Felix Mendelsohn & M101-4 and M101-5

[cubman1941]

I posted this on the Pre-War topic but thought it might get better traction here.

I know this has been discussed a lot before but is there a general consesus that the M101-4 Sporting News and M101-5 sets are now known as the Felix Mendelsohn set? Disregard the numerous company sets such as Standard Biscuit and Weil Baking. Reason for the question is I am trying to decide if I want to re-do my M101-4 and M101-5 Excel files into one Mendelsohn set with the company sets as a subset. Thanks.

[mrreality68]

I maybe ignorant on this or perhaps responding to early.

To me the M101-4 and M101-5 is still known as the Sporting News set. Even though so many ad backs and even blank backs they are known as the Sporting News

Even though its creator and printer is Felix Mendelsohn. But It was so heavily advertised and distributed by the Sporting News to me it will always be known as that.

When I think of the set known as Felix Mendelsohn I think of the M101-6 set which I have only heard as a Felix Mendelsohn card and nothing else

[cubman1941]

Jeff, thanks. I appreciate your comment and, incidentally, I agree, but am not that knowledgeable. Just going on an old post which I copied from a few years back and just getting around to doing something.

[Rhotchkiss]

I agree with Jeff, M101-4/5 are sporting news (or blank back), and then you have a bunch of different backs with same front as one or both of -4 and -5, such as Gimbels, Successful Farming, Green Joyce, Standard Biscuit, etc.

[BobC]

Though originally referred to by many as the Sporting News M101-6 set, even the Standard Catalog eventually made the correction and change and finally referred to the 119 card set of 4-3/8" X 6-3/8" glossy photos as the 1917-20 Felix Mendelsohn set. I believe these cards are finally properly being referred to solely as Felix Mendelsohn cards as the company's initials appear beneath the copyright on most of the player photos, and unlike the earlier M101-4 and M101-5 cards that were also produced and sold by the Felix Mendelsohn company, this 1917-20 set was not shared and used by any other advertising companies like the M101-4 and M101-5 cards were. Also, the Felix Mendelsohn company prominently advertised and sold this entire set in the Sporting News magazines back in the day, which probably led to the earlier incorrect assumption that this was a Sporting News set as well. But the truth is it was only being sold through the Sporting News magazines, and in actuality was never a Sporting News set itself.

And as others have said, the M101-4 and M101-5 sets, though also produced/printed by Feliz Mendelsohn, were never specifically referred to as Felix Mendelsohn cards. They also are not (or at least should not be) necessarily referred to as Sporting News cards either. Also, though it had previously been thought and listed on catalogs that both M101-4 and M101-5 cards existed with Sporting News backs, it was later on (more recently) determined that M101-5 cards with Sporting News backs likely do not exist after all. So, calling the M101-5 cards Sporting News cards would seem to be completely wrong and inappropriate. The Standard Catalog lists the M101-4 and M101-5 cards as separate, blank back sets. And then the M101-4 Sporting News cards are listed as a separate set, as are many of the other backs/advertisers that also used these same cards, (Gimbels, Famous & Barr, etc.) and listed as their own separate sets. Oh, and the M101-5 cards were actually released and distributed before the M101-4 cards were.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by cubman1941

I posted this on the Pre-War topic but thought it might get better traction here.

I know this has been discussed a lot before but is there a general consesus that the M101-4 Sporting News and M101-5 sets are now known as the Felix Mendelsohn set? Disregard the numerous company sets such as Standard Biscuit and Weil Baking. Reason for the question is I am trying to decide if I want to re-do my M101-4 and M101-5 Excel files into one Mendelsohn set with the company sets as a subset. Thanks.

If your goal is to consolidate or organize the Excel spreadsheet to cover the many 1916 sets that share the same subjects and photographs, I would call them Felix Mendelsohn and then use subsets, and refer to the 1917-20 set as m101-6 or m101-6 Mendelsohn. Felix Mendelsohn not only produced all of them, he almost certainly issued the blank-backs first and directly, so the attribution would have a solid basis.

