1916 STANDARD BISCUIT D350-1 HONUS WAGNER PSA 3 (1 OF 1) F/S

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

Net 54'ers,

I am selling my Hans... See Ebay for Listing - Item number: 250235700420

1916 STANDARD BISCUIT D350-1 HONUS WAGNER PSA 3 (1 OF 1 by PSA - Only 1 Graded in any condition)- UNCATALOGUED by SCD(Krause) 2007 - JUST GRADED -

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

But could you just clarify in what sense it is uncataloged? It's standard to the M101-5 checklist and all the m101-5 backs as far as I know. Thanks much--

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: john wondowski

Jeremy,

please email the price to me. Thank you.

john
jwondowski@aol.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

John,

He does have a price. You can win it for $7,449.99.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1916-STANDARD-BISCUIT-HONUS-WAGNER-PSA-3-1-OF-1-HOF_W0QQitemZ250235700420QQihZ015QQcategoryZ31718Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: john wondowski

Thanks. I didn't see it was an ebay listing.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Having now looked at the hype on the ebay listing, I have even more questions about what makes this card "uncataloged" and some kind of a new discovery.

Am I missing something? It is a #184 Wagner, which is a standard number for M101-5. Standard Biscuit (D350-1) is one of the more common M101-5 backs. The fact that there might not have been any graded previously doesn't make it uncataloged. It's an ordinary D350-1/M101-5 Wagner.

The card is a nice enough piece without having to resort to advertising which I consider to be misleading.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Jeremy,

This is listed in the wrong category here on Net54. There is a separate place for announcing Ebay auctions. Where you listed is for B/S/T transactions between board members.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Tim,

I agree completely. Not only that, its certainly catalogued in VCP. The BIN on this one is about 4X the going price for one of these cards as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

The card is Uncataloged in SCD of Baseball Cards. (This is mentioned in the Ebay listing). PSA does not have any 1916 Standard Biscuit Wagner's in any conditon on their population report. This is in fact 1 of 1 by PSA. This card will be listed in Krause Publication (SCD) this summer per the editor's that reviewed the card's scans, etc.

Gentlemen - The card has a Best Offer Option on it. With it being 1 of 1, I put a price on it and the market will bare what it is worth.

I appreciate your interest - There has absolutely been no misrepresentation with this card. (At least not meant...)

Have a Great Weekend !



~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

A PSA 1/1 is different from an uncatalogued find. There was a GAI or SGC holder, Wagner D350-1 that was sold in an Andy Madec auction a year or two ago....if anyone else can confirm that (my memory isn't what it used to be).

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Jeremy,
There was in fact a GAI 3.5 sold in a Andy Madec auction. I would think you'd be better off editing your listing to say its a PSA 1/1 and leave it at that...not 1/1 uncatalogued card. Not sure why it isn't in the SCD, but there has been at least one other graded and sold at major auction.


Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Dave - this card is the GAI 3.5. That said, when I contacted Jeremy about the price for the card (as it is listed in the sale category here), he said: "Hard to find a price point, when there is not another example of this card."

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

Guys - Please... Everyone take a small step back and read my post, my ebay listing, etc.

I stated that the card was PSA 1 of 1 and that the Card was Uncatalogued by SCD (Krause Publications) This is a Fact.

In response to a card being in the Andy Madec auction a year or so ago.... Let me clear that up... This is that card !

If there are any other examples out there, then I would welcome a scan. I am not here to dipute or defend, but merely state 2 facts as mentioned in my Ebay listing. Graded by PSA 1 of 1 and the card is Uncatloged by SCD.

There could very well be another example. Right now according to PSA and SCD there is only 1 example.

Sources: SCD 2007 Krause Pub - page 368
PSA Population Report for 1916 Standard Biscuit Honus Wagner (Not to be confused with 1917 Standard Biscuit. (2 different issues)


Thanks for all the interest here... I do value your comments and expertise, but I would appreciate keeping this public flogging to a minimum.

