NY Times/Athletic Story - newly discovered 1916 Ruth Morehouse RC

[Belfast1933]

Wow, really cool national coverage of the recently discovered 1916 Morehouse Babe Ruth RC with the Red Sox (1916) to be available in REA’s auction later this month

Jeff

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/591...-card-red-sox/

[Lucas00]

Paywalled

[John1941]

Here's a version without the paywall:

https://archive.is/zOgd4

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by John1941

Here's a version without the paywall:

https://archive.is/zOgd4

Thx John - the story was also picked up in Bleacher Report this morning

https://syndication.bleacherreport.c...ction.amp.html

[steve B]

Just for kicks, the former Morehouse Baking. Now an event space.

[oldjudge]

Always great to get the hobby additional publicity, so hats off to Brian for that. However, the Times reporter certainly could have done a better job getting the facts right. Specifically, M101-5s, while initially issued before M101-4s, we also issued concurrently with them. The only ad backs that can absolutely be determined to be M101-5s for Ruth cards are Holmes to Homes, Famous and Barr and Successful Farming (no Ruth known). So, we don’t know if the Morehouse Ruth is an M101-4 or M101-5. Second, Morehouse Baking is far from the scarcest back, although it is less common than average. Third, obviously the Baltimore News Ruth comes in both blue and red. I also found it interesting that it was not mentioned that two Morehouse Ruth’s were found, not just one. It would be wrong for the reader to come away with the impression that this is a unique card.

[steve B]

The way they describe cards issued during the players major league career as "MLB issued" is very strange to me.

Especially from an era where the major leagues were only a couple years removed from some serious competition and sort of barely held together.

[mrreality68]

it is always good for the news to be more out their for the hobby

Great Looking Card

Going to go for Top $$$$

I say we take a collection and buy it as part of the Net54 Collection.

[Belfast1933]

Time to make the bread!

[nolemmings]

As Jay and others noted the article is good for the hobby but is less than precise, including the statement that “In 1916, children didn’t go to department stores for baseball cards, then mainly a product for men in tobacco packages”. I also just shook my head at this tidbit:

Unlike today’s rookies, who can ebb and flow for years before their career paths stabilize, the owner of the Ruth card knew within two seasons that he was not a mere star but a superstar. So it’s no surprise that versions of this card remain so relatively well preserved with an 8 (Near Mint-Mint) and three 7s in the graded population. They soon became cherished icons of the nation’s greatest hero.

No surprise–as if kids back in 1916 placed it in a penny sleeve and then a topholder to preserve what would no doubt be a valuable asset some day. Beats dragging it to school in your pocket with marbles and coins to show off to your friends or toss in the shoebox with the rest of the cards. Again though I am glad the author took the time to call attention to the card.

Trying to claim which 1916 Mendelsohn sponsor contains the Ruth “rookie” is a dicey proposition, which is why I believe all are treated as qualifying. Much depends on whether you look to the date of printing or the date of distribution, and of course things are complicated by the fact that Ruth bears the same card #151 in both m101-4 and m101-5. If forced to choose, I would say that the Standard Biscuit was the first one available, although even that would be matched by the earliest release of the m101-5 blank backs. Then you need to choose which Ruth was issued with m101-5 and not m101-4, since he appears in both with Standard Biscuit (Morehouse too). The accepted feature that points to m101-5 is the faint print line off Babe’s left hip, which is not found on cards from advertisers exclusive to m101-4. Because the Morehouse Ruth shown has this print line and both the Jackson and Thorpe cards shown from the same grouping line up with m101-5, I believe it is fair to call this a rookie card by at least some folks’ definition.

[BRoberts]

I would have liked to read the version of the story before it was run through the New York Times' dull-and-dry machine. How such a boring story (not to mention inaccurate and clumsy) could be written about such an exciting card (within the hobby, at least) is remarkable.

