Is this the Wagner Rookie? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:02 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsit looks like Unglaub. Everyone always think they see a HOF player in every picture..... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> Great looking piece. The definition of what a "card" is under challenge in the hobby - in part by our changing perceptions -and in part by inference and assimilation as a result of what the grading companies are grading as cards. As for this - it's clearly a premium/suppliment and would be more akin to a print than to a card.... GAI will most likely grade it though. Monday..... I would simply call it a superior early image.

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:03 PM

Posted By: JayIn all honesty, I'm not sure where I fall on the arguement as to whether this is a rookie card or not, but didn't someone put together a formula for determining what each HOFers' rookie card was, and weren't M101-1 type cards involved in that process? Henry--BTW, GAI was set up at the White Plains show this weekend.

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:04 PM

Posted By: Jeff Priznerthin paper stock correct? not really a card (and thus not a rookie card) but very cool.

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:10 PM

Posted By: JayTo add to the discussion, here is the write-up from a past REA auction lot containing the M101-1 Wagner. <a href="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/120.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/120.html</a>

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:10 PM

Posted By: JeremyYes, this is his Rookie, but No, this is not his Rookie card... ~ Jeremy ~

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:22 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsif you weren't kidding - details? Bought out? Bankrupt? I have an N28 "6" card SWIMMING in a holder I'd like them to explain someday <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:24 PM

Posted By: Jason Lyou can actually see individual hairs on his head! There were no actual rookie cards before 1951. I say that because it seems that all the fights are about cards before that date.

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:25 PM

Posted By: JerryWhat was the final consenses on this card?...if there was one. Was it determined to be 19th century or not. <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/cardsforsale/websize/reccius.jpg" width="481" height="640" alt="reccius.jpg">

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:47 PM

Posted By: boxingcardmanI've never seen one before. Size? Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Archive

01-17-2009, 02:56 PM

Posted By: LymanI realize that I may be in the minority here, but I tend to view supplements, pins, silks, leathers, etc. as "cards." Afterall, Jefferson Burdick did when he listed all of these in the American Card Catalog. No matter what you call it, the M101-1 Wagner is certainly an impressive piece. Lyman

Archive

01-17-2009, 03:05 PM

Posted By: dan mckeeAdam, Hal owned that piece and I believe it was postcard size if I remember correctly.

Archive

01-17-2009, 03:06 PM

Posted By: dan mckeeI see a very large debate right around 1951 and after, Is the Mantle rookie card 1951 Bowman or 1952 Topps? Seems very obvious which it should be.

Archive

01-17-2009, 03:09 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI think the general feeling on the Reccius is it was likely issued later than 1897. Nobody knew for sure and that was the problem.

Archive

01-17-2009, 03:12 PM

Posted By: Ken WirtI'm with Lyman. Beautiful large rookie card!

Archive

01-17-2009, 03:43 PM

Posted By: Marty OgelvieRookie 'Card' or not it is simply magnificent! Thanks for sharing! Marty

Archive

01-17-2009, 03:50 PM

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)My general sense is that its not a "card" but there is case that can be made that if someone (i.e. a grading company) will put it in a holder, authenticate it and grade it, then its a card. Doesn't Beckett make something that would hold this one....

Archive

01-17-2009, 03:59 PM

Posted By: WesleyThe supplement is not a card. At 8 3/4 x 11, it is closer to a poster. Great item though.

Archive

01-17-2009, 04:06 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryJay: That is an awesome Wagner piece, I wish I owned it!!! The M101-1's were issued during 1899-1900 using portraits which were produced in 1898-1899 by the National Copper Plate Co. out of Michigan for their own baseball player release in the form of 50 portfolio portraits. The NCP's were also premium sized items measuring approximately 10" X 13" as compared to the 8 3/4" X 11" M101-1's size. Since both issues would be considered premiums, the NCP would have to be considered the earlier "Rookie" piece and the M101-1 would be the second ever item picturing Wagner individually in a Major League uniform. Of course, that assumes that the unique Henry Reccius card was not issued during 1897-99 as originally believed. By the way, I do own an M101-1 Wagner that is even scarcer than yours, it is a 1/1 Die-Cut version which has been encapsulated by Beckett. Here it is........ <img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/bcbgcbrcb/Wagner_Honus.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

01-17-2009, 04:07 PM

Posted By: Michael SteeleI echo the thoughts above, magnificent item no matter if it is considered a "rookie" or not or a "card" or not.

