Henry Reccius HONUS WAGNER card

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

My reason is purely observational: it doesn't look that old. It doesn't strike me as a late 19th century piece. I know that's not very scientific, but I've looked at an awful lot of 19th century material over the years and this just looks to have been made a little bit later. And that seems to be the opinion of many of the collectors I've talked to about it.

I agree with you - it does not have that typical 19th century look to it, but there really is not much in our hobby that emanates from the 1897-99 time period to compare it to. I do think that it is very similiar to the 1897 Page Fence Giants trade card in terms of looks - especially in size and paper stock.

M101-1's do not look like typical 19th century items to me either, but they are obviously from 1899. I typically envision 19th century items as being either photographic in nature or multi-color lithographs, not the monotone printed images that seem to come into vogue in the late 1890's.

[barrysloate]

Kevin- I respect your opinion as much as anyone's, and you surely have handled more rare baseball cards than I have. But based on the price it realized, the hobby emphatically rejected it as a period piece. Take for example the Baltimore News Ruth, which is currently a half a million dollar card, or the Just So Cy Young which if auctioned could easily surpass that amount. Those are rookie cards that would reach the stratosphere.

The Reccius Wagner, on the other hand, sold for less than 5% that amount. That does not reflect the bidders merely uncertain of the date, it shows them categorically rejecting it. If it were believed to be an 1897 issue I would guess it would sail past the quarter million dollar mark. So it doesn't appear that anyone really thinks it was issued when Wagner played for Louisville.

[terjung]

I think the difference between the Reccius and the Just So Young and the Baltimore News Ruth cards are that those last two were part of sets as opposed to what may be a "one of". In the Baltimore News case, there is a schedule from the year and the presence of Ruth in the team set also helps to date it - given his short tenure with the team. In other words, the grouping of players helps to identify the era in the BN case.

[drc]

Good points.

There are a few obscure cards where the date was questioned and it later was shown they were indeed from the vintage era. And I can think of a set that was later shown to be made later than thought (though was still Pre-WWII). So time may tell, give us evidence.

[Baseball Rarities]

Good points Barry, but i do not think a Baltimore News Ruth in comparable condition would sell for $500K. The last example sold for $150K and it was in a PSA 1, which i would think is more desirable than a PSA AUT. I think that the PSA 1 Reccius of Wagner last sold for $50K, 33% of the PSA 1BN Ruth, which i think is a more fair comparison.

[GaryPassamonte]

confidant? Barry, that's not like you!

[drc]

Food for thought. I remember Mike Wentz would say he looked at the style/type of type on items to help judge age. He once said that an item wasn't as old as advertised because the type used was more modern.

I never looked into this technique but it's an interesting idea.

[barrysloate]

Brian- while the Baltimore News and Just So are sets, and not "one ofs", does anybody actually collect either of those sets? May not make a difference, but most collectors have one or maybe two if they are lucky. There are no known sets ever completed, I think.

Kevin- sorry if my numbers were off a little, but the Reccius clearly is not worth anywhere near what it would be if collectors had confidence it was issued while Wagner played at Louisville.

Gary- "confident" corrected. bad error, I know.

[rc4157]

There should probably be some sort of prize for a forum member finding something to correct on Barry's post!
RC

[drc]

Or finding anything correct.

[GaryPassamonte]

Barry has been a valued confidant of mine for many years.

[bcbgcbrcb]

"I know that a lot of research was done regarding the actual date of issue of this card. Can anyone fill me in on the latest?"

I posted the above question twice early on in this thread and no one had any opinion or even acknowledged the question (except one individual who referenced that info was available in the Net54 archives, of course, if I was able to find that info in the Net54 archives, I would not have asked the question). It seems that everyone has a lot of opinions now...........

[terjung]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Brian- while the Baltimore News and Just So are sets, and not "one ofs", does anybody actually collect either of those sets? May not make a difference, but most collectors have one or maybe two if they are lucky. There are no known sets ever completed, I think.

My point was not that they are collected "as sets", but that the presence of other cards in such a set can help to date the release of the cards due to player presence or team designations.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

"I know that a lot of research was done regarding the actual date of issue of this card. Can anyone fill me in on the latest?"

I posted the above question twice early on in this thread and no one had any opinion or even acknowledged the question (except one individual who referenced that info was available in the Net54 archives, of course, if I was able to find that info in the Net54 archives, I would not have asked the question). It seems that everyone has a lot of opinions now...........

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...hlight=reccius

[bcbgcbrcb]

Thanks, Peter, that was the info that I was looking for. I wanted to use it to determine whether or not to go after the card as a Rookie, that's why it was important during the auction, not now when it is already over. Luckily, it appears that I made the right choice on my own (besides the fact that I probably could not afford it anyway as who knows how high the winner was willing to go).

[buymycards]

The last post in the archived thread mentioned the telephone number. I looked at Wikipedia where it said that there were 3 million phones in the US in 1904, but I can't find any info in regard to the late or mid 1890's. Just the fact that the card contains a telephone number seems to be significant and I am leaning more toward early 1900's rather than the 1890's.

Rick

[SilverBall67]

Curious thoughts always arised when considering a circa date for the Honus Wagner (Henry Reccius Card). Please refer to this link :

http://thelibrary.org/blogs/article.cfm?aid=1065

Right hand side of the Reccius Card reads: ~ HOME TELEPHONE 5807 ~
(XXXX is a four digit telephone number). As per research done, 4 digit telephone numbers were not used until 1905.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by SilverBall67

Curious thoughts always arised when considering a circa date for the Honus Wagner (Henry Reccius Card). Please refer to this link :

http://thelibrary.org/blogs/article.cfm?aid=1065

Right hand side of the Reccius Card reads: ~ HOME TELEPHONE 5807 ~
(XXXX is a four digit telephone number). As per research done, 4 digit telephone numbers were not used until 1905.

That only applies to Springfield. A much smaller city than Pittsburg.

The adoption of three and four number phone numbers varied by the size of the local exchange. So Pittsburg could have had four digit numbers much earlier.
http://www.privateline.com/Telephone...A/numbers.html

Steve B

[steve B]

The newspaper shown here

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...rontpage&hl=en

Is from 1900 and shows a four digit number in the Urling Bros ad at the lower right of page 12.

Steve B

[Baseball Rarities]

Louisville definitely had 4 digit telephone numbers in the 1890's. Here is one for the "Italian-Swiss Colony Wine Co." from September of 1899. I have seen many that are even earlier.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lc...arRange&page=1

[Leon]

Interesting thread. This is one of those type mysteries that keeps the hobby fun for me.

[Peter W Thomas]

4 digit numbers + letter around in 50's
2339W childhood phone # until 1954 when changed to OL3-3098 (olympic)