more on the m101-4s and m101-5s

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings) 

I was paging through an old Beckett annual price guide from 1981--that's right, volume 3, more than 20 years old-- when I saw the author's description that m101-5 was issued in 1916, and "is essentially an updated version of m101-4". Now this has been an occasional topic over the past several months, as to when m101-5 was issued, etc., so I thought I'd revisit it.

I, and probably others, assumed that the ACC, Burdick or other card gods deigned long ago that 1915 was the year of issue for m101-5, although I never understood why it would have a higher card set designation than m101-4 if issued a year earlier. It seems Beckett matter of factly has (or had in 1981) them in reverse, and we now know that m101-5 was not issued in 1915.

So, when and how after 1981 did things get mixed up?

Also, consider the irony if Beckett was right, and m101-4 came first. All of those people who insist their Babe Ruth sporting news cards were m101-5, not m101-4, even when the two appear identical, would then be hard-pressed to say that such cards could be construed his "rookie" under any scenario.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Todd,

Short of finding Sporting News paperwork, I have come to the realization that the mysteries of this set will remain just that, mysteries. It is unfortunate, but unless someone owns both sets, and can verify team changes (if in fact they made team changes in the set), then I don't think we will ever find resolution. However, I think that it is safe to say that it is vertually impossible to distinguish which year any particular Ruth card is from, and regardless of the year, there are no earlier sets with Ruth as a major leaguer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff O

The earliest reference that I could find for these two issues using these reference numbers is in the 1960 American Card Catalog. It contains the following:

M101-4 - Premium Cards (200) about 1915, 1 5/8 x 3, b&w, blank back, LIke Weil D329, Globe Suits, Incl. Baird, Bender, Cady, Devore, Gandil, Judge, Mowrey, Tyler, Wambsganss

M 101-5 - Premium Cards (200) about 1916, 1 5/8 x 3, b&w, blank bk. An. Like Standard bis. D350, Morehouse D352. Incl. Bresnahan, Coombs, Costello, Marsans, Nunamaker, Pfeffer, Pierce, Schaefer. (Sets 4 and 5 are alike except for some players and most numbers).

Both issues are listed at a price of $0.30 each (compare to T206 at $0.10).

The 1946 and 1953 ACC guides appear to list the sets together as part of the M5 issue:

M5 - Baseball Players (200) small, b&w, The Sporting News ($0.04 each in 1946 and $0.20 in 1953).

Jeff
jobermeyer2@attbi.com
http://www.seattlehockey.net

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Thanks Andy and Jeff. If anyone collects these issues, particularly the m101-4, I would appreciate any scans, as I am tracking differences in the 2 sets.

I have found that Clarence Walker appears for the St. Louis Browns in m101-5, and Boston Red Sox for m101-4. In fact, Walker was traded from St. Louis to Boston for cash on 4/8/16. He never played for St. Louis again; therefore, it appears safe to say that m101-4 came after m101-5.

[Archive]

Posted By: halleygator

Todd is right, and he beat me to it.

There are a few other examples as well of player "switches" in the sets, and some players in the later set who has not started playing when the first set was issued.

The reason the numbers are messed up NOW ...

is because someone got them backwards in the first place back in 1960!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

Hal, he only beat you to it by about 7 MONTHS or so.

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

A) I meant for my title to say "Todd is RIGHT" - although Being "Tight" probably means something good in todays street-slang.

B) It takes me about 7 months to crawl out of my cave and get to the nearest computer! The rest of the time I am hibernating in the cave and smelling the cardboard.