Sporting News or m101-4/m101-5 are the most prevalent names used in the hobby, although these are not all that satisfactory. TSN is not accurate because the earlier cards known as m101-5 are not related to The Sporting News. Also, The Sporting News was most likely the last of all the advertisers to issue the cards, so it seems a bit counterintuitive to cover all of the cards with that umbrella. M101-4/5 are often used incorrectly by guides and graders to include many advertiser sets that have no ACC number, and yet on the other hand a few advertisers were assigned different ACC numbers for their 1916 cards-- so lumping them all under one or two main ACC numbers is not ideal either. Also, “M” sets are supposed to correlate to publications or publishers as their source, but as we know, very few of the 1916 advertisers were in that business.

I collect these cards extensively, and sometimes struggle with the best way to reference them without confusion. Felix Mendelsohn with subsets seems to work, although that too can get a little muddled when you try and separate them between the earlier (m101-5 like) and later (m101-4 like) sets, and then stop to realize that two of the advertisers (plus blank-backs) issued both sets in full, and a handful of others mixed and matched between the two versions.

[cubman1941]

Bob C. and Todd - I thank you for your information. It was much appreciated. I will go ahead and change my listings to Felix Mendelsohn with various subsets. This may not be the best way but it makes the most sense.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cubman1941

Bob C. and Todd - I thank you for your information. It was much appreciated. I will go ahead and change my listings to Felix Mendelsohn with various subsets. This may not be the best way but it makes the most sense.

Jim,

If possible, see if you can get a hold of a copy of one of the later (mid 2010's) versions of the Krause/SCD Vintage catalogs, you will see the description and layout of these various M101-4 and M101-5 sets as I and Todd discussed. I think the last one they issued was in 2017? Though by no means perfect and covering everything, it is probably the best most overall definitive, up-to-date source for information regarding vintage, especially pre-war, sets out there. Good luck with your project.

[mrreality68]

either way we would love to see some of the photos of the cards that are most special to you.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by cubman1941

Bob C. and Todd - I thank you for your information. It was much appreciated. I will go ahead and change my listings to Felix Mendelsohn with various subsets. This may not be the best way but it makes the most sense.

You might want to call them 1916 Felix Mendelsohn. Not to muddy the waters, but technically Mendelsohn is responsible for the 1917 sets as well. Although nearly all of them have their own ACC designation, Merchant's Bakery and blank-backs do not (it is not accurate to call them E135 blank backs).

[BobC]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

You might want to call them 1916 Felix Mendelsohn. Not to muddy the waters, but technically Mendelsohn is responsible for the 1917 sets as well. Although nearly all of them have their own ACC designation, Merchant's Bakery and blank-backs do not (it is not accurate to call them E135 blank backs).

The 1917-20 Felix Mendelsohn set is easy to differentiate from all the earlier sets due to the size of the cards/photos. They are closer to postcard size, and not the M101-4/M101-5 card sizes. And many of these 1917-20 cards/photos do have the Felix Mendelsohn company initials actually on the cards/photos themselves, unlike the M101-4/M101-5 type card sets that have no indication of being produced/printed by Felix Mendelsohn on them at all. Again, probably a big reason why the 1917-20 photos/cards are now most often referred to as THE Felix Mendelsohn set, but not the earlier issued cards with no Felix Mendelsohn references on them at all. But as already stated, all of these cards/photos were produced/printed by the Felix Mendelsohn company, so referring to them all as Felix Mendelsohn's is not inaccurate.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by BobC

The 1917-20 Felix Mendelsohn set is easy to differentiate from all the earlier sets due to the size of the cards/photos. They are closer to postcard size, and not the M101-4/M101-5 card sizes. And many of these 1917-20 cards/photos do have the Felix Mendelsohn company initials actually on the cards/photos themselves, unlike the M101-4/M101-5 type card sets that have no indication of being produced/printed by Felix Mendelsohn on them at all. Again, probably a big reason why the 1917-20 photos/cards are now most often referred to as THE Felix Mendelsohn set, but not the earlier issued cards with no Felix Mendelsohn references on them at all. But as already stated, all of these cards/photos were produced/printed by the Felix Mendelsohn company, so referring to them all as Felix Mendelsohn's is not inaccurate.