Archive

01-17-2009, 04:11 PM

Posted By: WesleyCan the largest Becket holder fit the 8-3/4 x 11 supplement? Something like the M101-1 Wagner would look great mounted and framed and hanging on the wall.

Archive

01-17-2009, 04:24 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryAfter my earlier post a little while ago, I just did some quick research and I see that the M101-1's are listed in the 2009 Standard Catalogue as having a glossy-type paper finish and the National Copper Plates do not mention the type of paper finish that they were printed on. Does anyone have examples of each to compare the paper?

Archive

01-17-2009, 04:35 PM

Posted By: JayPhil--I think the National Copperplates and the Sporting News cards are printed on similar paper. However, there is one large difference. National Copperplate cards could be ordered in a portfolio as a set; Sporting News cards were only available once, when the particular issue of TSN came out. Sporting News cards are dated, National Copperplate are not. I believe that Sporting News cards are scarcer and more difficult to find in nice shape.

Archive

01-17-2009, 05:00 PM

Posted By: Bruce Babcock<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/19thcenturycabinetcards/CopperplateNichols.JPG" alt="[linked image]"> Here's a National Copperplate of Nichols. I have the M101-1 Cobb/Wagner but it's framed. I think the M101-1 may be slightly thicker stock than the Copperplate. Yes, Jay, the Wagner/Cobb is an M101-2. Brain cramp on my part.

Archive

01-17-2009, 05:07 PM

Posted By: JayBruce--Isn't the Cobb/Wagner an M101-2?

Archive

01-18-2009, 04:43 AM

Posted By: Phil GarryMy main reason for asking about any differences in the type of paper used is because my trimmed Wagner could possibly be from either issue as the trimmed portion I have is identical in appearance in both cases. As for scarcity, I have seen fewer of the NCP's than M101-1's on ebay/auction houses over the past few years with the exception of Kid Nichols NCZP which seems to be more plentiful than most others for some reason (unless the exact same piece has been sold several times).

Archive

01-18-2009, 07:22 AM

Posted By: leonThe Supplement isn't a card....silly rabbits. It's a great image though...I think they can be collected like cards just like felts, pins, silks etc...that have great player images. But none of those are "cards"....imnsho....(in my no so humble opinion)

Archive

01-18-2009, 07:38 AM

Posted By: JayLeon--Like I said previously, I'm not sure how I fall on this one. However, if these are not cards then are Boston Garters cards? Are schedules with players pictures on one side cards? Are tickets with players pictures on one side cards? Beats me.

Archive

01-18-2009, 07:42 AM

Posted By: boxingcardmanIf it is in the ACC, I think it is pretty safe to say it is a card... Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Archive

01-18-2009, 08:22 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI agree with Leon -- it's not a card, it's a collectible. A 'card' is something you can at least hold in the palm of your hand. Exhibits, postcards...hmm...yes, I'd say they are cards. T3? Tougher call.

Archive

01-18-2009, 08:30 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJay- as you surely know in an earlier era it was easy to determine what a card was: Old Judges, Allen & Ginters, T206, Goudey, Topps, Bowman, to name a few , have always been baseball cards and have never been disputed. Back then Peck & Snyders were trade cards, Boston Garters would have been considered advertising cards, and almost everything oversized would be termed something else. But now almost everything is considered a baseball card, and subsequently slabbed, because it is worth so much more money. It's not any more complicated than that. If 20 years ago you debated whether your Wagner premium was a baseball card, it would have been laughable. Today, it falls into that gray area. But the market can also be a determinant. A Wagner rookie from the turn-of-the-century could easily be worth well into five figures. If you auctioned your piece off, it would probably realize a fraction of that. Perhaps that would give you a fair indication of whether or not the market accepted it as a baseball card or as a premium.

Archive

01-18-2009, 08:31 AM

Posted By: leonAs you know there is no definitive, absolute definition of a card. You can call your Newspaper Supplement a bathtub for all I care. Calling this a baseball card won't make it one though....but it's always a good debate. For the record I do think Boston Garter's are cards, how do I know? Because when I pick one up it is made out of cardboard and feels like a card. Try picking your piece of paper up by one end and see what it does. As I said, I do think they can be collected as "cards" if someone wants to. This is only my opinion...everyone has one........take care my friend

Archive

01-18-2009, 08:48 AM

Posted By: Phil GarryLet's go back to Jay's original question and if you agree that it is, let's just call it a Honus Wagner Rookie or earliest Wagner collectible picturing him individually in a Major League uniform. This eliminates the ongoing debate about what constitutes a card and I don't think it was the purpose of Jay's original question anyway.

