Those M114's - When Are We Going To Talk About Them?

[h2oya311]

Alan - According to your article, would the following be from 1954+ and be pretty rare? I had always assumed it was from 1941 (I believe the image is), but it has the Washington address on it:



Here are a few of my other HOFers (presumably rookie images/issues for each):

[T206Jim]

M113's frame up quite nicely.

M113-Bender-framed-web.jpg

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Here are a few of my other HOFers (presumably rookie images/issues for each):

Hi Derek - I like that Cuyler, mine is pretty beat up.

Your post brings up an issue that Alan touched on when he said "SCD Standard Catalogue, which is a good checklist but not a great checklist"

Joe Gordon is listed in SCD as having two posters, one in 1938 (presumably with the Yankees) the other in 1947 (presumably with the Indians), but here is a second Yankees pose.

Also, I don't know of a second pose from Burleigh Grimes, but I believe this printing is earlier than the one you posted (although I could be wrong).

[h2oya311]

Very cool! I'm diggin' this thread as I've learned at least four new things from it!!

Doug - we'll have to chat at some point! Perhaps I have something that you or Alan need...I have several M114s and three M113s...none of which have a place in my collection (except the rookies). Maybe there's a gem in there somewhere (in your eyes).

Oh, and Jim - love your framed M113! That's a Beauty!

[Harford20]

Doug,
Thanks. As mentioned above, I have been hoarding the Ted Williams M114s (a total of 15-18 between the 2 poses), but have missed the subtle variations. I also only know of these two poses, but always on the lookout for others. I will review all my Ted's and see which variations I have; I would be interested in an order of rarity of the variations if enough "sample power" could be found for a demoninator.

Based on my limited research, I have "mostly" confirmed that the original dates listed in the SCD (your pose #2 corresponds with a 1939 actual photo and release of M114, and your pose #1 corresponds with a "late" 1940's photo and release of the first M114 in 1949) are accurate and still have been using these "pose release dates" to classify them; I will now add variations and see with other player M114 of certain release years that may have a similar type-set or word placement/length of wording to determine the YEAR OF RELEASE of these other Ted variations.

(a little OCD with my Ted collection I realize).

Dave

[BruceinGa]

Here are mine that I framed.

[bgar3]

Thank you for the informative article from scd
I only have one M114, Ashburn, which I have seen referenced as 1948. I am not a rookie collector, just Ashburn, but the 1948 date would make it a rookie. Is that date correct?
Also, I have another Ashburn premium that is from Baseball Monthly. Is it totally separate from the M114 or a variation? Thank you
Poor images are attached and I realize the M114 is in poor condition.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by bgar3

Thank you for the informative article from scd
I only have one M114, Ashburn, which I have seen referenced as 1948. I am not a rookie collector, just Ashburn, but the 1948 date would make it a rookie. Is that date correct?
Also, I have another Ashburn premium that is from Baseball Monthly. Is it totally separate from the M114 or a variation? Thank you
Poor images are attached and I realize the M114 is in poor condition.

Welcome to the conversation.

Baseball Monthly supplements are cataloged as m118. They are a separate supplement, with 88 players listed in the catalog, but there were actually 89 players issued (Bob Feller isn't listed in the catalog). At the moment, I am still looking for Rocky Colavito, Elston Howard, and Roger Maris to complete my set.

There are two variations of the Ashburn, one with New York noted on both sides of the text, and the other with New York only noted on the left side.

Also, you note that your m114 of Ashburn is in poor condition, but sometimes the only way to find them is in poor condition. I'm of the opinion that having one in poor condition is better than not having one. Other portions of the hobby have a similar thought process, like there is that guy in Arizona who bought that really famous / expensive card even though it is trimmed and misgraded.

Doug

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by BruceinGa

Here are mine that I framed.

Those look great, Bruce.

[bgar3]

Thank you for the information Doug. I agree that having one in bad condition is better than none at all. I appreciate the information on both Ashburns.