Henry Reccius HONUS WAGNER card
 

Neat outside the hobby find. I really have to start visiting second-hand stores more often. Can you imagine seeing this card in a thrift store and calmly offering to buy 3 pair of used shoes if they throw in the card as part of the purchase.

Any thoughts or observations (any guesses on the hammer price.....)?


http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...r-sale-634696/

http://www.lelands.com/Home/HonusWagner

Lovely Day...

cool find/story.

impatient to see the auction result

huh...article says 3 are known to exist? I was only aware of the one Hal used to own? Great story though...definitely exciting to see another survive!!!

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?

This is an example of a find I think is very cool and something I concur with being significant, but at the same time it doesn't bother me in the least not to have one.

Reccius
 

Peter, I agree with you. Hal had the only example know.

I wonder if they are somehow thinking of the Henry Reccius cigar box as the second example?

Tony

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?

The small town where the card owner lives, Port Townsend WA, is where my sister lives. It's a nice place.

I've never seen that, but it's a gorgeous card. Why the Authentic rating?

I believe the 2 known to exist are both graded A due to the lack of knowledge about them.

I don't recall if the other one was graded a number or was graded authentic. I assume it's so rare, they're just playing it safe.

i stand corrected...it looks like the other was graded PSA 1! Not sure why this one got an A...who graded it?

hal did great research on the card/brand before he acquired the card up to the point of him selling it. check with archive for the threads. after he sold it no one cared.

wherever he is now thanks to hal i got a cool replica psa reccius wagner from leland's.

I remember with Hal's when he was selling, some people voiced they'd prefer another example show up to show it was a real baseball card issue. Well, a few years after the fact, here's a second . . . Now people will complain it's not one-of-one :)

Technically it's a trade card, not a baseball card as other circa 1878-1912 issues that we think of as baseball cards such as E & T cards or even N cards. It would probably fall under the H category IF Burdick had catalogued it, although it is a Cigar advertisement.

I've heard that before reasoning and recall that being said when Hal had his. I actually thought of that when I wrote 'baseball card' in my post, but I thought it might slide :)

And, along those lines, I also agree that a post card isn't really a baseball card either.

amen.

I don't disagree, but can someone define "trade card" vs. "card"?
JimB

Trade cards were made for merchants to advertise their products, much like a handbill or flyer. Some were specifically made for said merchant, others had a blank box where the merchant could stamp his name.

The cards as we know, N, T & E were inserts or premiums to entice a customer to buy the product, whether it was candy or tobacco. Nearly all of these were comprised of some type of "set" to encourage repeat buying to obtain all of them.

While both are "cards", they had very different intended purposes.

Trade cards were pretty much gone by 1900.

Thanks Scott. That is very clear.
JimB

+1

Peck & Snyders are technically trade cards too, but now that they are slabbed they are considered baseball cards.

so what's the first "true" baseball card?

The 1887 issues, such as Old Judge, Allen & Ginters, etc. Whichever came out first is it. Maybe it's the N167. But the definition of a baseball card has broadened in recent years, and most collectors are fine calling a CdV or a trade card a baseball card...as long as it is slabbable. In our hobby the slab supersedes everything else.

I agree. I think that in the traditional way in which we think of cards and sets, the N167 Old Judge set was probably the first baseball card set.
JimB

sad but true.

Replaced by postcards and ink blotters for the most part.

postcards suck

I don't think so.:D
Here are a few of mine.

Joe

Thanks for sharing such wonderful insight and contributing to the positive vibe of the forum.

sorry... postcards REALLY suck

Thanks Jeff,
Keep piling it on and maybe I'll win something next round of Legendary!

did not realize tongue-in-cheekness of said comment. All good.... :)

sorry, just come here to unwind and relax and enjoy the hobby, and am getting tired of negative comments all around lately (grading sucks, PSA sucks, that autograph sucks, etc.). My bad.

For the record, I don't mind trade cards being called baseball cards. The Peck & Snyder trade cards being called baseball cards does not offended my senses. Though I understand some are using the definition of baseball cards as being 'trading' cards-- meaning, cards that were meant for the general public to be collected. I understand that reasoning.

It should be noted that the Peck & Snyder CDVs, as opposed to the trade cards, were sold to the public via the catalog. I would think they'd fit the definition of trading cards.

However you wanna classify it, I would LOVE TO OWN THIS HONUS WAGNER (card)!!!!

Type card collecting sucks too :).

Reccius actually went for a lot less than I thought it would ($21.4).

Apparently, Honus Wagner's rookie and Ozzie Smith's rookie are worth about the same. Makes sense.

I think the fact the Reccius has never been positively and empirically dated has hurt it's value. If an exact date gets discovered it's value will increase. Still a great card and fortunately, the way it's dated now, it falls a bit out of my collecting focus. (thank goodness :) as 21k still isn't too cheap)

Date of card
 

I also did quite a bit of research on the card date at the time Hal purchased the original find. I had passed back then because I was convinced in was issued after his days in Pittsburgh, not during his playing days in Louisville. Nothing I have seen has changed my mind. Still a great item!

Hey Patrick
Nice to see you around and hope you are well. Our thoughts are quite the same on this card. I was speaking with a very advanced collector, and board member, about this card last night. Same type sentiments were echoed.

If the exact date is confirmed I think the value will go down. I'm pretty confident it's an early 20th century issue and not a rookie card. Still rare and neat, but not issued in 1897.

IMO it really depends on what exact date, if it is ascertained, it dates to. If it predates his E107, or is 1903, the value would increase. If it is later it will probably decrease....again, just my opinion and that's all it is. I don't have ESP.

Trade cards seem to have phased out in the late 1890's.

I personally think that it is from 1897-99, but it would be nice to be able to definitively date it.

Another 1897 trade card example would be that of the Page Fence Giants. I do not remember seeing similar trade cards that were issued circa 1910. I think that they had been replaced by other mediums, such as postcards by then.

Would you consider Cobb / Cobb to be a trade card?

Wasn't the cigar box bearing the same image dated to around 1920? I would think the trade card and the cigar box would have some connection.

I guess, in theory, it could be viewed as a trade card, but i consider it a baseball card that took the place of the traditional trade card and served the same advertising purpose.

It is a good example of what i mean by the advertising mediums seemed to have changed from trade cards in the 1890's to others, such as postcards and, in this case, traditional baseball cards.

AFAIK, it was for a completely different company and not associated with Reccius at all. Not uncommon for companies to use old images to advertise their products.

Anyone care to share the reasons why people think that it may be a 20th century piece?

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.