how much will it bring?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4653&universeid=314

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Great card!

It will be interesting to see which of the super-cards that are selling in upcoming auctions will sell for more: the Reccius Wagner in Lelands or the Baltimore News Ruth in REA.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

so hal's finally accepted the fact it's not really a "card" and is parting with the reccius wagner. That's a tough one to speculate on!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

On second thought I don't think I want to make a guess on this...It's fun to speculate, but this board has a lot of sway and could affect how people bid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

Hal might just buy the Ruth...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

It's a "card" and a great one at that!

I just paid so much for the T206 Wagner that I need to "diversify" and sell this one.

Had too much of my collecting dollars tied up in one player.

I will always be able to say that I "once owned it"...

so now I want someone else to give him a good home!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

Hal in all seriousness... Why didnt you have a pedigree on the card?

Its a rare and cool card...why not?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

The Gator Collection?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

One question. Since you are the consummate Rookie HOF collector how can you sell Honus's rookie card? I am sure you have other things that you could sell to keep you out of the cheese line.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I too am surprised that Hal is selling the card. He admits it is a card and it is Wagner's earliest issue. Why keep the more "common" T206?

Hal even said in in this thread in April of last year, that he would never sell the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I put it up for sale on EBay the LAST time a 1914 Ruth card appeared in an auction...

so you guys ought to be able to figure out the connection.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

Hal:

I made that connection, or at least I had that suspicion, a few days ago. Let me say that it dashed a lot of my own hopes and dreams. Perhaps my own "cash accumulation phase" that I have been going through is an excercise in futility. Good Luck.

[Archive]

Posted By: Preece1

Maybe I am a little slow here but:

1) You said that you are never going to go after minor league cards, so the 1914 Ruth card is out as a reason;

2) You have too much tied up in Wagner cards but you told me you went after the E107 Wagner after you had the T206 and the Reccius;

3) You want the rookie card of each player and this is a big one (Wagner)

So is there something you found out that would lead you to believe it is not from 1897-1899? That would seem to make sense if you are selling the card. Wasn't there also a connection to the cigar box in Robert Edwards Auctions which Rob thught was more from 1920?

Its a great card, but the facts have me confused.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Patrick:

I am confused as to why you were the underbidder when I bought the card... but yet now you want to try and critique it?

Could this have anything to do with your desire to buy it cheap?

If you don't like the card or want the card, fine.

But no need to question it.

There was no connection to the Cigar Box. That is explained in the description of the item on the PSA page.



I am selling it because I want to. I recently sold a bunch of other cards too.

But if you REALLY must know... although it is none of anyone's business...

the real estate market for oceanfront property in Florida is NOT doing real well after about 7 straight Hurricanes and 17 straight interest rate hikes...

so a lot of us are feeling the pinch.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

Why all the negative talk about Hal selling this card???? It is a great CARD and if I had the cash to buy it, I would. Yes, Hal is the board's rookie card collector and he wants to sell one of his cards - my george what on earth will we do. You mean to tell me that people here are now upset that they get a chance to buy this awesome card instead of just having the opportunity of looking at the JPEG when Hal is nice enough to post one.

People, if you want the card - then buy it. If you don't - then don't. I don't think Hal deserves to become some part of a conspiracy theory just because he chooses to sell a card that he owns.

BTW - Great card Hal!!! I just wish I had the money to pick it up - I would sure give it a very nice home.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

For the record, Hal can do whatever he wants. That being said, with as long an exposition as Hal made about the card here earlier, selling it is certain to bring up questions.

As to the tone of the post, hey, this is Net 54. It wouldn't be the same unless slings and arrows were a major componet of every third thread.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

I guess slings and arrows have kind of become the norm here at the 54.

That being said - good luck on selling a great early card of Honus.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Preece1

Hal,

I am not attempting to critique your card, I am just curious. You are correct in that I was the underbidder when we competed for the card last spring, there is no attempt here to hide that fact. It was and is a great card.

It is just that you did some exhaustive research on the card (research that impressed me and everyone else on the board), and I just wanted to make sure that there is nothing out there that can bring someone to the conclusion that it is not 1897-1899.

Please don't take curiousity as an attack on the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

OK, my bad, I should expect questions.

No, never discovered anything that disagreed with the dating if the card.

