NY Times/Athletic Story - newly discovered 1916 Ruth Morehouse RC

[Belfast1933]

Originally Posted by John1941

Here's a version without the paywall:

https://archive.is/zOgd4

Thx John - the story was also picked up in Bleacher Report this morning

https://syndication.bleacherreport.c...ction.amp.html

[steve B]

Just for kicks, the former Morehouse Baking. Now an event space.

[oldjudge]

Always great to get the hobby additional publicity, so hats off to Brian for that. However, the Times reporter certainly could have done a better job getting the facts right. Specifically, M101-5s, while initially issued before M101-4s, we also issued concurrently with them. The only ad backs that can absolutely be determined to be M101-5s for Ruth cards are Holmes to Homes, Famous and Barr and Successful Farming (no Ruth known). So, we don’t know if the Morehouse Ruth is an M101-4 or M101-5. Second, Morehouse Baking is far from the scarcest back, although it is less common than average. Third, obviously the Baltimore News Ruth comes in both blue and red. I also found it interesting that it was not mentioned that two Morehouse Ruth’s were found, not just one. It would be wrong for the reader to come away with the impression that this is a unique card.

[steve B]

The way they describe cards issued during the players major league career as "MLB issued" is very strange to me.

Especially from an era where the major leagues were only a couple years removed from some serious competition and sort of barely held together.

[mrreality68]

it is always good for the news to be more out their for the hobby

Great Looking Card

Going to go for Top $$$$

I say we take a collection and buy it as part of the Net54 Collection.

[Belfast1933]

Time to make the bread!

[nolemmings]

As Jay and others noted the article is good for the hobby but is less than precise, including the statement that “In 1916, children didn’t go to department stores for baseball cards, then mainly a product for men in tobacco packages”. I also just shook my head at this tidbit:

Unlike today’s rookies, who can ebb and flow for years before their career paths stabilize, the owner of the Ruth card knew within two seasons that he was not a mere star but a superstar. So it’s no surprise that versions of this card remain so relatively well preserved with an 8 (Near Mint-Mint) and three 7s in the graded population. They soon became cherished icons of the nation’s greatest hero.

No surprise–as if kids back in 1916 placed it in a penny sleeve and then a topholder to preserve what would no doubt be a valuable asset some day. Beats dragging it to school in your pocket with marbles and coins to show off to your friends or toss in the shoebox with the rest of the cards. Again though I am glad the author took the time to call attention to the card.

Trying to claim which 1916 Mendelsohn sponsor contains the Ruth “rookie” is a dicey proposition, which is why I believe all are treated as qualifying. Much depends on whether you look to the date of printing or the date of distribution, and of course things are complicated by the fact that Ruth bears the same card #151 in both m101-4 and m101-5. If forced to choose, I would say that the Standard Biscuit was the first one available, although even that would be matched by the earliest release of the m101-5 blank backs. Then you need to choose which Ruth was issued with m101-5 and not m101-4, since he appears in both with Standard Biscuit (Morehouse too). The accepted feature that points to m101-5 is the faint print line off Babe’s left hip, which is not found on cards from advertisers exclusive to m101-4. Because the Morehouse Ruth shown has this print line and both the Jackson and Thorpe cards shown from the same grouping line up with m101-5, I believe it is fair to call this a rookie card by at least some folks’ definition.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

obviously the Baltimore News Ruth comes in both blue and red.

Ironically, not too long after you read "The Baltimore News card, with its blue-tint photo of a teenage Ruth," a photo of the card is shown - and wouldn't you know it, it's a red card.