m101 Sisler

[tonyo]

For all you folks who understand M101's........why did this blank backed Sisler finish so high?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/310410468558...84.m1438.l2649

[Matt]

I don't think that's high at all - The M101-5 Sisler is his rookie card (which is noted in the description).

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't think that's high at all - The M101-5 Sisler is his rookie card (which is noted in the description).

Oh I see, I did not know that! Thanks for the info.

My only pricing reference is 2011 SCD and past ebay sales. SCD had him at $90 in VG same as most other hofers.

I was ready to go as high as $60 or $70


edit to add: Oh and I guess I skimmed over the part about it being his rookie card. I don't put a whole lot of stock in what the description says anyway

[nolemmings]

Actually, I only show one ebay sale for that card in the past three years-- a PSA 3 sold last year for $600.00. BTW, the card is a m101-4, which some may not consider his rookie card, although I personally would. The m101-5 goes for even more money, presumably because others think that the m101-5 is "more" of a rookie card than the m101-4 card issued a couple/three months later.

[JasonD08]

I got $1K for my SGC 10 Sisler blank back a few years back. It had back damage and a F-G front.

Jason

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by JasonD08

I got $1K for my SGC 10 Sisler blank back a few years back. It had back damage and a F-G front.

Jason

Wow......

It seems my question should've been : "why did this Sisler finish so low?"




Are "rookie" cards really that big in pre-war, or is the Sisler more scarce than other M101-4, -5's ?

[smtjoy]

I was a bidder but didnt go all in because of a recent fake I purchased that looked about the same, its the best fake of an m101 I have seen and could not even tell until I had it in hand under a loop.

[nolemmings]

Are "rookie" cards really that big in pre-war, or is the Sisler more scarce than other M101-4, -5's ?

Not scarcer from a production standpoint--maybe just less turnover.

[chaddurbin]

the card hardly come up in lower grade. i had a snipe but imo it sold for what it should have. i also consider all the m101 his rookie, but prefer the "P" designation more than the "1b".

[Bocabirdman]

I had the high bid on this card for most of the day. I just threw a twenty spot at it and lo and behold it was the high bid. I knew that it wouldn't hold up. I intended to bid again later. Kinda slipped my mind. I was here reading threads. When I found the outbid notification in my inbox, I went over to check and it was sitting at like 59 bucks. I stepped away from the computer for a butt and to decide what bid to make and when I returned, it was over. For the record, I didn't realize it was his RC. I was out-gunned.

[h2oya311]

Yep - I won this one...have been looking for a low grade example of this "rookie" card for a while now.

sorry to disappoint other board members. I was hoping it would finish lower than $300, but couldn't pass it up at that price. I've seen far too many go for > $500.

I hope it's legit. I haven't received it yet.

Also, one member mentioned that the M101-5 is "older" than the M101-4. Why, then, does the M101-4 show #164, but the M101-5 shows #166. It would seem logical that M101-4 is older, then? Are there other threads here that suggest the M101-5 pre-dates the M101-4?

[JasonD08]

M101-5s came out a few months prior to the M101-4s. M101-5s are blank and some 4s are blank I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.

[nolemmings]

I was a little careless in my first post--the m101-5s predated the m101-4s by only a few to several weeks, not as far as three months. M101-5 could not have been released before February 20, 1916. M101-4 was likely ready for release by April 6, 1916; i.e. 47 days later. The actual dates that these cards were printed is likely even closer in time.

The card numbering is irrelevant to which came first, as Mendelsohn made player changes that affected his attempt to number in alphabetical order. It is logical to assume that Burdick would have designated the lower number m101-4 as earlier in time to the m101-5-- why he did not is unknown. The changes in the two sets makes clear that Mendelsohn was updating the cards' accuracy in m101-4; e.g. changing #2 Agnew's team from Browns (m101-5) to Red Sox (m101-4) to reflect a trade to Boston in December '15--thus m101-4 came later. BTW as Quan noted, the m101-5 Sisler identified him as a pitcher (same pose) rather than the 1b captioned in m101-4.

[h2oya311]

Very interesting information. I guess I don't have Sisler's rookie, then, given that the M101-5 pre-dates the M101-4 (and incorrectly identifies him as a P instead of 1B).

If the change of numbering system and player/team/position identification took place shortly after the original M101-5's had been released, wouldn't it be logical to see far fewer M101-5's in existence (vs. M101-4's)?

The SGC population reports suggest that there are about 3x as many M101-4's vs. M101-5's (Sporting News only). I guess this supports my theory, but I always feel like there are a million M101-5's out there.

Thanks again, all, for the info.

[nolemmings]

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!!!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Very interesting information. I guess I don't have Sisler's rookie, then, given that the M101-5 pre-dates the M101-4 (and incorrectly identifies him as a P instead of 1B).

I don't think I'd jump to that conclusion - when defining modern day rookie cards, I don't believe e.g. Donruss would be considered a rookie and Topps would not just because Donruss hit the shelves 3 weeks before Topps did.

[Leon]

For me, if I were still collecting Rookie HOF'ers I would consider either Sporting News card to be his rookie. Issued in the same year would probably be what I would look for. Heck, who really knows when a person actually received the card the first time? A M101-4 could have gotten into their hands before a M101-5 just because of when they physically received the card. A few weeks or months certainly wouldn't matter to me. Great info folks and thanks again Todd for your in depth knowledge sharing.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Like Leon said, issued during the same year, both are Rookie Cards.

[glchen]

I would think that if Topps issues an Update set in the same year, rookie cards in the base set would be superior to the Update set. That's why I think m101-5 is better than m101-4 if the cards can be differentiated.