m116's ...lack of interest?

[Archive]

Posted By: scott

why are the m116's so inexpensive?hof's in mid-high grades go for a fraction of other sets?what can you tell me about the pastel backgrounds?

thanks,
scott

[Archive]

Posted By: John

I would say that they are relatively inexpensive, but not cheap. Cards normally go for around the same price as T206's in mid to lower grades (I know this is contrary to the guides). The lack of perceived interest is most likely a result of their availability. There was an interesting article in Beckett Vintage a few years back regarding this issue (how it was distributed, quality control, etc.) which spawned a number of listings on ebay soon thereafter. About ten to fifteen years ago, dealers would sell these at shows for about twice the price of a similar condition T206. As with caramel cards, it is probably just a matter of time before this issue "catches up" with other vintage material.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Scott

Thanks for bringing up this set. Bob M (tbob) touched on this
subject on a Aug 6th thread and I responded with my experience
in attempting to complete this set back in the mid-'90s.

I was first glad he brought it up; but, then disappointed that,
other than me, there were no other "follow-up" posts. I found
this set to be quite a challenge. I initially just collected the
BLUE background cards because they were neat, most HOF players,
and at the time were relatively inexpensive. I acquired 22 of the
approximately 30 cards that are Blue in the set.

Then at the Philly Show I came across a huge collection of M116
cards, so I figured I was on my way to complete this set. I also
picked up a George McQuillan (Cinc) for $600 (a fair price) for
this rare variation in the set. There are two, such "toughies",
the other is Amby McConnell (Chi-AL). I never did find him.
All together I came within 90% of completing this set. And most
amazing was that most every card I acquired were in ExMt shape.
Recently, I sold 265 of the cards; but, kept the BLUE ones.

I would like to know if anyone out there has completed the M116
set ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Hi Ted,

I enjoyed your previous post on M116. It is currently my main collecting interest and like you, it's been quite difficult to complete. I have found very few instances where I could pick up more than one or two at a time, even early on in the process. At this point I lack about 50 cards, most of them from the later series, which are VERY tough.

Do you by chance have a copy of that Beckett article you referred to, or remember approximately when it was published. Tbob and I are in the early stages of an article on the set, and it would certainly be useful to see that one.

Thanks,

Tim Newcomb

[Archive]

Posted By: Dean H

Tim,

I believe the article you are asking about was published in the August 2003 issue #148 of Beckett's Sports Collectibles magazine. It highlights the "Philly Find".

Dean

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I thought Ted was referring to an older article, but I expect you're right-- I remember seeing that one in '03.

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

The reason the m116s are cheaper is because they are easier to find in nicer condition due to how they were packaged.

These were order away cards for collectors rather than cards like t206 that were packaged with a product.

I'm not saying it's an easy set to complete. I'm saying it's easier to find the cards in nicer condition which brings the price down for collectors.

There's a pretty good article on these by Lipset in VCBC #6.
robert a

[Archive]

Posted By: bcornell

John Billingsley mentioned at the National that he sold >100 of them in just the first 2 days, so someone's buying. On the aesthetic front, I'm still skeptical that 95% of 1911 major leaguers were redheads, as this set contends.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

I can only speak for myself obviously, but the reason that I don't collect M116's is that I don't find them very visually appealing. The individual portraits are very nice, but as someone who at least aspires to collect complete sets, a set consisting entirely of portraits would get monotonous to me when compared with sets that show on field poses or a mix of portraits and action poses.

I would like to pick up an M116 of someone like Chief Bender, Eddie Collins, or Addie Joss to have as a type card, but the set as a whole just doesn't have much appeal to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

TIM

The most informative article that I know of regarding the M116
cards is Lew Lipset's VCBC Issue #6 (May/June 1996). He devotes
four pages on the set. Having collected (a near) set, the only
criticism I have of this article is that Lew notes that there
are 24 BLUE background cards. My experience accounts for 30.