After all, given how much I paid for the card... I would have an EASY claim against PSA for a FULL REFUND of my purchase price if it turned out that they had misdated the card. As an attorney, I would have pursued THAT route if anything "unacceptable" had come up in my research. But nothing ever did.


Obviously, there will be people who say that it is not a "real" baseball card because it was not a part of a larger SET and/or was not distributed nationally.

Sure, I wish that this card DID meet those qualifications, because then it would be worth even more!

But nonetheless, it is UNDISPUTED that this is a ONE-OF-A-KIND item... regardless of whether you call it a baseball card or a trade card or a baseball trade card.

It is also the ONLY card known that features the EARLIEST known photograph of Wagner in his Louisville days.

Even if it were a scorecard or a fan or a pencil from 1897 with his picture on it... it would be valuable and people would want it.

I just don't "want" it as bad as I do the T206 Wagner. That's it. Nothing more simple than that.


SURE, I wish I had enough money to KEEP this card AND still buy every other card I want... but I ain't no Donald Trump.

[Archive]

Posted By: Preece1

I don't understand the reason for defining a card into trade card or not. I have a Wright & Gould card from 1872 with Anson on it. It might have been technically used as an advertisement for the sporting goods company, but I think of it as a baseball card. I don't think the question of whether the Wagner is a trade card should matter...imo

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

"After all, given how much I paid for the card... I would have an EASY claim against PSA for a FULL REFUND of my purchase price if it turned out that they had misdated the card."

You bring up an interesting (in this case) hypothetical question Hal. I am not so sure someone who buys a mislabelled card would have an EASY claim against PSA (or any grading service), certainly not for a full refund of the purchase price. What would the claim be, negligence? What's the standard of care, how much research does PSA have to do for its $50 grading fee? If so, did PSA owe a duty of care just to the person who submitted it or to the world in general including every potential future owner? And the hypothetical plaintiff didn't buy the card from PSA, so is PSA obligated to repurchase it or (assuming liabilty) to pay consequential damages which I guess would be the difference between what it was worth as identified and as accurately identified. I think it would be a more complex case than your initial assessment, and a pretty interesting one too.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think Hal has the right to sell the card for any reason whatsoever, and frankly, I don't think he has any obligation to explain himself. If the only issue here is the earlier discussion about ascertaining the true date of the card, I don't think he even has to say anything about that either. If he were selling it privately, the burden would be his. But he has consigned it to Leland's, who are skilled at both marketing and auctioning baseball memorabilia. If I were Hal, I would say nothing at all, and let Leland's handle everything. It's like when you sell your house- your broker never wants you to be there when a prospective buyer is looking at it. The same rule applies here- let Leland's field all questions, and let them promote it. That is exactly how they earn their commission.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

What's this card worth anyway, to bring such passionate banter?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Great card, far out of my league, and fun to speculate on. I would trade it in a heartbeat for a 1914 Baltimore Ruth, so I totally understand the reasoning. I don't think it will sell for as much as the Ruth. Simply a matter of the most significant card of the most significant player of all time versus the second most significant card of one of the top five or so players. The card may be rarer than the T206 but it isn't the marquee card of the hobby, the T206 is, regardless of whether it is rarer than the Reccius or for that matter any of a variety of other cards; haven't we had that discussion before?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I agree with Adam somewhat.

The people who want to own a T206 Wagner go into it knowing that their card will be "valuable" but not exactly a true "rarity." They are happy just to own one and don't really care about the condition since 95% of them are low condition anyways. It is just something they have always wanted to own.

The people who want to own an 1897 Reccius Wagner are probably an entirely different crowd. They are probably the people who truly want to be the ONLY person in the WORLD that own a particular item... regardless of whether or not they really ever throught about the item beforehand. I think of it as the ultimate "type card" for that sort of collector.


So, while a PSA 1 T206 Wagner might fetch $150,000... it probably would not go higher than that since the underbidder would know that he could get another one down the road. Sure, the prices will continue to climb over time, but there have been enough recent sales of the card that people know the rough values.

On the flipside, I have NO IDEA what the Reccius will bring. I know that I paid a BUNCH for it... but what's new, right? I NEVER get a "deal" in life.


I just think that the people who might be interested in the Reccius Wagner are a different crowd than those who would be interested in a T206 Wagner.