Regards,

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

OK, a knowledgeable friend who has a more recent edition of SCD has filled me in.

Apparently in recent editions the SCD has badly botched up the cataloging of the 1916 Standard Biscuit set. They have a checklist with about 35-40 names on it instead of 200. This is despite the fact that this set has been fully checklisted for decades, with the exception of three rare cards (#12 Becker, #185 Wallace, #23 Cady) which have appeared in recent years. These three cards have been seen (so far, anyway) with Standard Biscuit and blank backs only. The upcoming article by Todd Schultz and myself in the summer 2008 issue of Old Cardboard will hopefully clarify the confusion.

Because of this I guess SCD decided to treat this as a separate set from other M101-5 issues, but they have done a truly horrible job of presenting it. All the info we have tells us that except for these three cards the Standard Biscuit set is otherwise exactly the same as the other M101-5 issues-- 200 cards.

However, all this is irrelevant anyway to the Honus Wagner card, which is ALWAYS seen as #184 in the M101-5 series regardless of back (#182 in M101-4). There may not have been any Standard Biscuit Wagner GRADED before, but it has always been on the checklist. It cannot in any way be considered unchecklisted.

So I should qualify my earlier post-- if you went by the SCD info, as Jeremy presumably did, you could get the impression that this was a new discovery. The original BST post and the ebay auction ARE misleading, but not intentionally so.

The asking price is another story. Normally I would say, hey, that's capitalism, if you can find someone who will pay that much, go for it. But when you throw in the claim of "unique" and "uncataloged," you could have a serious situation with a buyer that is badly misled, conceivably even defrauded, although I'm not a lawyer.

So if I were selling this card, I would definitely alter the descriptions, because they do give the impression that this is the only 1916 Standard Biscuit Honus Wagner that is known, and that's clearly not the case.

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

Tim,

Thanks for your special interest. I appreciate you qualifying your earlier post as well. I will take another look at my listing on ebay and make sure it is a fair one. I do have some confusion with your response regarding the card. I understand the M101-5 back info and that a lot of the scarce to rare backs get cataloged under this designation, but does that mean that there are more examples of Hans with this back ? I would presume that there might be, but when reviewing SCD and PSA, they don't show that there is another Hans Wagner Standard Biscuit back. This is what makes this board great and I hope (Although I kinda don't hope...) that if there is a Hans out there with a Standard Biscuit back, someone can shed some light on it... Does SGC show they have a Hans with Standard Biscuit back ? I have GAI, PSA, and SCD covered, so even though this card could be lumped into the M101-5's, is it possible there is not a Hans Standard Bicuit Back with in that group, thus making this card trully 1 of 1 ? Terribly curious now, since this is getting some heightened attention. I will hang up and listen...


Thanks to all for your comments and interest -

Regards,


~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jeremy - Tim was commenting on the "uncatalogued" claim - not the "1 of 1" claim.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

In my description at the top I put SCD in parenthesis next to the word uncatalogued. I certainly don't want to mislead anyone here, but to suggest it is catalogued is not quite true either. (How do we know this ?) Does anyone have a example with this back ? To suggest this be lumped in with M101-5 and it has a parallel example may be selling this card short !?! Sure, there may be a Hans with another back, but do we in fact know that there is one with a Standard Biscuit back ? (Time will certainly tell and I would think that surely there is a few other examples out there...)

I think I can stand by my claim that this is currently uncatalogued by SCD. Page 368 of 2007 SCD verifies that for me. Also, I stated this in my above title.(In front of the pic scans)

To be clear, I would absolutely make sure a buyer of this card understood all the parameters (Meaning that it only has been Uncatalogued by SCD and PSA only shows 1 example - I can't speak for SGC, VCP, etc....) before I accepted payement on Ebay or Net54. This great forum may actually bring this debate to the surface. The sale of this card is not important to me. I can hold onto it as I have for over a year, but until recently after digging in a bit on the card, it is starting to make me wonder about its scarcity.





