REA -- What Did you Get?

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

FYI, while the timing of their release during the 1916 Calendar Year varies and remains somewhat ambiguous, all 1916 Ruth cards (blank or ad back) are considered his rookie card. Also, many collectors believe the M101-5 related issues (e.g., Famous & Barr/M101-5 blank backs) to be among the earliest released issues. A moot point because a “Rookie card” designation is typically ANY cardboard issue released during the entire calendar year (not predicated on which month during the year the card was issued).

Vintageclout: Thanks for that info. All things being equal though, I would prefer to have the M101-5 version of Ruth over the M101-4 just for the simple fact that it was produced earlier in the year.

So, besides the blank back, Famous & Barr and Standard Biscuit versions, are there any other Ruths that are generally considered to be from the earlier "M101-5" series?

[pgconboy]

I just got my cards from the last REA auction and unfortunately got shorted like I feared.

I won this auction: https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...=MyBids-101116

It said 14 cards, and listed 14 cards in the description. However the photo only showed 13. On the paperwork with the check I mailed I wrote and circled/underlined for them to verify that they are sending 14 cards.

Sure enough, 13 showed up in the mail today. Missing the Lord, PSA 6.

[oldjudge]

That was a Heritage auction, not REA

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

That was a Heritage auction, not REA

Oops, good eye. I had recently a bunch of REA emails from the auction mixed in with my tracking emails that my mind blended the two together.

[Rhotchkiss]

Ben, awesome Matty! I was watching that one myself, but picked up the Dark Cap CB instead. Can’t go wrong owning a Matty dark cap 7.5. Congratulations

[Tyler]

Thanks, Ben. Looks like you grabbed a couple of beauties.
Tyler

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Vintageclout - Thanks for that info. All things being equal though, I would prefer to have the M101-5 version of Ruth over the M101-4 just for the simple fact that it was produced earlier in the year. I understand that they may both be considered his "Rookie card," but I would still prefer to have the earlier one, especially because they seem to be more scarce.

So, besides the blank back, Famous & Barr and Standard Biscuit versions, are there any other Ruths that are generally considered to be from the earlier "M101-5" series?

Hobby research has revealed that the extremely scarce “Holmes to Homes” and “Morehouse Baking” issues can also be M101-5. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no 1916 Ruth rookies are currently known with these ad backs.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Hobby research has revealed that the extremely scarce “Holmes to Homes” and “Morehouse Baking” issues can also be M101-5. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no 1916 Ruth rookies are currently known with these ad backs.

Successful Farming is also m101-5, although no Ruths have been confirmed. Be careful with either Standard Biscuit and Morehouse if you insist on trying to land an m101-5, as those advertisers also issued cards parallel to m101-4.

[Rhotchkiss]

Amazing card Jason - one of my favorite in the whole auction. Congrats

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Be careful with either Standard Biscuit and Morehouse if you insist on trying to land an m101-5, as those advertisers also issued cards parallel to m101-4.

Hi Todd,

In regards to the Standard Biscuit and Morehouse cards (Ruth in particular), how can you differentiate between the M101-5 and M101-4? Is it just by the tone of the stock? For example, I assume that the PSA 2 is an M101-5 and the PSA 4 is an M101-4. It also seems that M101-4 cards are taller and thinner than M101-5s. Is this true?

[BeanTown]

Was happy to upgrade with this baseball currency note. These are hard to find in decent condition. Jerry Spillman did an article on these notes in the April 2018 issue of the Vintage Collector by Beckett. Some corrections need to be done with the article, as he was off on some of the advertisers and their locations including this pickup. The Jeweler is actually located in Cadiz, Oh and not Chicago, IL as published.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Was happy to upgrade with this baseball currency note. These are hard to find in decent condition. Jerry Spillman did an article on these notes in the April 2018 issue of the Vintage Collector by Beckett. Some corrections need to be done with the article, as he was off on some of the advertisers and their locations including this pickup. The Jeweler is actually located in Cadiz, Oh and not Chicago, IL as published.

Awesome baseball currency, JC.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Was happy to upgrade with this baseball currency note. These are hard to find in decent condition. Jerry Spillman did an article on these notes in the April 2018 issue of the Vintage Collector by Beckett. Some corrections need to be done with the article, as he was off on some of the advertisers and their locations including this pickup. The Jeweler is actually located in Cadiz, Oh and not Chicago, IL as published.

Fascinating. My buddy owns nearly 100 acres right near Cadiz. VERY rural area - I love it.

[ValKehl]

My first Joe Jackson item from his playing days. Not only was it affordable, but I think player notebooks are neat.

[nolemmings]

Hi Kevin,

I have never seen a Morehouse Ruth, so can offer no opinion there. As for Standard Biscuit, I have only seen three, and only that number have been graded by PSA and SGC- the two you show and an SGC 40. You are correct in identifying the two (the SGC 40 is from the earlier m101-5 also).

There are stock and a couple of production identifiers that help differentiate the two. With Standard Biscuit the creamier or more golden-looking stock, particularly noticeable on the back, is very seldom found on m101-4 cards. Standard Biscuit was likely the first advertiser to receive m101-5 or D350-1 cards, and the stock is easily seen as non-white, although it can vary in degree.

Ruth cards from m101-5 usually have that print flaw most have observed-- a line from the right border that extends toward anywhere from about his left elbow in some cards to around the sleeve of his undershirt in others. It too varies in degree, and is hard to see in your scan but is there. M101-4s will not show that line.

Many m101-4s with department store advertising (and some blanks) have print pressure lines running horizontally about 40% from the top and/or vertically 15% from the right edge, starting at the bottom. Your PSA 4 Ruth scan shows the vertical line-- it runs from the bottom of the card up through his lifted ankle. Here is a blank-backed Ruth that shows a more pronounced line:

This is another sign that it lines up with m101-4, and although this "flaw" is not found in all cards from that latter set, it is not seen in m101-5. Along with the whiter stock, it is pretty safe to say the PSA 4 Standard Biscuit is from the m101-4 set.

As for the size/dimensions of the different Standard Biscuits, I do not believe we have enough of a sample size to say that one is taller or wider than the other. In general this is not apparent for m101-5 vs m101-4 or Standard Biscuit cards overall.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Hi Kevin,

I have never seen a Morehouse Ruth, so can offer no opinion there. As for Standard Biscuit, I have only seen three, and only that number have been graded by PSA and SGC- the two you show and an SGC 40. You are correct in identifying the two (the SGC 40 is from the earlier m101-5 also).

There are stock and a couple of production identifiers that help differentiate the two. With Standard Biscuit the creamier or more golden-looking stock, particularly noticeable on the back, is very seldom found on m101-4 cards. Standard Biscuit was likely the first advertiser to receive m101-5 or D350-1 cards, and the stock is easily seen as non-white, although it can vary in degree

Todd - I somehow missed your post. Thanks for the detailed response. I really appreciate it.