M101-2 experts ... please help!
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>Hi all,<br />I recently acquired a small lot of M101-2s and I'm questioning the authenticity of some of them. A few of these feel heavier/thicker than the couple dozen I already own, even for the same player. Were M101s known to be printed on different paper stock? I've already received some tips from others on a couple of things to check for, I just wanted to see if any "experts" would be able to help too. <br /><br />Also, do any of the major grading companies authenticate these items? If any of you are experts, I could send scans. I could even send them to someone if they are well known by the board.<br /><br />Thanks for any help,<br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

M101-2 experts ... please help!
 

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>I do own about 120 of the M101-2 issue. <br /><br />To answer the main question they do appear on differing paper stock. Some are quite fragile while some are quite sturdy. Can't recall having compared the same player (though I do have many dupicates) to see whether there is any difference.<br /><br />I am not aware of these having been reprinted and doubt that they have.<br /><br />Because of the size there is no company that "authenticates" them nor slabs them.<br /><br />In any event "authenticating" or "slabbing" would in most cases would not be cost efective as the commons run from $10 to $25 depending on condition. Now if you have a Cobb, Jackson, Johnson or the like that of course would be a different story.<br /><br />Steve in Chicagoland

M101-2 experts ... please help!
 

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>Mine also vary in thickness (have no dupes so I can't compare the same player). My sense is that the earliest ones (1909) are especially thin in stock.<br /><br />I have never heard of any reprints of this set, so I think you're probably OK with these (unless they look like cheap xeroxes or something).<br /><br />Tim

M101-2 experts ... please help!
 

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>Some of mine are definitely thinner than others...but not by much. Due to the fact that they printed over a three year period paper stock most likely varied. As Steve and Tim stated, it would be interesting to compare the same issues to see if paper stock differs for the same player. A few of mine have ghost images on the reverse due to the ink from the front slightly bleeding through. Post a few examples if you get the chance.

M101-2 experts ... please help!
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>thanks everyone for your responses ...<br /><br />As an example, here are some pics of the Detroit Team photo. One on thin stock, one with thick paper stock. I don't have a scanner, so please excuse the furniture in the background of the pics <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />pic showing the difference in edge thickness. one on bottom looks thicker, but the one on top is heavier.<br /><img src="http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u58/tiger8mush/Detroitedges1.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />the two photos on top of each other (heavier one on top)<br /><img src="http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u58/tiger8mush/Detroitedges2.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Solo pic of the thicker stock photo<br /><img src="http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u58/tiger8mush/DetroitTeamfront.jpg"><br /><br />Anyone else have duplicates printed on different stock?<br />Thanks,<br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>