[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