NY Times/Athletic Story - newly discovered 1916 Ruth Morehouse RC

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Jay I agree that the toned or tanned cards were printed on somewhat different stock that either started out that color or aged differently than the others, and that this seems to appear only on m101-5 related issues, although even those show varying degrees of “goldening”. This still leaves the question as to whether one should look at printing date or distribution date. We don’t know when a handful of the m101 advertisers first put their cards out to the public, but we do know that Mendelsohn offered m101-4 blank-backs in the April 6, 1916 Sporting News paper and that Holmes to Homes was the first known sponsor to advertise on April 12, 1916, with others to follow in the next two weeks or so. So it seems that technically a collector could have acquired an m101-4 blank back before an m101-5 Holmes to Homes, and that Morehouse also could have distributed even earlier than Holmes to Homes, even though the latter is toned as well.

Todd--Given the dates you provided I assume that Holmes to Homes was ready to distribute or already distributing the cards if they advertised them. If Mendelsohn first advertised the M101-4 blank backs on April 6 and someone responded immediately by mail they would probably not receive their cards prior to someone getting a Holmes to Homes card. To me it sounds like the first possible Ruth was a Holmes to Homes but this is really splitting hairs. The bottom line is we can only guess.