I was referring to what people commonly know as E135 Collins-McCarthy, H801 Boston Store, D328 Weil Baking and D350-2 Standard Biscuit. These 1917 cards all came from Mendelsohn, and so could be listed as 1917 Felix Mendelsohn with subsets if so desired. In that case, though, you would want to differentiate the m101-6 set, which as noted is completely different from the others and had multiple years of production.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I was referring to what people commonly know as E135 Collins-McCarthy, H801 Boston Store, D328 Weil Baking and D350-2 Standard Biscuit. These 1917 cards all came from Mendelsohn, and so could be listed as 1917 Felix Mendelsohn with subsets if so desired. In that case, though, you would want to differentiate the m101-6 set, which as noted is completely different from the others and had multiple years of production.

Sorry then, my bad. When you just mentioned 1917, I thought you might be referring to what was once known as the M101-6 set. See, just shows how confusing these sets can be. LOL

And yes, the M101-6 set is the 1917-20 Felix Mendelsohn larger size set. Definitely different and unique from all the other mentioned sets. I always figured they used the M101-6 reference since at one time it was thought the set was somehow issued by the Sporting News, since that was how these cards/photos were marketed and being sold through the Sporting News magazines. Most of the other M101 set references (such as the M101-1, M101-2, M101-9, etc.) do specifically refer to Sporting News issued sets, and thus the initial confusion and erroneous designation of the 1917-20 Felix Mendelsohn set as an M101-6 Sporting News related set is somewhat understandable and explainable.

Great cards and sets, though often confusing and not always understood as to their origins.

[cubman1941]

Thanks for a great discussion, as always, I learned a lot from our Net54 people.

Jeff, I don't have many but here are a few.

Archer is trimmed and one is Standard Biscut, The Zeider is Herpolsheimer.

[mrreality68]

Love it and thanks for sharing

especially like Jim Vaughn

[cubman1941]

BobC - actually I have a 3rd Edition of SCD Vintage Cards but what got me started on this was something I had printed off and just found it again. OBC Checklist had combined the 1916 M-105 and M-104 sets into one. Then somplace I read a discussion that said this combined list should be named the Mendelsohn set. and listed the combined set as 1916 M-105-M-104 as Sporting News AKA Felix Mendelsohn. So I was trying to find out if this is now the known name or not. I gather the best solution is what has been proposed and that is to list these 1916 Sets as Felix Mendelsohn with a combined checklist and then the other sets such as Famous and Barr, Weil Baking, etc. as subsets.

Boy, I sure do appreciate everone's knowledge.

Jim

Originally Posted by BobC

Jim,

If possible, see if you can get a hold of a copy of one of the later (mid 2010's) versions of the Krause/SCD Vintage catalogs, you will see the description and layout of these various M101-4 and M101-5 sets as I and Todd discussed. I think the last one they issued was in 2017? Though by no means perfect and covering everything, it is probably the best most overall definitive, up-to-date source for information regarding vintage, especially pre-war, sets out there. Good luck with your project.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cubman1941

BobC - actually I have a 3rd Edition of SCD Vintage Cards but what got me started on this was something I had printed off and just found it again. OBC Checklist had combined the 1916 M-105 and M-104 sets into one. Then somplace I read a discussion that said this combined list should be named the Mendelsohn set. and listed the combined set as 1916 M-105-M-104 as Sporting News AKA Felix Mendelsohn. So I was trying to find out if this is now the known name or not. I gather the best solution is what has been proposed and that is to list these 1916 Sets as Felix Mendelsohn with a combined checklist and then the other sets such as Famous and Barr, Weil Baking, etc. as subsets.

Boy, I sure do appreciate everone's knowledge.

