M101 Sporting news help

[Archive]

Posted By: Mrc32

I have just recently picked up my first card from the Sporting News series M101. The card has a blank back.

Can someone help me with identifing which year it came from? I have seen others that have advertisments on the back sides. This one is blank.

How can I identify if it came from the 1915 or 1616 set.

The numbers on both sets are the same I think....

Thanks
Michael

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

mrc32

If you have one of the players who have the same numbered card in both m101-4 and m101-5, and your card is blank backed, then there is no way to tell the difference one from the other. I believe there are 30 such players in the 200 card set to which this would apply--including Ruth:
ADAMS, BABE
AGNEW, SAM
AINSMITH, EDDIE
ALEXANDER, GROVER
AMES, LEON
ARCHER, JIMMY
AUSTIN, JIMMY
GARDNER, LARRY
GEDEON, JOE
GETZ, GUS
GIBSON, GEO.
GOOD, WILBUR
GOWDY, HANK
GRANEY, JOHN
RARIDEN, BILL
RIXEY, EPPA
ROBERTSON, DAVEY
ROBINSON, WILBERT
ROTH, BOB
ROUSH, ED.
ROWLAND, CLARENCE
RUCKER, "NAP"
RUDOLPH, DICK
RUSSELL, REB
RUTH, BABE
SAIER, VIC
SALLEE, "SLIM"
ZEIDER, ROLLIE
ZIMMERMAN, HEINY
ZWILLING, ED

[Archive]

Posted By: Mrc32

Wow. I would never have thought such a problem would have exisited.

So in both M101-4 and M101-5 the 30 cards you listed had blank backs?

Does the same card I have exisit with a backing?

For the record I have the Wilbur Good and the auction listed it as a 1916 M101-4. But then again I'm not sure I trust that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

all cards in both m101-4 and m101-5 can be found with blank backs, with the possible exception of the very few variations(e.g. Lavan/Lavin). Blank backs are attributed to one set or the other on the basis of card number, but again, that doesn't help you on the 30 that share the same number in both sets.

I have not yet personally confirmed that every one of the thirty show the exact same pose, spelling and team designation. To do so, one would have to look at an example from a known m101-5 back only, and compare the same player from an m101-4 back only. Or, I suppose if you found two different variations of the same player among these 30, you could attribute one to one set and one to the other, although who knows which is which, or if both variations were issued in m101-5 and later "corrected" in m101-4.
Confused? I am.

Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

obvious as it may be, the same confusion exists if you have one of those 30 players with the Sporting News back-since the backs are the same for each set. Ditto on Famous & Barr.

If you learn anything from the grading companies as to how they make the distinction on these cards--please share. My guess is they follow the submitter's wishes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Todd is right, there's no clear way to tell the year on these numbers that are the same in both sets.

If the card is blank backed (the most common), or has a Sporting News back, it could be either year.

However, as I understand it, Famous and Barr backs were only issued in 1915.

Most of the other ad backs were issued in 1916 only, although a few-- Gimbel's, Successful Farming, and Standard Biscuit-- can be found on 1915-only and 1916-only numbers, so they were obviously issued in both years.

To my knowledge there were no changes in player pose between the two years. If a player is in both sets, then it's the same pose.

Maybe one just has to say, if you can't tell what year it is, it's whatever year you want it to be. That's what I've taken to doing.

Have fun with these great sets--

Tim Newcomb

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

If you look at the 2004 SCD, the M101-5 and M101-4 are now both listed as 1916. I made the change a few months back in my checklists/wantlists on my webpages when I read (on this message board) the Bob Lemke was going to list the sets this way after some research proved the 2 sets were from the same year (1916). If you go back a bit on this message board you will find the thread and it will show why they did this (I dont remember the exact reasons). Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

The Famous & Barr back was issued for both M101-5 and M101-4. In my experience, most Famous & Barr backs are related to the M101-5 series, though I have seen an M101-4 Bancroft with a Famous & Barr back (based on the card #). To the best of my knowledge, there is no back that was issued exclusively to the M101-5 set, while many of the backs were issued exclusively to the M101-4 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

I erred earlier about a couple of things. First, If you have the m101-5 reprint set and trust Larry Fritsch to have got it right, you can compare the poses, spellings and team/position changes there to known issues of m101-4 only.

