[nolemmings]

40 year litigator, wow. Did you consult with Rudy Giuiliani on this one?

So where’s your evidence counselor? You claim to own one of these Ruth “prototypes”, and have for years now. You stated you had scans more than 5 years ago, ready to upload. I and others asked you to provide one. You are and have been silent. Why? You are the proud owner of perhaps the most iconic card in the hobby— made even more valuable by the fact that yours is a one-of-a-kind prototype–and have told us 5 years ago that scans were coming. Now nothing. Geez, and you’re having trouble understanding why someone would call bullshit?

Your “evidence” consists entirely of your recollection–shared by no one else who has come forward– that you observed certain dot patterns 30 plus years ago convincing you that the cards with a larger space between photo and frame were legit. So let’s establish foundation for your testimony, Mr. Darrow. Where was this, and when? Did you take notes? Who was the dealer who showed you the cards? What other witnesses were there who might be called to share your recollection (you fancy pants litigators call that corroboration)? All those years ago. How many genuine, “normal” Ruth rookies had you examined by that time, which might serve for comparison? How many m101s of any kind had you examined? Oh that’s right, you were on the lookout for fake Mattingly rookies, sleuth that you are, and were carrying a loupe. Got it. Unimpeachable for sure. Wait, why are we wasting our time with such silly questions–you’ve got the card to prove your point. Where is it?

Your lack of evidence is matched by the illogic or at least implausibility of your other explanations. I pointed out years ago that Ruth and Thorpe’s popularity in early 1916 was not so great as to explain why they would have been selected for salesman’s samples, as you claimed, particularly given other available players and the Chicago base of operations for Mendelsohn. You agreed, but then switched gears to suggest it was a prototype or printer’s proof. But such things are by definition internal, not to be made public, so why would it matter if it was Ruth or Thorpe, when Jimmy Archer or Al Mamaux would serve the purpose? Their popularity (which I believe you overstate anyway) essentially would be a non-issue.

Then there’s the matter of card numbering. You are suggesting that Mendelsohn made a prototype of Ruth and Thorpe, and that he numbered them 151 and 176 respectively. So the issuer already knew that he would have 150 cards alphabetized before Ruth, then another 24 before Thorpe, when he generated these prototypes. Sure, makes complete sense. And if your answer is maybe Mendelsohn made a prototype of the entire 200 card set, then I ask again, as I did 5 years ago, why are there no other examples of any other cards in existence. For that matter and again, why are even the Ruth and Thorpe “prototypes” not confirmed by anyone other than you?

Finally and again, you are basically stating that these “prototypes”, which are different than the final product only by the small difference in space between the photo and frame, were completely scrapped. Mendelsohn kept the same design, photo selection, team, player name and number fonts and number sequencing, but just decided he needed to start over because that little space difference was bugging him to distraction. Yep, I can see no other explanation.

Please put an end to this, and show us your card. Or, in your words, keep stumbling along.