Jim

There are later SCD editions as well (I'm looking at the 5th edition right now) that can even have further changes and updates. The OBC site and checklists are very informative, but are not at all as accurate or up to date as the SCD catalogs are, so be careful when relying upon them. For example, go look at the S74 silks on the OBC site listed under their "Others" link. They still show the set as a 1909/10 set, when it has long been determined and known that like the T205 cards they share images with, the S74-1 white version silks did not come out till likely late 1910. And the S74-2 colored version silks definitely did not come out till around mid-1911. Also the S74-1 white silks checklist on the OBC site still lists 92 different silks as existing. But most advanced silk collectors have known for quite a few years now that 5 of the white version silks on that checklist do not actually exist. If you look in your 3rd edition of the Vintage SCD catalog you'll see that the S74-1 white silk numbers 36, 46, 67, 69, and 80 are still listed on the checklist, but with an "Existence now questioned." designation. Trust me, there is no question among advanced and knowledgeable silk collectors that these five white version silks do not exist with an advertising back. Chances are someone in the distant past may have come across similar S74-2 colored version silks of these five different players which were made of a similarly colored material as the S74-1 white version silks, but had significant fraying at the top and bottom so the tobacco brand name and designated factory were gone The mistake was then likely made that these may have been S74-1 white silks without the advertising backs still attached. The truth is that no examples of these five particular silks has ever been found with an advertising back still attached though, and thus the questioned existence designation by the SCD catalogs. There are very likely other OBC set descriptions and checklists that have not been updated and vetted on their site in a long time as well. I tried sending a message about the errors on the S74-1 silk set and checklist to OBC quite a long time (years) ago, but never heard back or saw any corrections or updates, so not sure how much maintenance and updating, if any, they still do to the site. Just an FYI.

If you're looking for more information on other sites about these M101-4/5 cards and sets, you should also check out the Pre-War Cards site (see link below). I have the link taking you right to the page on M cards, so you can cursor down and select the 1916 Sporting News/Mendelsohn M101-4 and Sporting News/Mendelsohn M101-5 sets to look at. You'll see similar information and discussion of the misnomer of calling these Sporting News sets, and how the M101-5 cards were never printed with Sporting News backs at all. They also list many of the other sets that are similar to and share the images on these M101-4/5 cards, so some more info to look at and maybe help you in setting up your files/spreadsheet. Good luck.

https://prewarcards.com/pre-war-card...spublications/

[cubman1941]

Thanks much. Appreciate it and will check the website out.

[cubman1941]

BobC - checked the website out and, boy, is it great. I have bookmarked it. Thanks a lot for steering me to it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cubman1941

BobC - checked the website out and, boy, is it great. I have bookmarked it. Thanks a lot for steering me to it.

No problem Jim, always happy to help out a fellow collector, and discuss stuff like this. PM me if you have any other thoughts/questions. And would love to see what you come up with when you're done creating your files/spreadsheet.

For as much as we know about a lot of these pre-war and other vintage sets, there is an awful lot we still don't know or talk about. That is part of the fun of collecting, along with trying to remember everything you're learned or heard over the years. LOL

Over 25 years ago at a live auction I came across a near set of M101-4 blank back cards, about 95%+ of the set, but almost all of them were trimmed. And no, no big names like Cobb, Ruth, or Wagner. Paid about $1K for the near set, and afterwards kept asking myself, What was I thinking? LOL I foolishly ended up trading away all the trimmed cards (about 4 or 5 weren't trimmed) to a dealer at one of the Nationals back in the 90's in return for some cards he had that I wanted. Don't even remember what the cards were that I traded for now, but have since wished I had kept the trimmed near set. Oh well, live and learn, and never done anything like that since.

[spec]

Cubman,
While you are giving Mendelsohn his due, please rename the BF2 Ferguson set since they, too, are a Mendelsohn product that never had anything to do with the Boston bakery, which used an entirely different array of photos for the felts related to its D381 issue.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by spec

Cubman,
While you are giving Mendelsohn his due, please rename the BF2 Ferguson set since they, too, are a Mendelsohn product that never had anything to do with the Boston bakery, which used an entirely different array of photos for the felts related to its D381 issue.

If they never had anything to do with the Roxbury, Mass. area bakery, then how were they otherwise distributed by Felix Mendelsohn?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by spec

Cubman,
While you are giving Mendelsohn his due, please rename the BF2 Ferguson set since they, too, are a Mendelsohn product that never had anything to do with the Boston bakery, which used an entirely different array of photos for the felts related to its D381 issue.

If they never had anything to do with the Roxbury, Mass. area bakery, then how were they otherwise distributed by Felix Mendelsohn?

[spec]

Originally Posted by BobC

If they never had anything to do with the Roxbury, Mass. area bakery, then how were they otherwise distributed by Felix Mendelsohn?

Mail order through ads in publications.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by spec

Mail order through ads in publications.

