot patterns of certain portions of the cards, or rather their lack of any regular linear pattern. The same applies to the vast majority of black and white vintage cards, including merely by way of example the W 573's, R 315's, R 316's, 1926-1929 Exhibits with postcard backs, Dietsche postcards and 1947 Tip Top Bread. Examining each legitimate example under strong magnification will reveal the very same regular, linear dot patter which continues right up to, BUT DOES NOT INFRINGE UPON, the point on the card where the photo picture ends. Check some of your old black and whites, and you will see what I mean (note, however, that the 1910 Sepia PC796 is one exception--those cards were obviously made by a different process). Because the Ruth card displays EXACTLY what you would expect to see if indeed it was printed from the original plate, I personally am 100% convinced that it was indeed produced from that plate. Which does not answer the question of exactly when it was produced or for what purpose.

Doug Allen of Legendary was shown this card when I met him in Novi, Michigan several years ago to consign some Frank Thomas game-used items for an upcoming auction. He examined both the subject card and the known counterfeit with regard to their respective dot patterns, and agreed it was indeed "a real card." The counterfeit, as I believe I mentioned, was almost certainly produced by taking a picture of a real card. Such a card, when examined under magnification, reveals an irregular, almost "spore-like" dot pattern, which is not even remotely like one produced from the original printing plate. Thus, this particular Ruth card was certainly not re-screened and produced in that manner (I also examined a counterfeit 1914 Baltimore News Ruth at the 2009 National under 16X, and it displayed the same, irregular, "spore-like" pattern, indicating it had been made by photographing a real card).

As I stated, I am first and foremost a collector who treasures holding the history of the game right in my hands, and not an investor, and while I am certain the card is completely legit, it is just as certainly not for sale. This post was simply made to attempt to gain some knowledge regarding the circumstances of its manufacture, and all comments are greatly appreciated, including those coming from members who are doubtful. You really have to see it in person, under magnification, and compare it to other absolutely legitimate black and white cards from the era to come to the conclusion I have.

Best to all, and I thank you for the foregoing and hopefully continuing comments. You guys are the most knowledgeable group out there!

Larry

[nolemmings]

Larry, best of luck to you, especially since you say you are going to keep the card and not sell it. I will await the scans and look for others with more experience in the photography and printing areas to chime in, although I am handy with a loupe also.

It seems you recognize the leap of faith you are taking in assuming the card was a salesman's sample. First, there are no known instances of Mendelsohn using salesmen, although that hardly settles the matter. Still, his known marketing techniques--a mailer and ads in The Sporting News--cut against your hypothesis. The mailer contained six cards and TSN ads listed 15 players who were promoted and also showed a mockup of one--Derril Pratt. None of these identified Ruth. It seems unlikely Mendelsohn would send his minions out to promote Ruth while never even mentioning him in his other marketing materials.

Also, I cannot agree that a salesman's sample would not include a common player. Although my knowledge of salesman's samples for baseball cards is limited, I believe it routine for them to depict "commoners", as the sales pitch was the design of the card as much if not more than the player selection. In addition, I believe it more likely that during those times promotion would have centered on the recognized and established players, and not what you believe to be a rookie phenom. The Sporting News ads and mailer bear this out, with references to Alexander, Lajoie, Cobb, Johnson, Shoeless and Wagner--again, no mention of Ruth (or the up and comer Sisler for that matter, who would have had a greater Midwest connection for the Chicago-based Mendelsohn).

Finally, you reference a Thorpe you saw some years ago with a different cropping in a PSA holder. There was a Thorpe card as you describe debunked as a fake back in around 2003--a real embarrassment for PSA. Maybe you are thinking of that card.

Again I look forward to the scans, although I do not know if they will be of high enough resolution to adequately note the dot patterns. I still remain skeptical, particularly as you say your card contains the cropped photo known to exist on the fakes (why would he make such a minor change in cropping?) but of course that's just one guy's opinion.