[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Andy:

Let me ask you this and see what you think:

Apparently there were some "minor" corrections made over time to the M101-5 set:

#23 started off as Forrest Cady...

but later print runs have card #23 as Mordecai Brown.

#97 started off misspelled as John "Lavin"...

but later print runs have card #97 spelled correctly as "Lavan."

And we know that all 200 of the cards in this set were printed on ONE BIG SHEET and then cut up into 200 separate cards.

-------------------------

SO.........

I want to know how you can consider ANY card from the M101-5 set to be a "rookie" card UNLESS you can PROVE that it was printed on the SAME SHEET that included a #23 Forrest Cady card and a #97 "Lavin" spelled incorrectly card???

--------------------------

Wouldn't this also prove that some cards from the M101-5 set were produced EARLIER than others from the same set???

And under your argument, wouldn't you then say that those EARLIEST produced cards were also DISTRIBUTED to the public EARLIEST????

---------------------------

SO...

it looks to me like the ONLY way we can solve your dilemma is to find some #23 Forrest Cady cards and some #97 "Lavin" incorrect spelling cards and see WHAT BACKS those have???

Can anyone help us with this???

--------------------------

But EVEN THEN... if those SAME backs also show up on #23 Mordecai Brown cards and #97 "Lavan" cards...

then we will NEVER know whether a particular M101-5 card came from the FIRST "set" of M101-5 or the "later" set, will we??

----------------------------

In other words...

until an UNCUT SHEET appears that has a #23 Forrest Cady card on it...

we may never actually see a "certifiable" Ruth rookie card that was from the EARLIEST production run of these M101-5 and M101-4 cards.

Right?