Uncatalogued Standard Biscuit Hall of Famer

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I hope there are some experts out there on the 1916-17 Standard Biscuit cards. These are the cards with the same design as the M-101-4 and M-101-5 cards issued by the Sporting News and many other companies. According to the Standard Catalog, they share the same checklist as M-101-4 and M-101-5.

However, this isn't entirely true. I have a Standard Biscuit card of Bobby Wallace, card number 186. (I hope the scan shows up, because I've never posted a scan before). The Standard Catalog lists number 186 as Buck Weaver in M-101-4 and Zach Wheat in M-101-5. Bobby Wallace is not listed at all.

I've contacted Bob Lemke and he is looking into this (along with what he described as other anomolies in these sets) but he has no answer yet. I have a few thoughts, but not clear answers.

* I suppose it's possible that the Standard Biscuit cards don't really share a checklist with M-101-4/5. But this seems unlikely because every other Standard Biscuit card that I've seen advertised matches M-101-4/5.

* Wallace may have been substituted in or out of the set by Standard Biscuit, the Sporting News, and most or all of the rest of the issuers, but no one noticed until now. This seems unlikely because if a Hall of Fame card was in so many related sets, someone would have noticed.

* Wallace may have been substituted in or out of the set by Standard Biscuit alone. This seems unlikely too. Standard Biscuit must have gotten its photos from the same source as everyone else, and it seems real unlikely that they would have searched for a photo of Wallace and converted it into a card in place of Wheat or Weaver.

* Maybe the supplier of the photos sent a few extra photos (maybe 201 or 210 for a set of 200) and each issuer selected its favorite 200. Again, this seems unlikely because there should be more variations out there when comparing one issuer to another.

Any ideas?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

Could you please post or e-mail me a scan of the back of the card?

This one is a stumper. I'm going to think on it before throwing my theories around.

Of course, maybe it's a fake and you should sell it to me for dirt cheap--merely as a novelty of course
Seriously, great catch!!

Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Lyman

Hi Paul. I'd also like to see a scan of the back. It appears that the card is the same size as the M101-4/-5 (i.e., 1-5/8 x 3 inches). Can you confirm? Thanks. --Lyman

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

that may or may not be significant. Standard Biscuit issued also cards with E135-style (Collins-McCarthy) fronts. This set differs from the default Collins-McCarthy checklist by at least some cards, and possibly by many. I have one of them, an E135 Standard Biscuit card of Dave Davenport that isn't in any checklist I've seen.

To my knowledge this Standard Biscuit set has never been fully checklisted. Mr. Lemke? It's a tough job, but...

The fact that the E135 Standard Biscuit issue also differs from the default set may lend credence to Paul's speculation about the M101 issues. It seems to suggest that Standard Biscuit, which was one of the few companies to issue cards in both M101-4 and M101-5, may have had their cards printed independently of the rest, and could have substituted Wallace (and who knows how many more?) cards in their set.

Does anyone else have other info on these Standard Biscuit sets?

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Cool....you use comma's as much as I do. About this subject though...it almost gives me a (good type) of headache. I have heard of so many different theories it would make your head spin. I remember when I saw Andy (hey Andy) and Kevin Struss (hey Kevin -if you happen to read the board) talking about it at one of the Nationals. The ears were smoking so much I had to leave. It seems like the more you study the series (m101-4/5 and now Standard Biscuit) the more you find a lot of the theories can be invalidated by other ones...wow.....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I now have a little more information about the Standard Biscuit Wallace. I received an anonymous tip that a collector has a blank back version of this card and will be auctioning it soon. It's my understanding that the original issuer of these cards issued the blank back version, and then supplied all the other issuers (like Sporting News and Standard Biscuit) with the photos (or maybe the complete cards). This would mean that Wallace was included in the original set of cards/photos that were supplied to various issuers.

My best guess is that Standard Biscuit was one of the first companies to make these cards. It received a very early set of photos from the supplier, and this early set included Wallace. Companies like the Sporting News received their sets later, and by this time the photo supplier had substituted Zach Wheat (perhaps because Wallace was playing only a few games a year at this point). The Wheat card may or may not have been supplied to Standard Biscuit. So Standard Biscuit's entire print run may have included Wallace, or Wallace may have been replaced by Wheat.

I was also told that there is an uncatalogued Beals Becker in the Standard Biscuit set. Becker retired in 1915. This is consistent with the idea that Standard Biscuit came out with its cards before most of the other companies. (If this really is true, does that make the Standard Biscuit Ruth his rookie card?)

This is still all just wild speculation, and would be interested to hear if anyone has any more ideas.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

I think I know who the publisher may have been, and I think Bob Lemke has a good idea too, although I've never spoken with him. Hint: It's the same publisher (imho) of the m101-6 set, or at least the initial iteration of that set.

The m101-4s were not released by the Sporting News until August, 1916. This is far into the baseball season, so it's not unreasonable to suspect that a prior version or two preceded it. However, when I looked at old microfiche of TSN from 1915 and 1916, I saw no prior advertisements or notices that the cards were coming from that periodical.
I would really appreciate some help on my research into these sets. Does anyone have a m101-4 Del Pratt card?, if so, please provide a scan. Also, I would like to know if anyone has a m101-5 card of one of the players who appeared only in that set-WITH a Sporting News back. Let me know if you need a list of those players exclusive to m101-5.

Paul, the player selection is just about as mysterious as the rest of the questions surrounding these sets. Although you are right about Wallace being on the way out, and m101-4 appears to have replaced several players in that capacity, m101-4 inexplicably added Josh Devore, who hadn't played (and would not play thereafter) a game in the Bigs after 1914.
Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

There is another player inexplicably in this set. Within the last month or two, I saw a Frank Chance on ebay. I can't remember the back, but he is checklisted in the M-101-5 Sporting News set. Chance was listed on the card as the first baseman for the Cubs. But, he hadn't been with the Cubs since about 1912 or 1913 and he hadn't been a first baseman for quite awhile either. As I recall, the card sold for much more than you would expect for Frank Chance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

My studies of the TSN microfilm showed the first offering of these cards in 1916 by the Chicago firm of Felix Mendelsohn. He offered a 200-card set as singles and as an uncut sheet. In the absence of any ad copy to the contrary, I assume these were blank-backs. Within a few months, The Sporting News was offering the cards, with its imprint on back. I'd guess that Mendelsohn sold uncut sheets to TSN, Standard, etc., on which they could have their own back copy added, or else printed to order with their (Mendelsohn) fronts and supplied back ad copy (the latter being more likely since it is obvious Mendelsohn had the equipment or contractor to cut sheets into singles. What is needed is a detail study of uncut sheets of blank-back M101-5/M101-4 sheets. I suspect some of you are correct that the original Mendelsohn offerings might have included Wallace, rather than Wheat, and perhaps some of the other anomalies mentioned. We have included mention of the Mendelsohns in the new book, but due to a computer glitch totally cocked up the Standard section, crediting one of the sets as an E121 Series of 80 parallel. I hope to address this topic in an SCD column before long, but time is short before all efforts have to be directed to price review and changes for the 2005 book.