Those M114's - When Are We Going To Talk About Them?

[rhettyeakley]

Really underappreciated and undervalued items. I think a lot has to do with the awkward size and non-uniform (changed over the years) size of the pieces. They are too big to fit in a normal binder which makes storing them problematic to me.

I have collected them somewhat passively over the years and have probably 200+ of them currently. I really like the early ones and quickly start losing interest in them after the 1930's. I think a visual guide that helps date certain superstars (that had multiple poses issued) would really help.

-Rhett

[doug.goodman]

Boy, did I get excited when I saw this thread!

Thank you Alan, I will admit to a very slight obsession, that happens when trying to "finish" a set which is harder to complete than the t206 set.

Yep, you read that right, "harder to complete than the t206 set".

I will certainly be posting more of my thoughts in the upcoming days, but I'll start with Rhett's storage concern:

I keep both my m114s and my m113s (and other odd sized things like Blum's Bulletins, Alerta premiums, Police Gazette supplements, etc) in Itoya art profolios They have proven themselves to be great ways to store just about everything for me over the years. I even keep my cards in them (in the 8 and 9 count sheets). They take up less space than binders, and stop the potential curving of the cards when the pages sag inside a binder.

http://www.itoya.com/pht/Art_profolio_P.htm

Problem solved. You're welcome.

Insert smiley face here,
Doug


PS - here is 1 of my 875 different m113 / m114 issues. This one is a lot harder to find than you might guess.

[BruceinGa]

DG, thanks for the tip and the link, I'll check it out.
I also like the earlier ones.

[uniship]

I love the m113s and m114s as well - totally underappreciated and feel like little works of art.

[Harford20]

Alan,
Thanks for the thread, and yes, your article is the GO-TO knowledge (I use it frequently). I have about 15 different M113 and about 40 different M114 in my collection, mostly HoF players. I would reiterate two comments from Alan's work that are really worse than he states:

First, as noted in Alan's article and with Doug's presentation of the Aaron, those post-1953 M114 are far tougher than any others. The Aaron I have (just as the one Doug posted) took me >5 YEARS to find, and that is searching auctions and eBay on a minimum of 2-3x/week basis. I really wonder what the actual print run of these photos were.

Second, as an avid Ted Williams, I have almost been "hoarding" both the 1939 and 1949 versions of Ted, with about 10 of the 1939 and 8 of the 1949. Also what I note here is that the "Washington D.C." address of the 1950 and beyond M114s are also much rarer than I expected. As I have 2 of the "1949 versions" of Ted with the Washington D.C. address, I presume that these were actually done in the early 1950's, so I have always wondered how much the dates are TRUE, or are many of the M114s like the corresponding Exhibits, and have a "range" of actual printing dates?

Just a few points.

Dave

[Estwd]

Hi Dave - I just purchased a Ted. It has a New York address on it. Does that mean it was printed in 1939? Also,were there different images used for the 1939 vs 1949 versions?

Thanks for your help!

Evan

Originally Posted by Harford20

Alan,
Thanks for the thread, and yes, your article is the GO-TO knowledge (I use it frequently). I have about 15 different M113 and about 40 different M114 in my collection, mostly HoF players. I would reiterate two comments from Alan's work that are really worse than he states:

First, as noted in Alan's article and with Doug's presentation of the Aaron, those post-1953 M114 are far tougher than any others. The Aaron I have (just as the one Doug posted) took me >5 YEARS to find, and that is searching auctions and eBay on a minimum of 2-3x/week basis. I really wonder what the actual print run of these photos were.

Second, as an avid Ted Williams, I have almost been "hoarding" both the 1939 and 1949 versions of Ted, with about 10 of the 1939 and 8 of the 1949. Also what I note here is that the "Washington D.C." address of the 1950 and beyond M114s are also much rarer than I expected. As I have 2 of the "1949 versions" of Ted with the Washington D.C. address, I presume that these were actually done in the early 1950's, so I have always wondered how much the dates are TRUE, or are many of the M114s like the corresponding Exhibits, and have a "range" of actual printing dates?

