babe ruth m101-5 blank back $294,000

[oldjudge]

Todd--Thanks for posting, and thank you and Tim for publishing the wonderful research that you did. Personally, I believe that the printing date is the key. Since M101-5s were printed first they get my rookie vote. Looking at issue date is always tough, especially with blank backs. I think many blank backs we see today, not just Ruths but all M101s, were not issued during the period but were from uncut unissued sheets that were cut up later. Why do I think this--compare the average grades for ad back cards and blank back cards. The blank back cards are significantly higher. Since everything else is equal, the lower wear on them probably translates to less time in circulation.
As to that April 6, 1916 TSN ad for M101-4s, was Mendolsohn advertising to potential companies to use his cards for advertisement, or was he marketing the cards to the general public? If the latter,doesn't it seem strange that he is directly competing with the companies that he just sold ad back printing to? I don't have a copy of the ad in front of me--if I did the answer might be apparent.
On a side note, the closeness of the April 6 announcement and the Famous and Barr issue date may explain the mixed nature of the Famous and Barr set. It seems that Mendelssohn already had printed some M101-4s before Famous and Barr got their cards. Perhaps the first shipment to Famous and Barr was an error--they should have been getting the M101-5s and numbers 1-20 came as M101-4s. This was corrected on subsequent shipments, so that the rest of the set is M101-5s. Since this is the mirror image of the Herpolsheimer set, I guess another possibility is that the packages got screwed up and Herpolsheimer first shipment was sent to Famous and Barr and vice versa. Is this what you think?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think many blank backs we see today, not just Ruths but all M101s, were not issued during the period but were from uncut unissued sheets that were cut up later. Why do I think this--compare the average grades for ad back cards and blank back cards. The blank back cards are significantly higher. Since everything else is equal, the lower wear on them probably translates to less time in circulation.

Jay - I also think that blank backed cards are found in better grades due to the fact that they were often issued in factory sets.

[oldjudge]

Good point Kevin, but so were some ad back sets. That may explain part of it though.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Damn this is fascinating. Amazing the work you guys put in to research this. Thank you

[Jdoggs]

Based on recent sales Ruth rookie rapidly overtaking 52 Topps mantle in price.
Now:
Ruth PSA 4 rookie about same value as 52 mantle PSA 7
Ruth PSA 5 rookie about same as 52 mantle PSA 7.5
Ruth PSA 6 rookie about same as 52 mantle PSA 8
And Ruth PSA 7 rookie about same as 52 mantle PSA 8.5.

[nolemmings]

Jay, you pose a few different questions, for which I have only somewhat speculative responses. I can say, however, that Mendelsohn's April 6 ad was to the general public, even though he had recruited company advertisers by that date. His flyer had promised exclusivity to one per city "in one line of business", so maybe he felt that as a publisher he was not competing with any of his "dealers".

I agree that a principal reason so many high-grade blank backs exist is because they were made available later; however, I have not seen enough to conclude that they were not period, nor can I agree that all or most of them were from sheets that were cut up later. Keep in mind that at present I have yet to see any ads for m101-5 blank-backs for sale to the general public. How and when these came into the hobby remains completely unanswered as far as I'm concerned.

Mendelsohn was somewhat of a perfectionist, and corrected several cards that had erroneous photos or caption information in m101-5 when he sought to create m101-4. My working theory is that he had produced and simply elected to stash any m101-5s still on hand when he made the change, rather than continue any misinformation. These somehow found the hobby later, although I would not be surprised if they had been cut already. It seems to me that if they were cut some years later, we would see more better-centered Ruths-- it is often notoriously off-centered--since if he was the prize jewel, great care would have been taken in extracting his cards from the sheets, even at the expense of others. Then again, if the plan was to only sell to advertisers, who likely would want their names on the backs, one would think he would leave them in sheet form to make it easier for printing purposes, so who knows? BTW, we are still only talking about a few high-grade examples as it is- PSA shows 3 graded 7 and 3 graded 8 (assuming no re-submits), with no SGC examples at those levels.

Your Famous & Barr questions have caused me headaches for years. Remember that not only Herpolsheimer, but also Block & Kuhl and to some extent Gimbels are also "mirror images" of Famous & Barr as relates to distribution. I will correct something in my prior post that contributes to the notion a of mixed-up shipment. Famous & Barr actually first advertised on April 14th, not April 8. The smallish ad stated that 20 cards would be available for ten weeks, starting "tomorrow", which was Saturday, April 15. The next Friday's ad was essentially identical. The third Friday ad, on April 28, 1916, stated that "The fourth set in the series" was available the next day--not the third set/series. That is why on my timeline I backdated the first series as having been available on April 8. Maybe it was not available at that time and became so only later, when m101-4 had supplanted its older brother. As I said, I've been struggling with an explanation for these mixed sets for a long time.

[Leon]

Sent over from a lurker...