[oldjudge]

I always look at tanning of the cardboard as a sign that a card is an M101-5. This card does not have that although the Standard Biscuit pictured below does. My guess is that the Morehouse baking cards were late M101-5s--ie those issued concurrently with M101-4s, issued using M101-4 type cardboard.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I always look at tanning of the cardboard as a sign that a card is an M101-5. This card does not have that although the Standard Biscuit pictured below does. My guess is that the Morehouse baking cards were late M101-5s--ie those issued concurrently with M101-4s, issued using M101-4 type cardboard.

Jay - My best guess is this Morehouse Baking Ruth is an M101-5 since it was found with a Joe Jackson #86 that is 100% M101-5 based on the 86 checklist #. Plus, it has the distinct centrally located horizontal print line typically associated w/M101-5s.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I always look at tanning of the cardboard as a sign that a card is an M101-5. This card does not have that although the Standard Biscuit pictured below does. My guess is that the Morehouse baking cards were late M101-5s--ie those issued concurrently with M101-4s, issued using M101-4 type cardboard.

Jay I agree that the toned or tanned cards were printed on somewhat different stock that either started out that color or aged differently than the others, and that this seems to appear only on m101-5 related issues, although even those show varying degrees of “goldening”. This still leaves the question as to whether one should look at printing date or distribution date. We don’t know when a handful of the m101 advertisers first put their cards out to the public, but we do know that Mendelsohn offered m101-4 blank-backs in the April 6, 1916 Sporting News paper and that Holmes to Homes was the first known sponsor to advertise on April 12, 1916, with others to follow in the next two weeks or so. So it seems that technically a collector could have acquired an m101-4 blank back before an m101-5 Holmes to Homes, and that Morehouse also could have distributed even earlier than Holmes to Homes, even though the latter is toned as well.

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

I would have liked to read the version of the story before it was run through the New York Times' dull-and-dry machine. How such a boring story (not to mention inaccurate and clumsy) could be written about such an exciting card (within the hobby, at least) is remarkable.

Stand by! A much better and fun hobby story will soon follow...

Jeff

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

Stand by! A much better and fun hobby story will soon follow...

Jeff

Standing by. Will you please let us know?

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

Standing by. Will you please let us know?

I surely will… I’ve been looking forward to sharing this story here for several months. I told Leon that I wanted to fill this group in first.

Give me a few days and I’ll be back with the details

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Jay I agree that the toned or tanned cards were printed on somewhat different stock that either started out that color or aged differently than the others, and that this seems to appear only on m101-5 related issues, although even those show varying degrees of “goldening”. This still leaves the question as to whether one should look at printing date or distribution date. We don’t know when a handful of the m101 advertisers first put their cards out to the public, but we do know that Mendelsohn offered m101-4 blank-backs in the April 6, 1916 Sporting News paper and that Holmes to Homes was the first known sponsor to advertise on April 12, 1916, with others to follow in the next two weeks or so. So it seems that technically a collector could have acquired an m101-4 blank back before an m101-5 Holmes to Homes, and that Morehouse also could have distributed even earlier than Holmes to Homes, even though the latter is toned as well.

Todd--Given the dates you provided I assume that Holmes to Homes was ready to distribute or already distributing the cards if they advertised them. If Mendelsohn first advertised the M101-4 blank backs on April 6 and someone responded immediately by mail they would probably not receive their cards prior to someone getting a Holmes to Homes card. To me it sounds like the first possible Ruth was a Holmes to Homes but this is really splitting hairs. The bottom line is we can only guess.

[Belfast1933]

Here is the full back story - working with REA and Brian Dwyer has been such a great experience!

I’ll post a little extra backstory tomorrow - until then, here you go. Gotta love garage sales!


https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...eading-to-rea/

[John1941]

Incredible find! That's so amazing that you got to be a part of a historic find like that. And yes, the reporting put the NYT to shame.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

obviously the Baltimore News Ruth comes in both blue and red.

Ironically, not too long after you read "The Baltimore News card, with its blue-tint photo of a teenage Ruth," a photo of the card is shown - and wouldn't you know it, it's a red card.