D350-3 Standard Biscuit

[Exhibitman]

How tough are these to find? I've read conflicting information so I am interested in members' opinions.

[Leon]

With my little bit of hunting and pecking I have seen them to be quite difficult. I paid a premium for this one several years ago..

[Brian Van Horn]

Not impossible, but harder to find. That said, this card from the set is very hard to come by:

[rhettyeakley]

Easily the most difficult of the (3) Standard Buscuit backs. Little known is that there are actually 2 different backs with one of the backs being EXTREMELY hard to find, I have only confirmed a few different subjects from the second subset.
-Rhett

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Not impossible, but harder to find. That said, this card from the set is very hard to come by:

FYI, that Davenport PSA 1 Standard Biscuit card is a 1917 350-2 issue and has been inappropriarely labeled 1921 (it is NOT a 350-3). The 1921 ad back is much wider, filling most of the card, with a larger print font.

REgards,
Joe T.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

FYI, that Davenport PSA 1 Standard Biscuit card is a 1917 350-2 issue and has been inappropriarely labeled 1921 (it is NOT a 350-3). The 1921 ad back is much wider, filling most of the card, with a larger print font.

REgards,
Joe T.

Joe,

Not meaning to be argumentative, but the series of 80 for the set is considered to be from 1921 and is considered the D350-3. The series of 120 is from 1917 and is considered the D350-2.

As for the year, I will defer to the Old Cardboard website on the matter, although I will state that Davenport's last season in the majors was 1919:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/d/d350/d...?cardsetID=994

Thank You,

Brian Van Horn

[nolemmings]

Actually, the D350-2 Standard Biscuit align with E135-- Collins-McCarthy, Boston Store, and Weil Baking (plus some blank-backs)-- and thus have 200 cards, as acknowledged on the card backs.

Apart from having 200 subjects, the easiest way to spot a D350-2 card is the fact that it is numbered like other E135s whereas the E121 family is not.

The Davenport is clearly not D350-2, as it references 80 photographs in the set and more importantly is unnumbered:

[nolemmings]

Here is a scan of the rare "80 photographs" back Rhett was referencing in his earlier post:



BTW, there are actually four Standard Biscuit sets, since there are two from 1916, one that aligns with m101-5 and the other with m101-4. I guess Burdick missed that or didn't care, but maybe they should be classified as D350-1-1 and D350-1-2.

[RCMcKenzie]

I collect the Standard Biscuits that look like the Famous & Barr type cards and have about 15 of these. I think they are called D350-1. Frank Ward explained all of the various combinations on here many years ago, but I still don't fully understand the designations. The grading companies avoid the confusion by not referring to any set designation.

[terjung]

Since we're all showing Standard Biscuits, here is my only one...

[nolemmings]

Nice Wags--real nice.

The Standard Biscuits are really not that hard to tell apart. They are designated in correct chronological order: 1916 for D350-1; 1917 for D350-2 and 1921 for D350-3. The D350-1s are noticeably smaller, and the other two are distinguished by whether they are numbered or not. They are easily distinguishable even with only a front or back scan, since the larger two state that they have either 200 in the set (D350-2) or 80.

Here are the smaller D350-1s:
(corresponds to m101-5)

(corresponds to m101-4)

[RCMcKenzie]

Todd,

So, these two Crawfords correspond to the m101-5 set. And the Standard Biscuit with #42 on the front is called D350-1, but there is or could be a Crawford with #41 on the front and this would also be designated D350-1, unless we started using the notation you suggested D350-1-1 and D350-1-2. I think I got it. Thanks

FBcrawford.jpgFBcrawfordb.jpg

SBcrawford.jpgSBcrawfordb.jpg

[nolemmings]

Yup you nailed it.

[brianp-beme]

Just my rotten luck. I have the rarer reverse version as my only D350-3. By the way, I punched the star myself to indicate Maranville's HOF status.

Brian

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Joe,

Not meaning to be argumentative, but the series of 80 for the set is considered to be from 1921 and is considered the D350-3. The series of 120 is from 1917 and is considered the D350-2.

As for the year, I will defer to the Old Cardboard website on the matter, although I will state that Davenport's last season in the majors was 1919:

http://www.oldcardboard.com/d/d350/d...?cardsetID=994

Thank You,

Brian Van Horn

Brian, you are not being argumentative and that is exactly what I was telling you. The card you displayed is a 350-2 from 1917, NOT the 1921 (D350-3) designation PSA erroneosuly placed on the label. You definitely have a 1917 Standard Biscuit Davenport!

Regards,
Joe T.

[nolemmings]

Joe, read the rest of the thread--you are incorrect.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Brian, you are not being argumentative and that is exactly what I was telling you. The card you displayed is a 350-2 from 1917, NOT the 1921 (D350-3) designation PSA erroneosuly placed on the label. You definitely have a 1917 Standard Biscuit Davenport!

Regards,
Joe T.

Joe,

Just to clarify, I would side with you on the mislabeling of 1921 by PSA based on Davenport's career, but the "80" back makes the card a D350-3.

[Exhibitman]

Just back from Newport Beach. This would be the easier of the D350-3 backs?



Also, WTF is Evers doing? Praying to the Sun God Ra?

[Brian Van Horn]

I just wanted to add a couple examples:

[brianp-beme]

Adam I'll go along with Rhett (definitely the one on this board I feel has the best handle on all the E121 variants) in that you have the easier back to come by. Definitely not many D350-3 cards floating around. Here I have re-posted my Maranville with the other, less common, back, perhaps this time a little sharper?

4 years later and I still think I did a good thing by punching that little star in the upper right.

Brian

[WillowGrove]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

4 years later and I still think I did a good thing by punching that little star in the upper right.

Brian

Lol Brian.