I should know... since I own BOTH and have been fighting this "inner battle" with both sides of my collecting conscience for a while now!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

To me the most interesting issue to arise from this thread is what liability, if any, a grading company has for misdating a card. While not in any way saying that that is what happened in the case of the Reccius Wagner (and to the contrary I applaud Hal for the sensational research he did), I find the question intriguing. From my perspective, while I respect the view that the grading company would have an exposure, I can see serious problems with this position, the most serious being that the main role of the grading company was to determine the condition and authenticity of the card, as well as whether it showed evidence of tampering. The date they happen to put on the label is ancillary to this service and, arguably, should not cause them legal exposure. If it were anything other than that, why would a grading company for a nominal fee possibly agree to slab a never-before-seen card with a potential value in the tens of thousands of dollars? Then there is the question of privity of contract. Even if one were to assume the grading company could be liable (for breach of contract), their contract was with the person who originally submitted the card to them. Therefore, if any other person (e.g., a subsequent purchaser) brought the claim, the grading company would argue how can they be in breach of contract with a person with whom they never entered into a contract? The subsequent purchaser would then have to either require the person who originally submitted the card for slabbing to bring the claim, or try to overcome this problem through other more difficult to establish legal doctrines (e.g., third party beneficiary).

Anyway you look at it, a complicated interesting question that in my view is far from clear cut as to what recourse subsequent purchasers of misdated slabbed cards would have against the grading company.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I was just going by the fact that PSA is frequently "buying back" cards from people that are mislabeled.

When someone puts a PSA 8 1933 Goudey Ruth card on Ebay for sale and it turns out to be fake... PSA buys back the card and fixes their error. They don't argue "lack of privity".

If PSA was only "guaranteeing" that something is real to ONLY the person who sent the item in... then ALL COA'S would be WORTHLESS since the initial submitter is always going to turn around and use the COA to sell the item to someone else. I have no doubt that PSA would tell you the same thing.

A COA from PSA goes with the ITEM... not with the submitter.


I do understand your distinction about the "dating" of an item SOMETIMES being a little bit different than the authentication of the item itself... but not in this case.

The date of the item is important and synonymous with the item itself.

Believe me, PSA does NOT just take the dating of these rare old items lightly. They know FULL WELL the impact of their slabbing.

I submitted this item for slabbing, and before they would even THINK about putting a date on it, I had to get written documentation from Barry Sloate, Mark Rucker and several other historical sources:



Even then, since they could only come up with a range of time, they would NOT get any more specific. I applaud them for taking these things very seriously.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I guess I would liken this example to a rare vintage BOOK that is for sale.

The DATE of the printing of the book and which EDITION it is makes ALL the difference in the world for pricing.

After all, you would not even need PSA since a monkey could look at this card and say:

"Yep, that's a Reccius card of Honus Wagner."

It was the DATING of the card that made it AUTHENTIC in the first place.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I have never had direct dealings with a grading company so I can't say how they act. However, if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, and grading companies do make restitution for their errors to whomever happens to send them the card, then the "privity" question as a practical matter probably becomes moot. However, while I appreciate the great care the grading companies take in dating a card, I would be curious to know if there are any known examples of them making restitution (in the many thousands of dollars) for a misdated card? Especially in an instance such as the Reccius Wagner where they probably can establish that they exercised all conceivable due care and gave the card a date that, to my knowledge, at the time the entire hobby agreed with.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Soon, I would imagine the grading companies are going to require that submitters agree to a "hold harmless" agreement, that is, to say that the grading company cannot be exposed to claims which arise from transactions gone awry based upon "mis-labeling."

Now, at best, a grading company would be liable to the initial submitter only and that person would have to show that s/he was "damaged." Still, it would likely be a "wash," since the only money the submitter would be out would be the grading fee. A court (in California) would likely not buy the argument that "it should have been worth X if the grade stuck" would likely not be given any merit.

Just my $.02.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

What you guys are saying doesn't make sense, because PSA does not sell cards to anyone.

Therefore, ANYONE who has EVER bought a slabbed card has bought it from someone OTHER than PSA... and therefore technically has no "privity."

SO... if what you are saying is correct... then EVERY slab is worthless because they only "attach" to the person who submitted the card to PSA?

If this was possible, then PSA could slab 100,000 reprints as authentic cards for someone... and then that person could sell them for $10,000,000... and NOBODY would be responsible?

