D350???

[Archive]

Posted By: Bobby Binder

The Standard Biscuit sets D350-1, 2 and 3 have me frustrated in so many ways now there is this.

Is there 2 Joe Jax in the 1915 set? There is a number 86



And a number 87



Which is which and where should these go?

[Archive]

Posted By: gotwins

#86 lines up with m101-5, and #87 lines up with m101-4. Both sets are from 1916, and appear to line up with D350-2.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Bobby - thanks for raising this issue.

The Standard Catalog says that the D350-1 issue corresponds to the M101-4 & M101-5 issues, which probably means they should be split into two categories (D350-1a and D350-1b?) and the D350-2 issues corresponds to the E135 checklist.

OldCardboard.com inverts that assignment and has the D350-1s corresponding to the E135s and the D350-2 corresponding to the M101-4 set.

Certainly some confusion...

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I was at work when I posted my first response, and relied upon the Old Cardboard site. SCD is correct, and these two sets should correspond to D350-1, which makes since as they were issued first.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Does anyone else want to weigh in?

It seems to me that if there are two separate numbering systems, then they cannot share the same catalog designation and we would need to introduce D350-1a (corresponding to the M101-4 checklist) and D350-1b (corresponding to the M101-5 checklist).

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I had sent Leon an email on Oct 1 asking for his opinion on the numbering when I saw the card in Mile High's auction. He had suggested that Tim Newcomb might know something. Maybe you can contact Tim.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

You are not going to come up with a definitive answer. Matt, why not list the m101-5 first, as D350-1(a)? since they were issued before m101-4?

We have gone over some of the shortcomings of the ACC before, and I'm not sure you will gain any kind of wide acceptance on renumbering these. Part of the problem stems from misdating of sets which led to confusing numbering in the first place. M101-5 was issued before m101-4, for example, and both were issued in 1916, yet some old price guides will have m101-5 in 1915 and m101-4 in 1916 while others refer to m101-5 as a continuation of m101-4 (which of course it is not). Similarly the higher numbered D329 Weil Baking was issued before D328 (the ala e135 set), yet at one time both were thought to be issued in 1916. Old cardboard and others list D327 for the Holsum set that was issued years after both D328 and D329. Confused yet?

The problem you encounter with Standard Biscuit will be found with D352 Morehouse Baking as well, which also has cards that line up with m101-4 and m101-5. Several advertisers issued both of the m101- sets, so you will face problems with any of these that have ACC designations. Bobby, from a database standpoint, you will need to address the fact that Block & Kuhl, Famous & Barr, Gimbels, Morehouse, and Standard Biscuit will all have cards from both sets. If that weren't confusing enough, when compiling your checklist, you'll find that Famous & Barr cards numbered 1-20 are all related to m101-4 only, and Herplosheimer cards 1-20 are all related to m101-5 only. Have fun!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Todd - Excellent post!

While I don't think we can change the ACC, we should come to a consensus on how to differentiate the issues moving forward. Perhaps some of the online resources (VCP, OldCardboard) will list it as you have suggested D350-1a for the issues that corresponds to M101-5 and D350b for the one the corresponds to M101-4.