Archive

01-18-2009, 08:53 AM

Posted By: JayLeon--You raise an interesting point that, if you don't mind, I would like to pursue. If thickness is a determinant of whether something is a card then it should be noted that the M101-1s are closer in thickness to an N167 than an N167 is to an N172. Personally, I don't think thickness or rigidity can be part of the definition. If something is too thin to be a card can something else be too thick to be a card? I think the definition of a card might be based on size, method of distribution, and purpose for its issuance. Should a store display piece be a card? If not, is a Boston Garter a card? If yes, I have seen large cardboard beer signs in the local liquor store with players pictures on them. Are these cards? My bank used to give out calendars which were the size of Topps cards with Derek Jeter's picture on one side. Are these cards? If not, why are schedules with player's pictures on one side cards? Don't get me wrong on this; I'm not trying to convince anyone that M101-1s are cards. I love them as collectibles because they represent the earliest representations of many players and because they have neat bios on the back. Whether they are called cards or not will not change my feeling about them one iota.

Archive

01-18-2009, 08:58 AM

Posted By: leonThis is a good debate. There is no definitive answer to your question though. As Barry has said....the market does dictate some things. It's beyond you or I. I know if I go to sell, or buy, a Boston Garter then the price is around what I would pay for a card. I have as much vested interest in other things as almost anyone. The S74 silk I recently got, of Cobb with a Helmar back, was quite expensive...but I don't think I would call it a card...and the market has priced it close to what a "card" would be. I just don't think Supplements are cards...and rigidity isn't the sole determining factor it was just one factor I used for one bit of criteria. regards edited to add a comment to what you said....."I think the definition of a card might be based on size, method of distribution, and purpose for its issuance." I think those are some other good criteria you point out.

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:01 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJay- you've kind of answered your own question: we can't really agree anymore on what a baseball card is. There are too many variables, and I preferred it when a 1952 Topps clearly was but a magazine premium clearly wasn't. Now it's more difficult to tell.

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:15 AM

Posted By: JayBarry-M101-1s in VG of common players tend to sell for $250-$300. That is comparable to Old Judges of common players. In that respect they are priced comparably to cards. Common HOFers of M101-1s tend to sell for roughly $1000, again in line with common Old Judges. Therefore, I think the marketplace, at least for commons and common HOFers is calling M101-1s cards. I only remember one Wagner (and I can't recall a Young) selling at auction in the last few years. You know the market better than I do, but I don't think there is really much data as to what a Young or Wagner M101-1 would sell at individually in an auction.

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:21 AM

Posted By: leonI knew one of the Boston Garters had a factual implication as to it being a card.....So, if the card in question, says it's a card on the card itself...then I think that can be a good criteria for it being a card <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> ....take care (right below the 2 prices, near top middle, is a paragraph stating this is a card!!) <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1232299232.JPG" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:22 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI don't know what an M101-1 Wagner would sell for either. But if you put one in an auction along with an E107 Wagner, more rightly considered the rookie card, I think you would see a huge disparity in price. Now of course this experiment would not be the last word on the subject, merely one way to gauge it.

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:32 AM

Posted By: JayBarry--Personally, I think the order for Wagner rookie would be the M101-1 and then the W600. Didn't the W600 come before 1903?

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:39 AM

Posted By: barrysloateThe W600 was right around 1903, but they were issued for many years and I'm not sure. But we have the same argument- is W600 a baseball card? It kind of is, but you won't get total agreement.

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:43 AM

Posted By: RichardJay - I believe that the W600 Wagner was issued as early as 1902 so it could have predated the E107. Phil - I used to own that M101-1 cut Wagner. It is an M101-1. Not a Copper Plate I used to own an M101-1 Young. I think I sold it in the $2-2.5k range. There was an M101-1 Wagner that sold in an auction maybe a couple of years ago. It was part of a bigger lot that sold in the $12-14k range if I remember correctly. The Wagner was pulled out of the lot and the rest was reauctioned (balance of lot included maybe 2-3 HOFers) and brought in the $5-6k range. I think the Wagner is worth in the $6-8k range today, or maybe a little less if the Dow drops to 7k :D For what it's worth, I don't think M101-1s are cards. They are fantastic pieces though, I would would love to have that Wagner in my non-card collection!