Second, Bob Roth IS one of the 30 cards with the same number who has a variation. He is listed as "C.F." in m101-5, and also has a "R.F." designation--either in m101-4 or as a variation in m101-5.

Finally, there are at least two players with different poses, although not from the group of 30. Osacar Stanage and Clarence Walker come to mind, and there may be more. Also, some have different positions listed, including Buck Weaver. I would always appreciate any info anyone cares to share on these issues.

Todd

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

George Sisler has the same picture in both sets, but he is listed as a Pitcher in the M101-5 set, and a First Baseman in the M101-4 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Two points about this interesting thread:

1. Andy asserts that Famous & Barr was issued with M101-4 numbers. Andy, are you positive about this? And can anyone else offer support for this position? I ask because I was under the impression that this back was only issued with M101-5. All 33 of my F&B backs correspond to the M101-5 numbers, and to my knowledge, every one I've seen does as well.

If Famous and Barr backs were issued with M101-4 numbers, it must have been in extremely small quantities, which ought to make any cards with these attributes quite valuable.

2. Has the most recent SCD volume (I don't have it) got Famous and Barr listed with M101-5, M101-4, or both? The 2002 book only mentions M101-4, which is very misleading, since it's clear that the vast majority (if not all) of F&B cards are M101-5.

Let's keep chatting about this great set.

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

I own two Famous and Barr cards, a Fred Snodgrass (#168), and a Mordecai Brown (#17). According to the SCD, due to their numbering this means that the Snodgrass is related to the M101-5 set, and the Brown is related to the M101-4.

Which leads me to a couple of questions. The backs of these two cards are printed in different directions. Looking at the front of each card and flipping it left to right onto its back side, the Snodgrass (M101-5) is printed with the Famous and Barr logo running from bottom to top, but the Brown (101-4) card has the logo running top to bottom. I am not overly familiar with these issues--is this common, or do I have some sort of freak of nature?

Secondly, all the half dozen or so Sporting Life related cards I own measure a fairly consistent 1-9/16" wide (which is a 1/16" narrower than the SCD catalog says, but sometimes their measurements are off a little), but this mysterious Brown I own is 1-21/32". Is this type of size variance typical?

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I too used to think that all Famous & Barr cards were related to the M101-5 set. The Famous & Barr card that I am referring to was a #10 Bancroft (M101-4) card that was offered on Ebay some time ago. I thought that I had saved a scan, but I did not. If my memory serves me right, I think Brett Domue won the card, but I may be wrong. Also, Lew Lipset mentioned Famous & Barr cards as both M101-5 and M101-4 in all of his Old Judge Newsletter Price Guides. This is the only M101-4 Famous & Barr card that I have ever seen, and I also believe that the vast majority of Famous & Barr cards are from the M101-5 set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Brian, are you able to post a scan of the Brown card? It would be interesting to see it-- the shade, for example. Most Famous/Barr cards I've seen are quite yellowed, much more so than most of the other backs.

Your question about the reversal of the back orientation is a good one. Until we find some more M101-4 Famous/Barrs we won't know whether that's typical, but I suspect it is.

Andy, if you do find the scan, post it if possible.

Thanks guys--

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I know there are other backs that have a "reverse" printing on them....or more appropriately maybe called "upside down"......great set....and they do come in somewhat varied sizes.....regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: TOM

