M101-4 vs M101-5 - Education Needed

[MattyC]

Hi Guys,

Can anyone tell me how the hobby parses these two issues, since they look the same and were released at the same time? I really want to get more educated on the nuances here. With specific reference to the Babe Ruth, are both considered equally desirable as his rookie card (the Balt News notwithstanding as minor league depiction)?

Thanks as always.

Best,

Matt

[tonyo]

I know there is an expert or two on board....... while you are waiting on them to chime in, checkout oldcardboard: http://www.oldcardboard.com/m/m101-5...?cardsetID=965 it's pretty informative.

Tony

[MattyC]

Thanks. Earlier I had devoured that article and the one on the PSA site from an old SMR. It appears that the M101-5s predate the 4s by mere months, and there are cards numbered differently in both sets.

It seems from those articles and available photos that cards with the same number in both sets are then totally identical on the fronts-- and the set is thus determined only by the back?

With respect to the Ruth RC, I'm just wondering if the majority of the hobby then embraces any of the M101-4 Ruth varieties as his RC the same as the M101-5-- or is this small gap in printing time enough to relegate a card like say the Ware's copy to non-RC status?

It seems that AHs prefer not to distinguish and thus dub the M101-4s also Ruth's RC. Obviously there is a profit motive there so still left wondering how collectors on the buy-side feel about an M101-5 vs 4 Ruth.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Thanks. Earlier I had devoured that article and the one on the PSA site from an old SMR. It appears that the M101-5s predate the 4s by mere months, and there are cards numbered differently in both sets.

It seems from those articles and available photos that cards with the same number in both sets are then totally identical on the fronts-- and the set is thus determined only by the back?

With respect to the Ruth RC, I'm just wondering if the majority of the hobby then embraces any of the M101-4 Ruth varieties as his RC the same as the M101-5-- or is this small gap in printing time enough to relegate a card like say the Ware's copy to non-RC status?

It seems that AHs prefer not to distinguish and thus dub the M101-4s also Ruth's RC. Obviously there is a profit motive there so still left wondering how collectors on the buy-side feel about an M101-5 vs 4 Ruth.

Well, Todd S, Tim N. and a few others are our resident experts on the set. I might have been the first to start collecting the backs but I never dug anywhere close to as deep as they did for information on them. But to answer your question, it seems to me, the hobby has embraced both -4's and -5s the same way, both being labeled Ruth's rookie card.

[MattyC]

Thanks, Leon.

[nolemmings]

I believe that the fact that the m101-4 and m101-5 were issued only several weeks apart has the majority of the hobby considering both to be Ruth's MLB rookie card. Actually, since there were multiple print runs of each set, it is conceivable that the last m101-5 was printed only days before the first m101-4. Still, I suppose there are some purists who would insist that only the m101-5 can be considered Ruth's rookie. For them to be certain they have such a specimen, they would need a card from the Famous & Barr, Holmes to Homes or Successful Farming sets. These last two are sufficiently scarce to find for any player, leaving the F&B as the most likely available. That card could theoretically be an m101-4, because there are a half dozen or so high-numbered F&Bs that match up with m101-4, but it is almost certainly an m101-5.

[JasonD08]

I had PSA and Joe Orlando change a label for me once from M101-4 to M101-5 on the Ruth rookie. It was a PSA 4 and labelled 1916 m101-4. I had it changed to 1915 M101-5 if I recall. The card was a blank back and if I remember correctly, the M101-5s (blank) were typically considered first print or more likley printed in 1915. Correct me if I am wrong here. At any rate a $100 bill and about a week later I received the card back in the new case. I would post scans but sold it years ago.

Jason