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:44 AM

Posted By: JayI think I have beaten this dead horse more than necessary. I guess the easy thing would have been just to ask HOF rookie collectors what card, if money was no object, they would consider to be the rookie card of Young, Wagner, etc and see what their answers were. After all, like I said, it makes no difference to me, just interested in the discussion.

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:46 AM

Posted By: RichardWagner - E107 Young - Just So If money was no object.

Archive

01-18-2009, 09:51 AM

Posted By: leonAt least you got an answer about Boston Garters being cards.....Thanks for the discussion on a quiet Sunday morning....

Archive

01-18-2009, 10:01 AM

Posted By: JayLeon--I just thought you were kidding. Just because they call it a card on the ad piece (they also call it a picture) doesn't mean it is what we are calling a baseball card. My first impression on reading that was that card was used like placard, meaning an advertising sign.

Archive

01-18-2009, 10:03 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJay- it's not always a slam dunk. If you took a survey and asked collectors if they thought N172's were baseball cards, you would get 100% agreement that they are. If you asked the same question about N173's, you might get 50% agreement. Yet both issues were made by the same company using the same methods. The difference of course is the size, and the way N173's were distributed. So as long as collectors have different opinions, the debate will go on.

Archive

01-18-2009, 10:05 AM

Posted By: barrysloateAnd I agree that Leon is probably kidding. Technically speaking, Boston Garters were counter cards. I think that accordion was just spread on a counter for customers to view. Are they traditional baseball cards? Jury is still out.

Archive

01-18-2009, 10:39 AM

Posted By: leonI do think the Boston Garters were used as counter displays, no doubt about it. They were also able to be collected by private folks as the ad reads. All you had to do was buy one or send in for one/some. Yeah, the fact it says it's a card probably doesn't mean it's card? There's some "denial" logic....As for the cards that say "admit bearer on receipt", I do think those are more tickets than cards...and the Red Stocking Schedule cards are probably schedules. Maybe they are ticket/cards and schedule cards, respectivley. Maybe your Supplement is a paper/card? I think the Garter cards were display pieces AND cards. Maybe display cards? Yikes, I better quit while I am behind.... take care

Archive

01-18-2009, 10:43 AM

Posted By: JayLOL--you are a card (certainly not a display piece).

Archive

01-18-2009, 10:51 AM

Posted By: Phil GarryRichard - Thanks for the clarification on the M101-1 Wagner. I have actually owned the trimmed Wagner on two different occasions. I bought it about three years ago on e-bay when a large group of M101-1's (or possibly National Copper Plates) that were all similarly trimmed were put up for auction individually. At that time, none of the major grading companies would grade/encapsulate them so I decided to sell the Wagner. I recently picked it up again in 2008 through a Goodwin & Co. Auction and it was graded by GAI. Out of curiosity, how are you able to determine that it is an M101-1 and not a NCP? Regarding the W600 Wagner, the street clothes version was only issued in 1902 and the uniform version began to be distributed in 1902 but continued on into subsequent years making it impossible to differentiate that one. The Cy Young is another interesting topic. If we are going to include cabinet cards as rookies, then the Just So is not his rookie as it was produced in 1893 and another cabinet of Young was produced during the 1890-92 period by Ryder Studios located in Cleveland, OH. George Davis also had a cabinet produced from this same issue. The Young has been encapsulated by SGC as a c1890 issue.

Archive

01-18-2009, 11:44 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI agree with Leon on the Boston Garters. They likely were items that could both be used both as store display pieces and customer collectibles. I do believe some where displayed in the store, but the back text certainly points to them being intended as collectible offering to customers. The back text essentially asks the reader to collect the other players in the set. The Boston Garter may be more valuable as a trading card than a store sign, but in many ares-- advertising, rock 'n roll, toys and fashion-- the situation would be the opposite as unique store display pieces are highly desirable. In fashion memorabilia, a cardboard sign displayed in a store window would be considered far more desirable than a silly trading card. To those collectors, it come across as very strange for someone to want a rare advertising display piece to be instead called a trading card.