GREG

I can appreciate that in your viewpoint, this set has less ap-
peal than, let's say the T206 set. My reason for collecting the
Mii6 set is, simply, that I'm a set collector. Some people col-
lect Rookie cards, others "Investment" cards, and others HOF
player cards. I really enjoy the long-term challenge of putting
complete sets together. In the process I end up collecting all
the above special hobby interests.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

if the Sporting Life had the card designation "T116" instead of "M116" I believe prices would be at least double. Tobacco and/or caramel card collectors only are a little leary of the "Magazine"116 designation for some strange reason.
As far as the aesthetics of the set, if you have an M116 Smokey Joe Wood, for instance, you will believe this to be the best looking card ever produced of him. I know the portraits only gets old, as does the fact only 2 players wear hats, but the cards really grow on you. (Funny, I was saying the same thing about T207s 10 years ago).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Not to hijack the thread, and I do believe that the "m" in m116 holds their values down somewhat, how can you think Smokey's best card is the m116 when this one is around ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

For anyone who may not have seen one before:

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

maybe it's a toss up

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

Thanks Andy, case closed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

LEON

"What does "M" have to do with it"; to quote Tina Turner ? ?

A card, is a card, is a card......A set, is a set, is a set.

Is an M101-4 Babe Ruth worth any less being an "M" card?

Sorry, I found the M116 set (328 cards) tougher to complete
(I only acquired 90% of it) than a T206 set (534 cards); which
I considered I completed (less Plank and Wagner).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am not picking on "m"'s but it doesn't seem like they bring quite as much money.....at least as T's and E's, relatively speaking. That's all I meant and it could be debated....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

LEON

No debate here, guy. And, you are absolutely right about the
relative value. I was able to accumulate a near set of the M116
cards for quite a reasonable price. And, as I have said, almost
all the cards I acquired were Ex to near Mint.

Of course another factor in the relatively lower value of these
cards is the old law of "supply and demand". There just is not
as many collectors out there interested in the M116 cards.

Who knows.....maybe we have started something here.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I can only speak for myself...

but one "draw back" of these cards to me is that they were NEVER just sold over the counter like real baseball cards.

They were promotional "give aways" that you had to send in to receive them by mail.

Thus, some kid in 1912 could NOT have found a nickel on the street and run into the corner store and bought these cards and stored them in a cigar box and treasured them all night.

That's part of the "aura" of collecting old baseball cards to me. I want something that I could have obtained if I were a poor kid in Brooklyn in 1912.

Just my 2 cents.

(The same reason why I like N172 Old Judge cards but NOT the N173 Old Judge cabinet cards that you had to send away for)

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

So Hal, I guess you'd turn thumbs down on a T4 Weaver or a 1915 Cracker Jack Matty, since both came the same way as the Sporting Lifes

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Did you mean a 1915 Cracker Jack?

I thought the "cool" thing that made the 1914 CJ's so rare was that they ONLY came in the boxes of candy and were NOT issued by mail?

And YES, I would thumb my nose at a 1915 Cracker Jack card...

of Roger Peckinpaugh.

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Peich

Greg--I had a few M-116s in my collection, and only started adding to them last spring at Ft. Washington. Thanks to John Billingsly at the National, and a few other dealers, I have joined Tim, Tbob and Ted Z. and am now in the hunt. I find them very appealling (despite Bill's red hair remark) in the same way that I like T-206 portraits, W-600, Jones, Keyser and Arras, and any of the cabinet/CDV types of cards. I've often wondered if M-116, certainly T-204, and to a degree T-222, aren't less expensive versions of cabinet cards. They all have a photographic quality that I find satisfingly appealing. Maybe we can win you over!

Cheers, Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Tim

Just a note to tell you that I received your email; but, I cannot
respond because the Princeton U. server has been down all this time.
As soon as it is back up I will answer your questions. Ted Z

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

And I think it will catch on as the other cards reach unattainable levels for the average collector. Here are a few I like:

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'm interested! I just bought my first Matty & M116 a few minutes ago. It's an SGC60 blue background. I've admired these cards for awhile now, but was too busy with other cards on my "wantlist".