Do you think PSA could say to 100,000 people: "Sorry, you can't sue us because you were not the original submitter."?

And the seller could say, "Sorry, I sold you a graded and authenticated card as-is, so you got what you got."?


If PSA was like that, they would have gone out of business a long time ago.

I think they do a great job of standing behing their service.

Didn't SGC do the same thing when Keith Olbermann bought a rare card that turned out to be slabbed wrong?? Didn't they PAY the PRICE of the card and NOT just offer the $15 grading fee refund? They didn't argue privity, etc., and neither would PSA.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

Hal, good luck on the sale.

A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

but what about the future. They are starting a service where they will lend money to collectors, based on a % of value according to their own SMR. Ineveitably, someone will default on a loan, and PSA will be left with the cards. It was in their latest issue of Sportscard Market Report, in case anyone wants to read about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'll offer one thought with regard to Corey's comment: if PSA is in fact opening themselves up to tens of thousands of dollars of liability for misdating a card, and all they got in return is a $50-100 fee, there will soon be an end to grading or authenticating any card that isn't a known quantity. In the case of Hal's Resolutes CdV (interestingly once owned both by me and Corey at different times)there is no team identification and a several year range as to the date. What if it was proven it was made in 1865? Does that make PSA legally liable in a lawsuit?

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Hal, let's get away from the privity question and focus on the dating question. In the Olbermann case, as I understand it, the T206 Doyle at issue was ALTERED and SGC missed it. So they paid damages to the person WHO SUBMITTED THE CARD TO THEM. That's not to say they wouldn't have paid damages to a subsequent purchaser; but that was not what happened there.

However, assuming you're correct and a grading company won't use the privity argument as a defense (either because they want to maintain business good will in the marketplace or because they think it has dubious legal merit), I'm still curious to know if there are any known instances of any grading company paying damages for a misdated card. That to me is the most relevant question in the case of the Reccius Wagner, and it remains my view that it would be a difficult legal case to bring, all the more so because PSA can probably establish that they exercised appropriate due care in doing their research and giving the card a date that at the time everybody agreed with.

In saying all this, I want to again reiterate that I'm not saying that the Reccius Wagner does not in fact date to the late 1890s. It very well might. I just feel that any prospective purchaser should buy the card based on a comfort level that it does date to that period, and not base his/her comfort level on the belief that if it is ever proven to date to a later period, PSA either will voluntarily make restitution or be compeled to do so legally.

edited a subsequent time due to Sloate correction

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Corey- I believe it was SGC who made the mistake on the Doyle. Let's not be blaming PSA for something they didn't do.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Sorry Barry, I stand corrected.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

In my opinion has nothing to do with the legal issue. As I posted before, I think any claim by a subsequent purchaser would have to be for negligence, and the purchaser would therefore have to establish as an initial matter that PSA owed them a duty of care. Perhaps Adam or others can weigh in on California law but it strikes me as a stretch to argue that a grading company owes a duty of care to the whole anonymous world of potential buyers when it slabs a card for 5-50 bucks for a submitter. So I think the lawsuit might die right there, for lack of a duty. I think it is equally unlikely anyone could demonstrate negligence even if there was a duty, as one would have to demonstrate that PSA's conduct fell below the industy standard of care (whatever that is), not just that they made an error.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I agree 100%, and hate to even talk about all of this because someone might think that I am not standing behind the card.

My research shows that it was 1897-99, and PSA agrees.

I have exhausted every way that I could think of to try and "disprove" the dating of the card... so I obviously think this whole discussion is moot and irrelevant.


I guess I was just trying to make the point that I never even approached PSA about "refunding" the card because I never found a thing that said anything other than 1897-99.


I am ABSOLUTELY NOT just saying: "PSA says it is from 1897-99 and therefore it must be."

I am saying that this just happens to be one that PSA got right.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Let me play devil's advocate here. Suppose the Reccius sells at Leland's for 100K, based on the fact that it is Wagner's rookie card. Then six months later someone finds a newspaper from 1910 with an ad for the card that proves it is in fact a later printing and subsequently worth a tiny fraction of its purchase price. Does the new buyer then have any legal recourse, or is he stuck?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Based on my prior email, aside from what PSA might do as a matter of public relations, I say no claim. No duty of care, and assuming they can show that they made a good faith effort to date the card the first time, no negligence either.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

I have one question......who are all you guys billing right now?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Cat -- multitasking!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Barry:

For starters, I think this card would be worth a LOT MORE than just a "tiny fraction" of its cost even if it had been printed in 1910 (which it wasn't).