Archive

01-18-2009, 12:06 PM

Posted By: LymanJay, thanks for starting such a fun and thoughtful thread. I now know that my baseball card collection is only about half what it used to be. The other half is made up of non-cards. No worries, though. In all honesty, I would have trouble choosing which half I like the best. Now that we have achieved non-unanimous agreement on the definition of a "card," perhaps someone could start a thread entitled "What is vintage?" I'm sure we can have an equally lively discussion (and of course achieve equally non-unanimous agreement) on that topic also. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> Happy Collecting (whatever you collect), Lyman

Archive

01-18-2009, 12:48 PM

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anusWhether cabinets and CDVs can/should be considered baseball cards IMO depends on their distribution. A cabinet available to the general public (e.g., N173s) is very different than a cabinet distributed only to the person (or that person's designees) who posed for the shot. Much the same way a family snapshot of a player would be regarded differently than something produced by one of the card companies. So the fact a cabinet exists of Young c. 1890 in and of itself doesn't make it a baseball card.

Archive

01-18-2009, 12:51 PM

Posted By: dennistoo easy,if it was a card it would not be labeled as a supplement.

Archive

01-18-2009, 12:58 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI agree with Corey. The problems is with some CDVs you don't know how they were distributed. Some are clearly family photos (no trading card), some clearly intended for public sale/distribution/advertising, and others it is not known. Some photographers were known to commonly sell their photos to the public (Mathew Brady, Napoleon Sarony, others), so their stamp is consistent with the CDV a public collectible. If a Harry Wright CDV is found in an Omaha kid's scrapbook filled with trade cards, trading, die cuts, etc, that would be evidence, if not proof, it was a publicly distributed and collected item. I know of an instance where a baseball item was fairly judged as being publicly distributed as it resided in the scrapbook of an ordinary young fan. The scrapbook contents didn't point to the collector being a relation of player or executive, just an ordinary fan of the team who gathered the scrapbook items in ordinary team fan ways.

Archive

01-18-2009, 01:58 PM

Posted By: frankthis is january 18, not april 1 /april fools day / I am a long time collector who does not chime in on the forum /rarely/ , but this is crazy to think this could be wagners rookie and to say a boston garter may not be a card makes me boil and probably a lot of other collectors, I think the wagner is a great supplement that would look good in a photo album . thank you frank

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:08 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyPhil, that M101-1 Wagner came from a scrap-book that featured an almost complete run of M101-1's where all but 2-3 were trimmed down in the same manner as the Wagner. Rhys sold them individually on ebay after carefully removing them from the dcrapbook that was completely fallinmg apart. -Rhett

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:09 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryWas the Just So Tobacco issue available to the general public like N173's? I would think not since there has only been one copy of each player known to exist. Since these were also cabinet cards, I don't see the difference between them and the Ryder Young and Davis Cabinets. So why then is the Just So Young so widely considered to be his rookie?

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:10 PM

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anusTo build on what Frank has just said, let's never lose sight of the adage that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then regardless of how much technical analysis might be bestowed to convince us it is not a duck, it is still a duck!!

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:15 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryRhett - Thanks for that info, now I can be sure that mine is an M101-1 which I guess is good and bad. The M101-1's are much more valuable in price guides but were likely issued a year later than the NCP's thus not making it the earliest Wagner. It also appears that the 2009 Standard Catalogue is incorrect identifying the M101-1's as being glossy paper when they are actually a matte-type finish.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:17 PM

Posted By: JayYou make a good point. Perhaps the Just Sos were really proofs for a card set that was never issued. Also, if the 1890 Young cabinet was issued with cabinets of other members of Cleveland then maybe it should be considered to be a card and that would make it Young's rookie. THese are really interesting discussion points.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:19 PM

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus"Was the Just So Tobacco issue available to the general public like N173's?" To answer your question, yes. Just the same way other extraordinary-rare cards (e.g., Four Base Hits Kelly, N172 Anson in uniform, many e107s, etc., etc.) have only a small handful of known copies.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:20 PM

Posted By: Zach RicePhil, I believe the general conscious on the Just So Tobacco issue is that they were available to the general public, distribution however, was regional to the Cleveland, Ohio area. Also, although these cards arent regular tobacco card size, they are certainly not cabinet cards. They are approximately the same size as Four Base Hit and Kalamazoo Bat cards.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:21 PM

Posted By: JayCorey--what is the most number of copies known of any Just So card?