So any idea where the thinking they were given away as premiums with the purchase of $0.05 loaves of bread came from then? Or was that possibly in addition to the sale through ads and publications? Also, I thought the BF2 large premium pennants were available after submitting something like 50 bread coupons for one. The reference to bread coupons would seem to indicate that a bakery may very well have been involved in their distribution after all.

I have never heard or seen anywhere that these BF2 pennants, though using the same black and white images from the M101-5 set produced by Felix Mendelsohn, were not then distributed by the Ferguson Bakery company out or Roxbury, Mass. I know the Old Cardboard and Pre-War Cards sites both name and show them as being issued by the Ferguson Bakery company, as do the Krause/SCD catalogs. Are the any sites or other sources that show and provide evidence that these BF2 pennants never had anything to do with the Ferguson Balery company? Would love to see/hear of any you can provide/link to. Thanks.

[nolemmings]

I have not seen any advertising that would show these came from Mendelsohn directly, or from any advertiser for that matter. There is a blotter with Ferguson bakery advertising that has served as the basis used by many to conclude the pennants came from there, and an old thread or two discussed the topic. I don’t believe the pennants shown on the blotter–and also a pillow topper that uses them- prove anything with regard to BF2, because they use the D381-style photos. In fact, I would argue that Ferguson Bakery would not have issued their 100 or so D381 cards in 1916 and then a completely different set of 100 or so BF2 pennants in the same year.

One minor correction, Bob– these use images from m101-4, not m101-5, and from an early printing at that, given the inclusion of the Stanage portrait to waist photo. FWIW, the source photo for the Cobb pennant has always mystified me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I have not seen any advertising that would show these came from Mendelsohn directly, or from any advertiser for that matter. There is a blotter with Ferguson bakery advertising that has served as the basis used by many to conclude the pennants came from there, and an old thread or two discussed the topic. I don’t believe the pennants shown on the blotter–and also a pillow topper that uses them- prove anything with regard to BF2, because they use the D381-style photos. In fact, I would argue that Ferguson Bakery would not have issued their 100 or so D381 cards in 1916 and then a completely different set of 100 or so BF2 pennants in the same year.

One minor correction, Bob– these use images from m101-4, not m101-5, and from an early printing at that, given the inclusion of the Stanage portrait to waist photo. FWIW, the source photo for the Cobb pennant has always mystified me.

Todd,

Thanks for the correction. I remember the M101-5 cards were actually issued before the M101-4 cards, and seem to always end up thinking of them first. LOL These sets have always intrigued me somewhat because they can be so confusing and misunderstood by many. I am by no means an expert on them or the various other distributors using the same images. Have always loved he BF2 pennants though, especially because they are so different and unique as a baseball collectible. And never really thought much before about how many of the BF2 pennants use the same Felix Mendelsohn images from their M101-4 cards.

And even if the images came from Felix Mendelsohn, it isn't necessarily the case that the Felix Mendelsohn company actually produced the BF2 pennants, is it? Could it be that whoever did create the pennants simply acquired the pictures/images from Felix Mendelsohn, and then attached them themselves to the pennants?

[spec]

Thanks to Todd for elaborating on my post. I do not know that BF2s were actually sold by Mendelsohn, though it seems clear Mendelsohn was the source of the photos. I recall seeing ads for the pennants in a national sports publication, but that is based solely on memory of unrelated microfilm sleuthing many years ago. As Todd suggests, the assignment of the Ferguson name to BF2 derives from a Ferguson trade card as well as the coupon on the bottom of D381s that mentions baseball player and movie star pennants as part of an offered pillow top. The pennants on those pillow tops are of a different design than BF2 and use entirely different photographs. I am not knowledgeable about the large individual player pennants often credited to Ferguson. Do they feature photos from the BF2 catalog or D381s?

[Shankweather]

For 1916 M101 sets that used both checklists (-4 and -5), and for those 29 players in the sets that had the same card # in each set, is there any way to differentiate one from the other? Can you tell the difference between an M101-4 Gimbels Babe Adams and an M101-5 Gimbels Babe Adams?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

For 1916 M101 sets that used both checklists (-4 and -5), and for those 29 players in the sets that had the same card # in each set, is there any way to differentiate one from the other? Can you tell the difference between an M101-4 Gimbels Babe Adams and an M101-5 Gimbels Babe Adams?

