[nolemmings]

Jay, while I don't know why you want to start something with me, as I was just setting the record straight, allow me to disagree in large part. First, while I believe the rookie chase craze was indeed dealer contrived, that doesn't alter the fact that the m101/4 is in fact Ruth's rookie card, which is what I said. Moreover, until 10-12 years ago, the E135s were wrongfully dated as 1916 cards, giving the collector the impression that Ruth had two different rookie cards. I submit that some collectors seeking the E135 may have thought differently had they known the true facts, whatever their aesthetic preference. I also disagree completely that the card was ever ugly or common, but acknowledge that the E135 is much more difficult to find. Finally, while I too have trouble with dealers claiming that all blank-back Ruths are m101-5 when they are more likely not, I have seen no evidence at all to show that "Most likely these were just unsold sheets that were later cut up." I would love to see that evidence.

Edited to add: I recognize that 10-12 years ago many thought m101-5 was dated 1915 as well. My point is there was confusion surrounding what may have been Ruth's rookie card, which confusion no longer exists. To that extent, I modify my earlier response which stated that m101-4 always had been considered his rookie-- I was referring to the relatively recent phenomenon that the Baltimore News card should be considered as such.