Just a few points.

Dave

[BruceinGa]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

I keep both my m114s and my m113s (and other odd sized things like Blum's Bulletins, Alerta premiums, Police Gazette supplements, etc) in Itoya art profolios They have proven themselves to be great ways to store just about everything for me over the years. I even keep my cards in them (in the 8 and 9 count sheets). They take up less space than binders, and stop the potential curving of the cards when the pages sag inside a binder.

http://www.itoya.com/pht/Art_profolio_P.htm

Problem solved. You're welcome.

Insert smiley face here,
Doug

Thanks for the tip.
I have a question, why do sellers of these on eBay have so many neutral and negative feedbacks?

[akleinb611]

Having slept in today (I live on Long Island and we've been hit with a middling-sized blizzard), this is my first chance to see how the seed I planted last night has grown. Not bad. I'm gratified to see that people have found something in this subject that they like as much as I do.

As expected Doug has joined the discussion, and I can second his recommendation of the Itoya art portfolios he's mentioned. The 11x14 size is perfect for M114's, and my collection now resides in a series of these binders. My advice - find a major art supply retailer, pinpoint their price for the binders - and wait for a sale!

Finally, the person who noted that the second Ted Williams poster carries a Washington DC copyright line brings up an interesting issue. The dating of these pieces is generally taken from the checklist available in the SCD Standard Catalogue, which is a good checklist but not a great checklist. There are lots of missing posters, mostly variant poses of players. The best way to date an "orphan" pose is to match it up stylistically with other posters. Most pre-1940 pieces are clearly the work of Charles Conlan, and feature either a dugout background or a dark, one-color backdrop. Fully body poses of batters with their bat raised high over their head seem to date from the mid-1920's.

And then there's the possibility of reissues. Baseball Magazine didn't move to Washington DC until about 1955; if a poster that's dated earlier is labeled Washington rather than New York, that means that what you have is a caption variation. These are more frequent than you think. There are posters issued in the Thirties, for example, that sometimes carry a copyright notation of "New York," and sometimes the same pose can be found with "N.Y." That's too much for me; check with Doug Goodman, the only person dedicated enough (or crazy enough) to collect the caption variations as well!

A final point has to do with size. Many of the 1957-era, Washington DC posters are found in the 8 12x11 size. I don't believe these were trimmed by the original owners - the cutting seems too professional. I think that in their last year of operation, BB Magazine was contemplating a format change for the posters, and may even have recut some of the older ones from the early Fifties to a smaller size, to see if that would generate more interest.

Any thoughts?

Alan

[h2oya311]

Alan - According to your article, would the following be from 1954+ and be pretty rare? I had always assumed it was from 1941 (I believe the image is), but it has the Washington address on it:



Here are a few of my other HOFers (presumably rookie images/issues for each):

[T206Jim]

M113's frame up quite nicely.

M113-Bender-framed-web.jpg

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Here are a few of my other HOFers (presumably rookie images/issues for each):

Hi Derek - I like that Cuyler, mine is pretty beat up.

Your post brings up an issue that Alan touched on when he said "SCD Standard Catalogue, which is a good checklist but not a great checklist"

Joe Gordon is listed in SCD as having two posters, one in 1938 (presumably with the Yankees) the other in 1947 (presumably with the Indians), but here is a second Yankees pose.

Also, I don't know of a second pose from Burleigh Grimes, but I believe this printing is earlier than the one you posted (although I could be wrong).

[h2oya311]

Very cool! I'm diggin' this thread as I've learned at least four new things from it!!

Doug - we'll have to chat at some point! Perhaps I have something that you or Alan need...I have several M114s and three M113s...none of which have a place in my collection (except the rookies). Maybe there's a gem in there somewhere (in your eyes).

Oh, and Jim - love your framed M113! That's a Beauty!