I will defer to Todd, but the two different issues often have a different "look" to them. For example, the stock on the cards associated with the M101-5 cards generally has a more "creamy" tone to it while the M101-4 stock is whiter.

I believe that Gimbel's are usually associated with the M101-4 set, but there always seem to be some inconsistencies with these issues.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I will defer to Todd, but the two different issues often have a different "look" to them. For example, the stock on the cards associated with the M101-5 cards generally has a more "creamy" tone to it while the M101-4 stock is whiter.

I believe that Gimbel's are usually associated with the M101-4 set, but there always seem to be some inconsistencies with these issues.

Both PSA and SGC have cards from both checklists in their Gimbels pop reports, but M101-4 is definitely the most common. Anson shows Gimbels as one of the sets that uses both checklists on his website.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Both PSA and SGC have cards from both checklists in their Gimbels pop reports, but M101-4 is definitely the most common. Anson shows Gimbels as one of the sets that uses both checklists on his website.

I believe that the only Gimbel's cards that have been found to correspond to the M101-5 set come from the early cards - #s 1-20, but there may have been new finds to refute this.

Also, there are also several different types of Gimbel's backs.

Again, I will defer to Todd or one of the other experts on this issue.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by spec

I am not knowledgeable about the large individual player pennants often credited to Ferguson. Do they feature photos from the BF2 catalog or D381s?

The large individual player pennants mostly feature full body action shots of the players.

They do not correspond to the D381 images, which are mostly portraits.

Some of the images correspond to those on BF2s, but others do not. In fact, a large pennant Donovan exists, but I do not think that he is even known in the BF2 set.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

For 1916 M101 sets that used both checklists (-4 and -5), and for those 29 players in the sets that had the same card # in each set, is there any way to differentiate one from the other? Can you tell the difference between an M101-4 Gimbels Babe Adams and an M101-5 Gimbels Babe Adams?

M101-4 and m101-5 Gimbels cards are readily distinguishable by the fonts used on the backs. The m101-5 Gimbels are only found in card #s 1-20, and have straight block lettering for the store name, while the m101-4s have slanted or italicized looking lettering and can be found with any of the 1-200 card numbers, although low numbers 1-20 are scarce.
The different backs are displayed on Old Cardboard's site: https://www.oldcardboard.com/m/m101-4/backs-gallery.asp
So yes, you can easily tell the difference between the two Babe Adams cards.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

M101-4 and m101-5 Gimbels cards are readily distinguishable by the fonts used on the backs. The m101-5 Gimbels are only found in card #s 1-20, and have straight block lettering for the store name, while the m101-4s have slanted or italicized looking lettering and can be found with any of the 1-200 card numbers, although low numbers 1-20 are scarce.
The different backs are displayed on Old Cardboard's site: https://www.oldcardboard.com/m/m101-4/backs-gallery.asp
So yes, you can easily tell the difference between the two Babe Adams cards.

Thanks for all the info. I love what a mess these sets are, and I also love that you all did all the work already. Gimbels was a bad example because it actually has back variations. What about Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking? Is the cardstock the only way to tell with those?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Thanks for all the info. I love what a mess these sets are, and I also love that you all did all the work already. Gimbels was a bad example because it actually has back variations. What about Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking? Is the cardstock the only way to tell with those?

Those two are extremely difficult to differentiate between m101-4 and m101-5 (I know they have their own “D” designations), especially Morehouse Baking. There are some slight toning differences in the card stock– the whiter stock is usually m101-4 and the more yellowed or creamy stock m101-5. This is particularly true on the card backs, where an almost golden color stock is often seen on the m101-5s for Standard Biscuit. That being said, the coloring falls along a spectrum and the differences can be very subtle. Also, I don’t recall there being noticeable distinctions in thickness or feel of the stock when the card is in hand. So, unless the card appears very white or very non-white, I generally hesitate to be conclusive. This one, for example, is probably m101-5 (technically D350-1-1) but I have no real heartburn calling it m101-4 either (D350-1-2):

[Leon]

Nice conversation, guys.
For some more perspective this is what Burdick had to say, in his 1967 reprint ACC edition. He called them Premium Cards, which I kind of like too.
Otherwise, he didn't have the information we have today.
.