~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Jeremy, thanks for taking all this in a spirit of good cheer-- none of it is personal at all-- And you were not well served by SCD, which made a horrible mess of the set.

I'm just concerned that a big-money card like this should be offered to buyers as accurately as possible. Apart from the ethics involved, it could save you a lot of aggravation down the line.

The problem with population reports on this set is that for a long time the companies lumped many cards with printed backs into the generic M101-4 or M101-5 category. I think they are doing better lately, but this still makes it very difficult to use the reports with any degree of accuracy.

But as Matt says, I am not disputing that this is currently the only graded M101-5/D350-1 Wagner with a Standard Biscuit back. SGC doesn't show one with this back either. So yes, the claim that it is currently 1 of 1 in grading reports is reasonable.

However, the fact that I cannot produce proof right now of another Wagner with this back does not make the card uncataloged or unchecklisted. The checklist for M101-5/D350-1 has been known almost since 1916, with the exception of the three cards I referred to above.

And the numbering of the Wagner card does not deviate from the standard M101-5 checklist. There are multiple copies of #184 Wagner known with other M101-5 or blank backs. Therefore the card has to be considered fully cataloged.

There's a big difference between a card that no hobby reference has ever listed before, like the M101-5 Becker or Wallace cards until recently, and a card (however rare it might be) that is known to be part of a set's standard checklist-- even if no other copy can be found at a given moment.

As I say, it's a great card, and you could certainly claim that it would be very difficult to find one anywhere else. It's just a matter of altering the wording to remove claims like "uncataloged" and "unique."

Does that help at all?

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Jeremy, a couple of times you have cited the SCD edition and page number as the basis of your interpretation of the card's rarity. The problem is that anyone who knows a lot about M101-5 would look at that page and say immediately that it was a mess-- especially the fact that there are only a few dozen names in the Standard Biscuit checklist.

In other words, SCD here is a bad authority.

Almost all other hobby guides would say something like this for 1916 Standard Biscuit: "See 1915 [or 1916] Sporting News for checklist." (This example comes from an earlier edition of SCD.) This, and not the more recent SCD with the badly incomplete checklist, reflects the hobby consensus about this set. And under this interpretation, the Wagner would be "Checklisted" and "Catalogued" -- although still rare.

Cheers,
Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

Tim - I might bite on Uncatalogued, but Unique seems to be right on the money...

There are 2 sides to this : M101-4/5 Yes - I see your point.... Standard Biscuit - I see my point.

As for my description I mentioned that it was uncatalogued and put (SCD) next to the word.

Semantics ? Let's be clear here... I could not sleep at night thinking someone bought this card and did not know the whole story, so I will make it my duty to whomever buys the card to understand that... But as this plays out, you have now identified that SGC does not show this back either in a Hans. That leaves VCP and could anyone verify on VCP the info ? How do I access it ? PSA, GAI, and SGC don't show a Standard Biscuit back of Hans (Could it be buried in the M101-4/5's... Possibly - Can anyone verify VCP ? The Truth behind this card matters most to me and presumably to you guys as well.... This path is a good one, indeed.


http://standardcatalog.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/bonus-honus/

The Latest Finds
Home of the SCD Standard Catalog of Baseball CardsFeed on Posts Comments Bonus Honus!
December 4, 2007 by fluckzilla

Uncatalogued but known Wagner card is today’s find. We’ve found what we’re pretty sure is a 1916 Standard Biscuit D350-1 #184 Honus Wagner card that was in a PSA slab identified as M101-5. Anyone out there who knows this set (can you offer any other missing cards to our list on p.371 of the 2008 book) and can shed light on why PSA thought it was M101-5 other than a typographical error?






~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Hi Jeremy,

I see where you're coming from with this article, but I think the poster (fluckzilla)'s whole claim is nonsense. There's no mystery about the way this card was slabbed. It's not a new find.

