|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>I know there will be mixed opinions, but lets hear what people have to say.<br><br><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1232217954.JPG" alt="[linked image]">
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Dan McHugh IV</b><p>Yes and MY GOD it is BEAUTIFUL!!! Awesome piece to have!
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>It's earlier than any known Wagner cards, but would people consider it a card in the traditional sense? That would be the argument.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Not a card, a premium, but a great piece indeed!
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>not a card.<br><br>a cool piece though - beautiful!
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>1880nonsports</b><p>it 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"><br>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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>In 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?<br><br>Henry--BTW, GAI was set up at the White Plains show this weekend.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>thin paper stock correct?<br><br>not really a card (and thus not a rookie card) but very cool.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>To add to the discussion, here is the write-up from a past REA auction lot containing the M101-1 Wagner.<br><br><a href="http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/120.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/120.html</a>
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jeremy</b><p>Yes, this is his Rookie, but No, this is not his Rookie card...<br><br>~ Jeremy ~
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>1880nonsports</b><p>if 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">
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>you can actually see individual hairs on his head!<br><br>There were no actual rookie cards before 1951. I say that because it seems that all the fights are about cards before that date.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jerry</b><p>What was the final consenses on this card?...if there was one. Was it determined to be 19th century or not.<br><br><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/cardsforsale/websize/reccius.jpg" width="481" height="640" alt="reccius.jpg"></p>
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>I've never seen one before. Size?<br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Lyman</b><p>I 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 <i>American <u>Card</u> Catalog</i>.<br><br>No matter what you call it, the M101-1 Wagner is certainly an impressive piece.<br><br>Lyman
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Adam, Hal owned that piece and I believe it was postcard size if I remember correctly.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I 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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I think the general feeling on the Reccius is it was likely issued later than 1897. Nobody knew for sure and that was the problem.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Ken Wirt</b><p>I'm with Lyman. Beautiful large rookie card!
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Marty Ogelvie</b><p><p>Rookie 'Card' or not it is simply magnificent! Thanks for sharing!</p><br><br>Marty
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Misunderestimated (Brian H)</b><p>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. <br><br> Doesn't Beckett make something that would hold this one....
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>The supplement is not a card. At 8 3/4 x 11, it is closer to a poster.<br><br>Great item though.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Jay:<br><br>That is an awesome Wagner piece, I wish I owned it!!!<br><br>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. <br><br>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........<br><br><br><img src="http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/bcbgcbrcb/Wagner_Honus.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Michael Steele</b><p>I echo the thoughts above, magnificent item no matter if it is considered a "rookie" or not or a "card" or not.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Can the largest Becket holder fit the 8-3/4 x 11 supplement?<br><br>Something like the M101-1 Wagner would look great mounted and framed and hanging on the wall.<br><br>
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>After 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?
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Phil--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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/uffda51/19thcenturycabinetcards/CopperplateNichols.JPG" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br>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.<br><br>Yes, Jay, the Wagner/Cobb is an M101-2. Brain cramp on my part.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Bruce--Isn't the Cobb/Wagner an M101-2?
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>My 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).
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>The 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)
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Leon--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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>If it is in the ACC, I think it is pretty safe to say it is a card...<br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I 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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jay- 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.<br><br>Back then Peck & Snyders were trade cards, Boston Garters would have been considered advertising cards, and almost everything oversized would be termed something else.<br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br>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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As 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
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>Let'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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Leon--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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>This 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<br><br><br>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."<br><br>I think those are some other good criteria you point out.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jay- 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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Barry-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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I 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!!)<br><br><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1232299232.JPG" alt="[linked image]">
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I 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.<br>Now of course this experiment would not be the last word on the subject, merely one way to gauge it.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Barry--Personally, I think the order for Wagner rookie would be the M101-1 and then the W600. Didn't the W600 come before 1903?
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The W600 was right around 1903, but they were issued for many years and I'm not sure.<br><br>But we have the same argument- is W600 a baseball card? It kind of is, but you won't get total agreement.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Jay - I believe that the W600 Wagner was issued as early as 1902 so it could have predated the E107.<br><br>Phil - I used to own that M101-1 cut Wagner. It is an M101-1. Not a Copper Plate<br><br>I used to own an M101-1 Young. I think I sold it in the $2-2.5k range.<br><br>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<br><br>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!
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>I 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.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Wagner - E107<br>Young - Just So<br><br>If money was no object.
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>At least you got an answer about Boston Garters being cards.....Thanks for the discussion on a quiet Sunday morning....
|
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Leon--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.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:02 PM. |