First of all, don't trust the pop reports too much with this issue--many of them were graded as m101-4 or m101-5 regardless of ad back for awhile. Second, you are correct in saying that m101-5s are more difficult, although they are probably not as widely collected either (fewer ad backs). Third, I wouldn't be too chagrined about not nabbing a Sisler "rookie". I suppose the purists would side against you, but I always thought it funny that they consider both m101-4 and m101-5 Ruths to be his rookie simply because the cards have identical numbers and therefore (in their minds) cannot be distinguished, yet others are treated differently (Sisler, Faber, Bancroft, and to a lesser degree Stengel). Those arguments among rookie collectors have been going on for as long as this forum and its prior iterations have been here. I look at it as if Topps issued one card in the first series and another in the second--is it that important that the earlier be considered his rookie? I leave that to you.
Finally, I'm not so sure that Mendelsohn was incorrect in listing Sisler as a pitcher--he was one in 1915 and pitched three times in 1916--all complete games with a 1.00 ERA!!!
__________________
Now watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal
Won't you sign up your name? We'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.- Ulysses S. Grant, 18th US President.
Last edited by nolemmings; 07-08-2012 at 11:03 AM.
|