The problem lies in the way these sets are handled. You can look at M101-5 and M101-4 as two sets each with its own checklist, and each having a bunch of different backs. Or you could claim that each back is actually a totally different set. When Burdick was doing the ACC, he decided to give the M101-style Standard Biscuit a separate catalog number, D350-1. A few others also have their own numbers, like D329 (Weil Baking) and H801-9 (Globe)

So sometimes you will see Standard Biscuits listed as D350-1. At other times, people will just call them M101-5 (or M101-4).

What PSA did was to slab this card as M101-5. That's not really wrong or right. It could have been slabbed as D350-1 just as easily. It doesn't really matter what it was slabbed as. Either way the card is an M101-type #184 Wagner with a Standard Biscuit back. It's part of the Standard Biscuit checklist, which is the same as all the other M101-5 checklists except for those three cards I mentioned. So it's ridiculous to claim, as Fluckzilla does, that the card is somehow "uncataloged" because PSA labeled it one way instead of the other.

It's clear that you have gotten a lot of messages claiming (Fluckzilla) or implying (SCD) that this card is uncataloged. I'm sympathetic to the position that puts you in. But these sources of information are just plain wrong. This is why Todd and I have written the article -- to try to unravel some of these tangles.

FYI, VCP only lists the Andy Madec sale, which I guess is your card. So the card is rare-- but the point is that it's rare in exactly the same way that any other given Standard Biscuit card is rare. It's not in the same class of rarity as a Wagner with a Holmes to Homes back.

On another point, I would hesitate to say that any card is "unique" because that can never really be proven to a certainty. But you're on safe ground with "1 of 1" in population reports.

It's clear you're not trying to mislead anyone intentionally, so since I think I've made my point, I'm going to sign off here.


Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

What an intriguing debate here...

I do appreciate both sides and I certainly don't need SCD to claim this card as uncatalogued.

I think the real question is when the dust settles and somewhere down the road, all of these cards (99%) are accounted for, the backs will become individulized. To lump them into a mass M101-4/5 designation to me was done as a matter of convenience and certainly does not tell the whole story.

Could this card be the only Wagner with a Standard Biscuit Back ? I actually see parallels with the Holmes to Holmes if no one else can substantiate that another Wagner Standard Biscuit does exist.

What makes 1 of 1 examples of Holmes to Holmes any more rare than 1 of 1 Standard Biscuit Wagner ? The question becomes proving or disproving whether there is another example out there of a Wagner with this back. So far we have a decent start.... PSA, SGC, GAI, SCD, and VCP all confirm this as the only card. Underneath the M101-4/5 designation, hopefully someone can substantiate another one of these exist. (It would surprise me if there are not at least a few more exampels)

Why would I dismiss this as being just one of the other Wagners with a rare back ?

Is there anywhere or anyone else we could go to to help uncover this situation ? Leon ? Papa Bear ??

~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I could be wrong, but I suspect you won't find a Holmes to Homes Wagner on N54 or anywhere else.

I doubt you will find a Standard Biscuit Wagner right now (except your own)

Does this mean they are of equal scarcity? Absolutely not--

For one thing it's already zero H2H to one SB-- which is a big difference right there.

But more broadly, you can't show X is as rare as Y just by the current lack of examples of each.

Everybody who has really studied these sets knows that Holmes to Homes cards overall are scarcer than Standard Biscuit by a very wide margin-- maybe 50 times as scarce, maybe 100.

so which makes more sense?

1. They are equally scarce because we can't find either of them right now (except for yours, remember)

or

2. An H2H Wagner is likely to be 50-100 times as scarce as a SB Wagner-- which doesn't mean your SB isn't highly desirable.
___________________________________________

Another way to look at it:

There are 9 different M101-5 backs known (M101-5 only, not M101-4), including D350-1. At 200 cards per, that's 1800 possible cards. I'd say that if you surveyed every source you could think of for a year, you would be able to check off maybe 400 of those cards. The vast majority of these would be blank backs, Famous and Barrs, and Standard Biscuits. That means that any given time, roughly 75-80% of all M101-5 front/back combinations would be impossible to verify.

