babe ruth m101-5 blank back $294,000

[oldjudge]

Hi Kevin. If the card has an ad back, in most cases you know whether it was an M101-5 or M101-4 as many ad backs were issued only in one of the two series. Also, on blank backs or ad backs that were issued in both series, you can look at the paper type. The cards that develop browning,most noticeable on the backs, are only M101-5s. For the most part, but not always, a white back will be an M101-4. For me to call a card a rookie of Ruth I would want proof the card was an M101-5. In a case when I wasn't sure I would be conservative and say it wasn't.
Hi Joe-There are no hard and fast rules. This is not accounting. I think when you can definitively say one issue came later, regardless of whether it is the same year or not, it cannot be a rookie. This is my opinion; you are certainly welcome to a different opinion. I can understand why dealers (not you now) would push for as wide a definition as possible, but I don't have to agree with them.

[Baseball Rarities]

Jay - thanks for the explanation. Which of the backs can only be found in the M101-5 series?

[pokerplyr80]

I'd have to say I agree that a rookie card can be issued any time during the year, especially with how many sets are available today. Otherwise everyone would launch a product Jan 1st to be the one true rc. There are players with cards in both 48 bowman and leaf sets that are considered rookies in each. I doubt they were released the same day. I'm personally trying to obtain one of every of Ken Griffey Jr's rookie cards. I couldn't care less which was issued earlier in the year.

[oldjudge]

Kevin: Holmes to Homes, Successful Farming, and for card numbers post 20 (like the Ruth) Famous and Barr. If you haven't read it, Todd and Tim's seminal article in Old Cardboard it is a must.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi Kevin. If the card has an ad back, in most cases you know whether it was an M101-5 or M101-4 as many ad backs were issued only in one of the two series. Also, on blank backs or ad backs that were issued in both series, you can look at the paper type. The cards that develop browning,most noticeable on the backs, are only M101-5s. For the most part, but not always, a white back will be an M101-4. For me to call a card a rookie of Ruth I would want proof the card was an M101-5. In a case when I wasn't sure I would be conservative and say it wasn't.
Hi Joe-There are no hard and fast rules. This is not accounting. I think when you can definitively say one issue came later, regardless of whether it is the same year or not, it cannot be a rookie. This is my opinion; you are certainly welcome to a different opinion. I can understand why dealers (not you now) would push for as wide a definition as possible, but I don't have to agree with them.

And there are a lot of people who don't agree that it is even a rookie card. Point to the 1949 Leaf set. We know the cards have stats from 1948, collectors have said they bought the cards in 1949 and hobby publications from the time say they were released in 1949. That doesn't stop people from calling the 1949 Leaf Stan Musial his rookie. So, how can one know about cards three decades earlier?

As far as calling all cards released in the same calendar year rookies, that is not true. That would mean the 1985 Donruss Don Mattingly is a rc too, as those cards were first released in December 1984. At least there is consensus that it is not. On the Ruth, there is no agreement and probably never will be.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by rats60

And there are a lot of people who don't agree that it is even a rookie card.

No, there are not a lot of people who believe the m101-4/5 Ruth is not his rookie card. There is you and virtually no one else. I asked you, more than once when you started this nonsense a couple of years ago, to tell us what you believe Ruth's rookie card to be---silence. Crickets. Nada.

Many could at least understand if you chose the Baltimore News card, but we both know you can't/won't go there. Come on, put it out there. I'm waiting for the Peter Chao answer of 1933 Goudey.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

No, there are not a lot of people who believe the m101-4/5 Ruth is not his rookie card. There is you and virtually no one else. I asked you, more than once when you started this nonsense a couple of years ago, to tell us what you believe Ruth's rookie card to be---silence. Crickets. Nada.

Many could at least understand if you chose the Baltimore News card, but we both know you can't/won't go there. Come on, put it out there. I'm waiting for the Peter Chao answer of 1933 Goudey.

'33 Goudey? That would be the totally idiotic Beckett answer. The Sporting News cards Jay mentioned are clearly his rookie cards endorsed by most knowledgeable hobbyists ....his Baltimore card is a pre-rookie card.

[yanksfan09]

I'll happily take anyone's m101-4's off them if they're unhappy with them or having doubts...

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

I'll happily take anyone's m101-4's off them if they're unhappy with them or having doubts...

The M101-5 & M101-4 Ruth's are BOTH his 1916 rookie cards....game....set....match....no dscussion necessary!

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

The M101-5 & M101-4 Ruth's are BOTH his 1916 rookie cards....game....set....match....no dscussion necessary!

Agreed.

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

The M101-5 & M101-4 Ruth's are BOTH his 1916 rookie cards....game....set....match....no dscussion necessary!

True dat! Ruth is the GOAT perhaps of all sports!

[nolemmings]

As I have mentioned before, I do not collect rookie cards per se and will never afford a m101-4/5 Ruth, so I don't have a lot invested in the debate as to whether one is the rookie and the other is not. I agree with Jay that there does not appear to be any hard and fast rule.

As I have thought about it more and done more research, I now would argue that either can be considered his rookie. Previously I believed that because m101-5 was printed first, it must be the rookie, and the best way to make sure is to acquire a card that came only associated with that set. Now it seems more logical to accept either of them as rookies, at least to me.

The cards were printed only 6-7 weeks apart max, at least first-run printings. To me the question then begs what would make one the rookie--when it was first printed or first available? Leaving aside the blank-backs for a minute, the answer is pretty murky.

Mendelsohn offered m101-4 in the Sporting News on April 6, 1916. In theory then, one could have ordered and received the m101-4 set in mid April or so, including the Ruth. Successful Farming-- one of the three sets exclusive to the earlier-printed m101-5, was not advertised by its publisher for sale until the May, 1916 issue, so it is likely those who answered that ad would have acquired their Ruth's after the enterprising and eager responder to Mendelsohn's m101-4 promo.

Similarly, Famous and Barr, another m101-5 Ruth producer, started its advertising April 8th, 1916, technically after the m101-4 cards were already available. More importantly, the store released the cards in weekly series of twenty cards, alphabetically, and Ruth would not have been issued to customers until the eighth week--about two months after m101-4 was in circulation.

Holmes to Homes is the only other advertiser of exclusively m101-5 Ruths. Its advertising also began about a week after Mendelsohn's TSN offer. Those cards were available one at a time in loaves of bread, so I suppose someone could have pulled a Ruth the first day or so, but even then, it is at least theoretically possible someone, say a kid in Chicago, already went downtown and paid at Mendelsohn's Peoples Gas Building to receive his set of m101-4. Under all of these circumstances, how should it be determined which came first for rookie purposes?

As for the blanks, we do know that m101-5 was printed first, and presumably would have been available before m101-4. However, since the Ruth card is identical in both sets, you are left with only subtle toning of the card's stock as the sole test of telling whether the card came from m101-5. I doubt the hobby is willing to put much stock in that (pun intended) as a definitive marker, although it would matter to me.

I guess the only way to be sure is to acquire the Chicago Examiner full sheet of M101-5, which issued in March, 1916. Good luck with that.

[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.