The Boston Garter cards are NOT rookie cards by any stretch of the imagination... but a Mathewson example sure is worth a lot of money because the player was legendary and the cards are very rare.

The 1912 T202 Hassan Triple Folder Three-Section Advertising Display (40 x 60 inches) in the upcoming REA auction is not a "rookie card" by ay stretch... but it will be worth a lot of money because the players on it are legendary and the item is very rare.

The 1951 Toleteros Gibson card was printed AFTER he died, but is worth a great deal because the player is legendary and the card is very rare.


Wagner was legendary... and the Reccius card is as rare as you can get...

so quite frankly I don't expect the "rookie" designation to matter much.

It is CLEARLY the earliest PHOTO of him playing baseball... so that has value in and of itself...

even if this was not a card and was just a wire photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I agree that Hal exhaustively researched this and also feel that PSA did their due diligence before placing the label on the card, but this is such a unique circumstance that it does bring up some very interesting issues. My guess is all will go smoothly and the new owner will be happy with his purchase.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hal- we were posting at the same time; yes, the Reccius is unique, so it is a great rarity in any context. But to use your example, the Hassan poster is both extremely rare and incredibly beautiful, and the buyer will take those aesthetics into account. And nobody who buys a T206 cares if it was printed in 1909, 1910, or early 1911. But again, the Reccius is unusual and I think the date is one of its salient features, moreso than with other pieces of memorabilia.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Barry,

If the card sold for $100,000 based on the representation that it was from 1897-1899, and if it was later shown to actually have been issued circa 1910, the buyer might have a claim along the lines of constructive fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation against Lelands. Of course, my statement assumes New York, the state whose law would likely be applied since that's where Lelands is from, recognizes those causes of action.

If I was the new buyer's attorney, at least at first blush, suing Lelands is the avenue I would probably look to pursue. Since no wrongful intent need be shown to prove constructive fraud, it would probably not suffice as a defense that Lelands was unaware that its claim regarding the date of the card was wrong or inaccurate at the time of the sale.

IMO, that suit would be a hell of a lot easier suit to win than a suit against PSA for mis-dating the card during the grading process. I would leave suing PSA to Lelands. Just my two cents.

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Kenny- but Leland's isn't even dating the card, they would be reading the date off the label. How could they be negligent?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Assuming you can get PSA to buy a card back, in Hal�s example of the 33 Goudey Ruth that is fake, if PSA actually graded the card and holdered it, the guarantee would extend to anyone who ends up buying that card long after the original submitter is out of the picture. This is far different than if a date on the flip is wrong. PSA uses the same reference material that we do to determine the date of an issue. Should PSA now have to buy back every 1949 Leaf card identified as 1948 or every 1909 E102 which is identified as from 1908? PSA does not do the research on dating issues, nor is it their responsibility to do so. They exercise reasonable effort to ascertain the date of an issue, which in most cases is relying on printed reference material available to all of us. In the case of unique issues I am sure that the submitter is the one who provides PSA with the reference material to substantiate the date and identity. If PSA is not comfortable with what is provided the card is likely not going to be holdered. I would be very shocked if PSA did anything more than open up the Standard Catalog to determine the information on the Reccius. PSA's liability extends to the authenticity of a card or in accuracy in grading, not dating. If later research determines and is accepted that the date of an issue is different, even much different, than what was relied on and believed by the entire hobby, how can PSA or any grading company be responsible for that? Hal has provided information which challenges dates of issues that we all accepted.--issues which are far from unique. I guess with issues like the Reccius the buyer has to know that there is some degree of uncertainty or possibility that the date and story behind the issue could be wrong and may change over time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Well put, Greg (BOTN).

I certainly researched everything possible BEFORE I paid a bunch of money for the card... looking for ANY reason NOT to buy the card... and didn't find anything.

Does that mean that Henry Reccius's long lost diary may not exist in some attic somewhere and contain proof that the card is from 1903 and not 1897? No, it certainly could.

But if it does, I certainly tried to find it when I was buying the card and couldn't find it then OR since then.