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by akleinb611

Finally, the person who noted that the second Ted Williams poster...

And then there's the possibility of reissues... check with Doug Goodman, the only person dedicated enough (or crazy enough) to collect the caption variations as well!

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Ted Williams is a perfect illustration of what makes this set so maddening.

There are two different Ted poses (that I know of).

With this set, everything is "that we know of", because there isn't really a way to be sure that there isn't another different one.

Speaking just for myself, when I make a statement on this issue, it is based on what I know, or think I know, and I will have no problem being corrected when I am wrong. So, with Ted, when I say there are two different poses, and somebody has a third pose PLEASE post a picture, AND sell it to me. Or, maybe we can trade?

Below are the two Ted poses, I (with Alan's help) call the one with the stadium background pose #2, and the one on the black background pose #1. My next post will explain how there are seven different Ted Williams posters...

[doug.goodman]

So, I just posted the two Ted Williams poses, here are the 5 print variations of Pose #2. The DC difference is obvious, but the other 4 are more subtle. I need to learn how to use photoshop so that I can put those 4 in one picture and note the differences. They are subtle, but they are there. Notice the placement of the text versus the designs in the grass and the edges of the picture. Different printings, in my opinion.

[doug.goodman]

And here the 2 print variations of Pose #1. Way more obvious.

[Estwd]

Hi Doug,

Did pose #1 come out first - is that the 1939 version?

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Ted Williams is a perfect illustration of what makes this set so maddening.

There are two different Ted poses (that I know of).

With this set, everything is "that we know of", because there isn't really a way to be sure that there isn't another different one.

Speaking just for myself, when I make a statement on this issue, it is based on what I know, or think I know, and I will have no problem being corrected when I am wrong. So, with Ted, when I say there are two different poses, and somebody has a third pose PLEASE post a picture, AND sell it to me. Or, maybe we can trade?

Below are the two Ted poses, I call the one with the stadium background pose #1, and the one on the black background pose #2. My next post will explain how there are seven different Ted Williams posters...

[lumberjack]

Alan,
The auction you are speaking of took place in New York City over two days in September of 1996. Christie's East (I don't believe there has been an "East" for some time), handled the auction. Once in a while, a catalog will turn up on eBay. They are a trip.

The auction was a big deal; the New York Times did a article a week before the sale. This was good publicity for the auction house, but I don't believe they considered this stuff to be classy material. There were about 17 thousand photos in the auction.

Bill Mastro was the big spender on the first day, buying Conlon lots and lots packed with HOFers. He may have spent in the vicinity of 40 thousand dollars. Mr. Mastro was a smart guy and may have had buyers for this stuff when he walked on to the auction floor. There were, maybe, two other big dealers who picked up a disproportionate number of lots. I can think of only one or two private collectors who may have made an imprint.

There had been the Culver sale of Bain photo about 4 years prior to this auction. Sotheby's handled that auction. That was the first time photographs went for big money. That was just a weird auction....


There were no M113 or M114 premiums, but there were about 20 lots of what the auction house called "cover" photos. I have at least one that wasn't mounted, but most were Conlon shots affexed to heavy board.

BB Magazine was around from 1908 into 1955. Between '55 and '65 it was sort of hit and miss.

The last publisher was Earl Noyes of Washington. D.C. His widow was in possession of the photo library until the Christie's sale. She had made attempts to sell the photos, but, until the Christie's auction, had no luck. You have to remember, photographs were of absolutely no value, if you were going to collect baseball memorabilia in those days, it would have been cards or autographs or programs. I have been told there was an asking price of $100,000, which would have constituted a real gamble. Who knows?

Here's the punch line: about three weeks after Christie's hauled out the 17 thousand photos, a pipe flooded the apartment where the pictures had been stored.
lumberjack

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Estwd

Hi Doug,

Did pose #1 come out first - is that the 1939 version?

I'm happy that this thread is back in action...

I do not know, and I'm not sure if it's possible to know which years many of these issues were printed.

Doug