Mystery Lajoie Card in Legendary Auction

[Hankphenom]

I hope this works, first attempt at attaching pics to a post.

Dimensions:
Folded as mailed: 9&1/2" x 4&1/4"
Fully unfolded: 14" x 12"


scan0001.jpg

scan0002.jpg

chicago 012.jpg

chicago 014.jpg

[dallen]

What an awesome piece! Thanks for sharing.

[JamesGallo]

Very different from this card

[paul]

Hank, do the "cards" on your strip have a blank back, or do they have part of the extensive Felix Mendelsohn advertising on the back? Thanks.

Paul

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by paul

Hank, do the "cards" on your strip have a blank back, or do they have part of the extensive Felix Mendelsohn advertising on the back? Thanks.

Paul

Yes, they do have the printing back, which takes up one entire side of the piece. thanks, Paul, for pointing that out. Why I didn't think of that before I shot my mouth off is beyond me, but this whole thing is making me feel dummer all the time. Well, at least it made me go to the trouble of posting the pics, which were hopefully enjoyed by a few members. Now I have a question: Someone mentioned the "Mendelsohn empire--could someone enlighten me as to the history of that company as it relates to baseball cards, and why aren't these M-101 cards called Mendelsohn's?

[spec]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I hope this works, first attempt at attaching pics to a post.

Dimensions:
Folded as mailed: 9&1/2" x 4&1/4"
Fully unfolded: 14" x 12"


Attachment 58697

Attachment 58698

Attachment 58699

Attachment 58700

Hank,
Thanks for sharing your promotional piece. It now seems certain the card in question, as well as all/most of the W-Unc mystery cards we've seen in recent years are products of the Mendelsohn empire. Whether uncataloged card sets, remnants of advertising/promotional pieces or some sort of preproduction mockups remains to be seen, of course.

[packs]

I don't think it's the same image. There is no double dash in the ad piece. There is a double dash between the position on the Legendary card. "2nd B. -- Philadelphia."

Also, the name is spelled differently on both images. Napolean vs Napoleon.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't think it's the same image. There is no double dash in the ad piece. There is a double dash between the position on the Legendary card. "2nd B. -- Philadelphia."

Also, the name is spelled differently on both images. Napolean vs Napoleon.

All of that has already been pointed out in a previous post.

[Hankphenom]

One other curiosity: all the photos on my piece are the same as on the M101-4 and M101-5 cards except the Lajoie, which has an entirely different pose altogether. Another question: what is the difference between the two sets, just different years?

[paul]

The M101-4 set is a slight update of the M101-5 set. The player selection is slightly different, and the numbers of most cards differ, though some cards like Ruth have the same number in both sets.

Mendelsohn was the publisher that produced both sets, along with M101-6 and an extremely rare set of three cards that I called "proofs" in an earlier post. The Standard Catalog did list all four sets as "Mendelsohns" for awhile, but is now using that name only for M101-6 and the rare set of three cards.

It does seem pretty clear that my Lajoie is related in some way to Mendelsohn. I can only guess that Mendelsohn decided at the last minute to substitute a different photo for Lajoie in the M101-4/5 sets. Why there is a card of Lajoie with the original photo is anyone's guess. It may be a prototype for a set that never was. The wear on the corners of the Lajoie looks consistent with a card stock to me, not a paper cut out -- but E107 Type 2s are apparently cut outs of some kind and they are on card stock. And there are Koester bread cards that were cut out of a very heavy card stock sheet. So I guess I don't really know for sure. But the Lajoie card sure does seem to have a very professional cut to it, not hand cut.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by paul

It does seem pretty clear that my Lajoie is related in some way to Mendelsohn. I can only guess that Mendelsohn decided at the last minute to substitute a different photo for Lajoie in the M101-4/5 sets. Why there is a card of Lajoie with the original photo is anyone's guess. It may be a prototype for a set that never was. The wear on the corners of the Lajoie looks consistent with a card stock to me, not a paper cut out -- but E107 Type 2s are apparently cut outs of some kind and they are on card stock. And there are Koester bread cards that were cut out of a very heavy card stock sheet. So I guess I don't really know for sure. But the Lajoie card sure does seem to have a very professional cut to it, not hand cut.

Paul,
My brother-in-law, who knows nothing about any of this, said immediately about the mystery of your card: "Maybe it's a salesman's sample, made around the time of the mailer campaign for their salesmen to show prospective customers." Seemed plausible. But then you'd think they'd have put a beautiful ad on the back to show what their printers could do for the customer. So who knows? But I don't think there's any doubt that your card (and it does, indeed, look like a card) and my piece are related, which connects yours directly to the M101 sets. Who doesn't love a mystery!
Hank

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by paul

The M101-4 set is a slight update of the M101-5 set. The player selection is slightly different, and the numbers of most cards differ, though some cards like Ruth have the same number in both sets.

Mendelsohn was the publisher that produced both sets, along with M101-6 and an extremely rare set of three cards that I called "proofs" in an earlier post. The Standard Catalog did list all four sets as "Mendelsohns" for awhile, but is now using that name only for M101-6 and the rare set of three cards.
I

What are the years of the M101-4 and M101-5 sets, both 1916? And why is the update a lower number? How many different advertiser backs are known? Are there complete sets for all the back variations? And I wonder if it was known the circumstances of how the different backs came to be before my mailer explained it?