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:21 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthI own an M101-1 Wagner. I have never considered it a card however I would consider it a rookie issue due to the method of distribution. The E107 is Wagner's rookie card. A postcard should be considered a card and, if nationally distributed, any cardboard type issue should be given consideration for a rookie card.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:22 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackAddressing Frank's post, I agree that just because something is made to be collected doesn't make it a card. There are collectible/advertising mini-bats, baseballs, teddy bears, batting helmets, balloons and T-shirts. Sufficient reason that the Wagner print is not his rookie card is because it not a card. It's also not his rookie T-shirt. It should be interesting for readers to go back and note that Jay's initial post, and the title of the thread, says "card" nowhere in it.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:28 PM

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anusJay, So I understand, is it your point that if a card is so rare that it has only one known copy, that in and of itself makes it reasonably possible that it is a proof? This taken into account with the facts that it part of a set some of the other members of which have several known copies and depicts a player on the same team as those other members and who would reasonably be expected to be part of the set issue?

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:34 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryZach - You're right, my mistake on calling the Just So's cabinet cards when they are not. The E107 Wagner is still not a rookie card even if you eliminate the M101-1's and NCP's because they are premiums/supplements. You still have the W600 Street clothes Wagner issued in 1902. Would collectors be paying $20K - $30K + for these in nice condition if they were not considering them cards and thus making them fully eligible for rookie card designation? Not only Wagner, but many other w600 HOF'ers have been selling for big, big $$$'s as well lately. So again, if these are OK for rookie status, why not the 1890 Young cabinet? (I know we're back to the method of distribution again)

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:44 PM

Posted By: barrysloateThere are some Just So's with more than one known copy, although I don't have a list. I think it's reasonable to assume it was a set that was available in Cleveland for a period of time, but that it did not circulate well and few copies have survived.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:48 PM

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anusJay, To respond, off the top of my head 2-3. Again, are you saying that if something is so rare as to have only one known copy, that in and of itself is compelling evidence it is a proof. Aren't there some N172s and N173s with only one known copy? Assuming that is the case, and assuming your universally-touted Old Judge book does not identify them as possible proofs (something I cannot opine on because I haven't yet seen the book), are we to expect a second-corrected edition coming off the presses soon?

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:54 PM

Posted By: JayCorey--I had two points. The first was that if all the cards in the set are unique then perhaps it was a proof issue. If there are multiple copies of some of the cards then it is most probably not a proof. That is why I asked which cards have multiple copies. My second point related to the Young cabinet. If there was a team issue of these cabinets (with multiple copies known), even if only in the Cleveland area, then it seems like one might call these cards, and the Young cabinet could be the rookie. I don't know if either of these criteria hold.

Archive

01-18-2009, 02:57 PM

Posted By: JayCorey--Per my post above, since there are multiple copies of some N173s they are not proofs. We also have additional information as to how they could be ordered which makes the proof arguement moot. Get a copy of the book, you might enjoy it!

Archive

01-18-2009, 10:07 PM

Posted By: Ken WirtMy definition of a card (not that anyone gives a rat's ass): 1. Depicts an image involving baseball 2. Is relatively flat 3. Is a stand-alone item (not cut out from something it wasn't intended to be cut out from) 4. Was meant to be collected or appreciated This definition encompasses postcards, supplements, CDV's, cabinets, silks, pins, blankets, add pieces, etc. I think that limiting oneself to the biased 1952 Topps baseball card paradigm, limits the imagination! CWYL Ken

Archive

01-18-2009, 11:48 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackMy opinion is that a pin isn't a card, but that no one ever said a card collector can't also collect pins. I tend to be restrictive in my hobby definitions (I'm no fan of convenient definitions, in particular ones convenient to the definer), but that doesn't mean my definitions drive what I think people should collect. Whether or not the Wagner thingamajig is a card, I consider it a worthy item to collect. I think one person can consider it a card, another not, and both want to buy one for their collections. Perhaps we should introduce the term quasi-baseball card, meaning something isn't literally or technically a baseball card but for all practical purposes works as one. For example, a 1964 Topps baseball stamp isn't literally or physically a card, but is baseball card-like in about all other aspects aspects, including being almost exclusively collected by baseball card collectors. If your wife kicked you out to the couch seven nights straight, you slept on a quasi-bed. I wouldn't call a S74 Silk or Topps Coin a baseball card, but might agree to call them quasi-baseball cards.