Felix Mendelsohn & M101-4 and M101-5

[spec]

Thanks to Todd for elaborating on my post. I do not know that BF2s were actually sold by Mendelsohn, though it seems clear Mendelsohn was the source of the photos. I recall seeing ads for the pennants in a national sports publication, but that is based solely on memory of unrelated microfilm sleuthing many years ago. As Todd suggests, the assignment of the Ferguson name to BF2 derives from a Ferguson trade card as well as the coupon on the bottom of D381s that mentions baseball player and movie star pennants as part of an offered pillow top. The pennants on those pillow tops are of a different design than BF2 and use entirely different photographs. I am not knowledgeable about the large individual player pennants often credited to Ferguson. Do they feature photos from the BF2 catalog or D381s?

[Shankweather]

For 1916 M101 sets that used both checklists (-4 and -5), and for those 29 players in the sets that had the same card # in each set, is there any way to differentiate one from the other? Can you tell the difference between an M101-4 Gimbels Babe Adams and an M101-5 Gimbels Babe Adams?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

For 1916 M101 sets that used both checklists (-4 and -5), and for those 29 players in the sets that had the same card # in each set, is there any way to differentiate one from the other? Can you tell the difference between an M101-4 Gimbels Babe Adams and an M101-5 Gimbels Babe Adams?

I will defer to Todd, but the two different issues often have a different "look" to them. For example, the stock on the cards associated with the M101-5 cards generally has a more "creamy" tone to it while the M101-4 stock is whiter.

I believe that Gimbel's are usually associated with the M101-4 set, but there always seem to be some inconsistencies with these issues.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I will defer to Todd, but the two different issues often have a different "look" to them. For example, the stock on the cards associated with the M101-5 cards generally has a more "creamy" tone to it while the M101-4 stock is whiter.

I believe that Gimbel's are usually associated with the M101-4 set, but there always seem to be some inconsistencies with these issues.

Both PSA and SGC have cards from both checklists in their Gimbels pop reports, but M101-4 is definitely the most common. Anson shows Gimbels as one of the sets that uses both checklists on his website.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Both PSA and SGC have cards from both checklists in their Gimbels pop reports, but M101-4 is definitely the most common. Anson shows Gimbels as one of the sets that uses both checklists on his website.

I believe that the only Gimbel's cards that have been found to correspond to the M101-5 set come from the early cards - #s 1-20, but there may have been new finds to refute this.

Also, there are also several different types of Gimbel's backs.

Again, I will defer to Todd or one of the other experts on this issue.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

For 1916 M101 sets that used both checklists (-4 and -5), and for those 29 players in the sets that had the same card # in each set, is there any way to differentiate one from the other? Can you tell the difference between an M101-4 Gimbels Babe Adams and an M101-5 Gimbels Babe Adams?

M101-4 and m101-5 Gimbels cards are readily distinguishable by the fonts used on the backs. The m101-5 Gimbels are only found in card #s 1-20, and have straight block lettering for the store name, while the m101-4s have slanted or italicized looking lettering and can be found with any of the 1-200 card numbers, although low numbers 1-20 are scarce.
The different backs are displayed on Old Cardboard's site: https://www.oldcardboard.com/m/m101-4/backs-gallery.asp
So yes, you can easily tell the difference between the two Babe Adams cards.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

M101-4 and m101-5 Gimbels cards are readily distinguishable by the fonts used on the backs. The m101-5 Gimbels are only found in card #s 1-20, and have straight block lettering for the store name, while the m101-4s have slanted or italicized looking lettering and can be found with any of the 1-200 card numbers, although low numbers 1-20 are scarce.
The different backs are displayed on Old Cardboard's site: https://www.oldcardboard.com/m/m101-4/backs-gallery.asp
So yes, you can easily tell the difference between the two Babe Adams cards.

Thanks for all the info. I love what a mess these sets are, and I also love that you all did all the work already. Gimbels was a bad example because it actually has back variations. What about Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking? Is the cardstock the only way to tell with those?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Thanks for all the info. I love what a mess these sets are, and I also love that you all did all the work already. Gimbels was a bad example because it actually has back variations. What about Standard Biscuit or Morehouse Baking? Is the cardstock the only way to tell with those?

Those two are extremely difficult to differentiate between m101-4 and m101-5 (I know they have their own “D” designations), especially Morehouse Baking. There are some slight toning differences in the card stock– the whiter stock is usually m101-4 and the more yellowed or creamy stock m101-5. This is particularly true on the card backs, where an almost golden color stock is often seen on the m101-5s for Standard Biscuit. That being said, the coloring falls along a spectrum and the differences can be very subtle. Also, I don’t recall there being noticeable distinctions in thickness or feel of the stock when the card is in hand. So, unless the card appears very white or very non-white, I generally hesitate to be conclusive. This one, for example, is probably m101-5 (technically D350-1-1) but I have no real heartburn calling it m101-4 either (D350-1-2):

[Leon]

Nice conversation, guys.
For some more perspective this is what Burdick had to say, in his 1967 reprint ACC edition. He called them Premium Cards, which I kind of like too.
Otherwise, he didn't have the information we have today.
.

[RayBShotz]

Bought this card at the Northeast Sportscard Expo yesterday and as I am prone to do, set out to research the set and stumbled across this great thread which certainly deserves a refresh.

I didn't see it talked about here but is there a consensus as to whether the M101-4 Sporting News Back is more rare than a Blank Back for this issue?

A quick view of cards available for sale on line would anecdotally indicate that Blank Back would seem more common. (Extremely small sample size).

Any expert thoughts on this? (Evidence to the contrary or to support?)

I am always humbled by the wealth of knowledge embedded in the N54 threads on the pre-war sets.
Thanks guys.
RayB

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by spec

I am not knowledgeable about the large individual player pennants often credited to Ferguson. Do they feature photos from the BF2 catalog or D381s?

The large individual player pennants mostly feature full body action shots of the players.

They do not correspond to the D381 images, which are mostly portraits.

Some of the images correspond to those on BF2s, but others do not. In fact, a large pennant Donovan exists, but I do not think that he is even known in the BF2 set.