If you go back to SCD dated April 9, 1993 on page 72. I am going to quote unquote the following words. Bennie Kauff's card in the 1915 Sporting News set was either in error in listing him as a Giant, or was produced in that short period when the player had jumped the Federal League to play with McGraw's club. The same photo and teams designation were used for the 1916 set, but the card was number 94 in that issues. Beside the Sporting News backs, this 200-card set can be found with ads for bakeries, clothing stores and business. You have got to remember that the card stock and the way they printed the cards was completely different during that era. The type of printing plates, the ink and the most important thing is the man power to make these cards. That was a completly different time here in American during those days. So for us to say if the M101-5 series was printed in 1916 versa 1915 I totally disagree. THE SPORTING NEWS started printing in 1915 like I said earlier, but when the players jumped to the Federal League they reset the printing press and started makes cards again, but done some minor changes to distinguish the difference in the two set and the year they were made. I strongly believe the M101-5 series was started in 1915 but ended up in 1916 with two different version as we call today the M101-4 and the M101-5 series with some players haveing the same pose and still others having a different pose. The Sporting News started the M101-5 set in 1915, but when some of the players jumped to the Federal League just like Bennie Kauff did to play with McGraw's club that is when THE SPORTING NEWS decided in a most dramatic fasion to start running the printing press again. One other thing that most dealer, grader and collectors think that the wide gap version of the M101-5 series is not real, but a counterfeit, but that is not intirely true due to the fact of the dramatic change that took place between 1915 and 1916 between the leagues as time went by The Sporting News came out with some new poses of the players. That is why you will find different varations today between the M101-5 series. The 1915 M101-5 Series may have been the intention of The Sporting News, but what happed they ended up making two sets with varations in those sets as we have today, but we called them error cards. Just like today a company start out doing one thing, but a sudden change will make the company go a totally different direction than they planned. As everone knows money is the driving force.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I don't believe that there are any Federal League players represented with their Federal League teams in the M101-5 set. All of the players were shown on their Major League (AL or NL) teams, and many did not get signed by those teams until 1916. I know that Bob Lemke did a great deal of research before concluding that both sets were from 1916.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett Domue

All,

Here is the front/back scan of the Famous & Barr #10 Bancroft (Corresponds to M101-4).



I hope this helps,

Brett

Brett Domue
okeedokee@pipeline.com
http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/wantlist.htm

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

m101-5 was issued in 1916. Players did not "jump" to the Federal League so as to require the printing presses to be re-set. The movement to the Federal League took place, for the most part, in 1914. Thus, if TSN was printing cards in 1915, the m101-5s would have federal league teams designated on some of the cards, yet not one card from the set has such designation.
As Andy noted, many players are designated on teams for which they did not play prior to 1916. Edd Roush is one example--a Giant. Kauff too. Finally, Germany Schaefer is listed as a Yankee (New York Amer., actually), and was not acquired by that team until February 10, 1916. He is part of the m101-5 set only, and therefore cannot be said to be some sort of update to a set initially issued in 1915.

Tom, have to disagree with you on the fake/reprint issue too. I have yet to see a card with the extra space on anything other than a blank back. One would expect at least one card with this extra space to have the TSN ad on the back. Also,I have handled a few of these, and can tell that they're not real--for one thing, the stock is thinner. If you want to buy 'em on the theory that they are some sort of early print run that was later corrected/changed, be my guest, but I run away from these as fast as my fat boiler can carry me.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Your story just sounds crazy to me. Can you let us know how you came up with all of those theories? To say that the printing presses stopped, then started, and the crap about the fakes. It just sounds foolish.....let us know how you came up with these conclusions and your story might hold more water. A lot of people on this board, and myself to a lesser extent, have done a lot of research on this set. Good try though.....and nothing personal here....your story made for about 30 seconds of good reading....best regards
ps....and so far ALL of the cards with the thicker white inner borders have been fake....please show us one that isn't.

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

As you might be able to tell, my M.Brown card does not have the yellowish tone of the other F+B. The backside appears to have the same direction of print as the Bancroft that Brett shared with us earlier in the thread.

Brian (thanks to Glen and Ben)

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Lawrie

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2765280650&category=31718

Kind of interesting. Auction advertises both an M101-4 and an M101-5 F&B.

I haven't contacted the seller about a scan of the backs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom

Have you ever seen a M101-4 with a wide gap between the picture and the enter dark black line? Everyone thinks they are counterfeit. I would like some feedback on this subject between No gap and Wide gap theory on the 1915/1916 The Sporting News Set M101-4 and M101-5.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

This thread and others have discussed the wide-gap fake issue. To my knowledge, the wide-gaps are all m101-5 reprints, and are blank backed. Since it seems 29 of the cards are identical in m101-5 and m101-4, I suppose someone could try to sell a wide-gap card of one of these players as a m101-4.

I'm not saying no authentic wide-gaps exist, but I have never seen one, nor do I believe anyone on this board has reported seeing one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Todd is the acknowledged expert on this issue, and I wouldn't know a Famous and Barr from a chocolate bar (Actually I would, but you get my point). As far as fakes go, in person examination will quickly differentiate between a modern made reprint/fake and an original. http://www.cycleback.com/baseballcards/7.html (Zoom past to bottom half of page, 'Relief')

So if there are theories that this or that is a legitimate variation and not always a reprint, it can be put to the test.