Backs Finished! How about a 1916 M101-4/5 "Sporting News/Mendelsohn" Thread

[boneheadandrube]

Leon, looks like I ended up with that Sisler!

[oldjudge]

Leon--That was a fantastic group. Since you put that together a second Wares back has been found. I'll post an image of both later so people can see the difference.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Leon--That was a fantastic group. Since you put that together a second Wares back has been found. I'll post an image of both later so people can see the difference.

Just what I would have needed, another hole to fill. Glad I am not so earnest about ALL of them anymore. I am very liesurely this time out. (and thanks to everyone showing their backs!)
.

[boneheadandrube]

Leon, do you have any background on where that Holmes came from? I think I remember that most (90%+) of the Holmes to Homes backs are known from a salesman sample/scrapbook "find" that left them with varying degrees of back damage, and some with front damage from being torn out of the pages. There are a handful in this thread that seem free of the glue/rip damage. Are these cards that were found separately? I'll bet some people haven't heard about this, so it might be good to bring it up again. What do you recall about these backs?

[GeoPoto]

(An aside: I am always shocked to see the blackened ball selected to be part of the (presumably) staged photograph used for Griff's cards. I am well aware that balls were precious and used well-beyond when their original shape, let alone whiteness, had long been compromised. But what continues to amaze me is that blackened balls were so normal to their way of thinking that it wouldn't have occurred to them to use a newer ball. They may even have figured using a new ball would make the picture look odd.)

I'm limited to Washington cards, so I have back-runs for individual players, but it is hard to approach all possible backs. In fact, five is my current maximum. From a type-collection standpoint, I can only muster nine different backs across all Washington players. Fortunately, my Washington collection includes Clark Griffith, who can cover five of them:

[nolemmings]

Kudos Greg, that’s a great grouping. I am fortunate to have completed the back run also, with the variations. Leon, here’s the one Everybody’s back I believe you were lacking, along with some other of my ungraded faves (the Faber has a reversed back, one of only two in the set I have seen with this feature):

[boneheadandrube]

Some great cards being shown! I think the three nicest Holmes backs I've seen so far...

[IMAXMAX]

Congrats Greg!
(and to Todd, Leon, George, and Brian as well)

I'm still early in the journey, but here's my progress report so far:

[boneheadandrube]

Nice run Daniel, keep going!

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

(An aside: I am always shocked to see the blackened ball selected to be part of the (presumably) staged photograph used for Griff's cards. I am well aware that balls were precious and used well-beyond when their original shape, let alone whiteness, had long been compromised. But what continues to amaze me is that blackened balls were so normal to their way of thinking that it wouldn't have occurred to them to use a newer ball. They may even have figured using a new ball would make the picture look odd.)

I'm limited to Washington cards, so I have back-runs for individual players, but it is hard to approach all possible backs. In fact, five is my current maximum. From a type-collection standpoint, I can only muster nine different backs across all Washington players. Fortunately, my Washington collection includes Clark Griffith, who can cover five of them:

Nice group of Griffs. What struck me about his photo is that it is ten years old by the time m101-4 was issued, as was McGraw's in a similar New York N.L. dark uni (probably both taken by Burke). Mendelsohn was so intent on getting "Action" photos that he must have thought dugout shots were to be shunned whenever possible. Of course, at least one was unavoidable:

[oldjudge]

These are the two Wares varieties. Not the line above Wares.

[boneheadandrube]

Boy, that's really subtle! Is the font thicker or just squished down a bit?

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

Boy, that's really subtle! Is the font thicker or just squished down a bit?

Looking at the examples it appears the best way to tell the difference is the length of the line above the 'Ware's'. It is either about the same length as the Ware's line, or it extends a little past on both sides.

Brian

[oldjudge]

There are actually several differences, but as Brian points out the length of the line above Wares is the most obvious. The scarcer version (bottom) also has no comma after street, and less space between the E and S in WARES, etc.