Should we conclude they are all uncataloged or unchecklisted because we can't find a copy?

No, they are simply quite scarce. But the checklist is known.

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

If SCD starts individual back checklists for T206 next year maybe I'll be able to sell my Maddox Piedmont 350 as "uncatalogued".

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

Scott - Is your Maddox the only example known with this back ?



~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Jeremy, did you really respond to Matt's inquiry on price by stating: "Hard to find a price point, when there is not another example of this card."

I can find you a price point - let's start with the $1879 price paid last year in the Madec auction for this particular card.

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

josh less arguing with and more price research on e94s please.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy

That price point was paid for a GAI graded Hans.(Reasonable Risk as well-I could have crashed and burned on that purchase if it came back trimmed,etc.) You can go with that if it makes you feel comfortable. I own the card and I will take a different price point. Especially after one year of owning the card, learning about the card, and finding out that there may not be another like it. That changes the price point, considerably. So as stated in previous messages, the market will bare the price. What you or I think really does not matter.

P.S. If you really want it that bad, just email me privately... You don't have to beat it down. I think the young kids call that Playa-Hatin...

~ Jeremy ~

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian McQueen

Quan - you guys are STILL doing e94 research? I've moved past that phase already, guess you've got some catching up to do!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As one of the early (new age) back collectors of M101-4/5 I would take what Tim says to heart. I am absolutely positive (in my mind) that there are more Wagner Standard Biscuits out there. Do I know where one is or remember (off hand) of seeing one? No, I don't. As a collector of "rarity" I almost never say "unique" as there is no way to know. Many times I will say "uniquely known" and that is a true statement if I don't know of others or don't know anyone that has seen another. Even my E94 overprint set is "known" ones as I think there might be ones I don't have that I haven't seen yet. I would be very leery of ever saying "unique" when speaking about cards.

Josh and Quan- nice ones ......

edited to add... I just read the ebay listing (and this is the wrong category to start with but that isn't a major issue)..

"THIS CARD HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY EDITOR'S AT THE STANDARD CARD CATALOG (SCD) of BASEBALL CARDS AS THE ONLY KNOWN EXAMPLE AND WILL BE ADDED TO THEIR 2008 SCD GUIDE COMING OUT LATER THIS SUMMER. (THE CURRENT 2007 CATALOG CHECKLIST (D350-1) IS INCOMPLETE AND HAS A NO EXAMPLES OF HONUS WAGNER REPORTED."

to me that statement is very misleading.....it makes it seem that this is in fact the only one....and there is almost no way that is the case. just my 2 cents...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I was going to put this on the main board, as I don't want to disrupt a sale, but it seems enough have chimed in here that I can too. Nice Wagner card, BTW.

SCD has really done a disservice to the hobby, IMO, by treating the Standard Biscuits as a set that needs to be catalogued differently than the other m101 sets. The proper way to checklist these is to refer to the m101 listings and perhaps add express variations for the confirmed Becker and Wallace cards. Tim is right--the set is not all that uncommon, at least from an m101-5 perspective.

Fluckzilla asks if there are other confirmed Standard Biscuit cards than those listed in the SCD. Well, turn around the question and ask it with regard to the other backs. Have you confirmed 200 different Holmes to Homes cards? Mall Theatre? 200+ different Gimball's? I think not, yet it is completely rational to believe they were at least printed, and SCD refers you to the m101 sets for those. Oh, and a quick look at my SBs shows these 4 "uncatalogued", and we're not even through C in the alphabet (I have more):





Does this make these uncatlogued cards more scarce? Doubtful. ALL m101 ad backed cards are scarce except The Sporting News. To advertise them as such is not misleading IMO. But to refer to SBs as scarcer than others based simply on SCD and or graded card pops is problematic and dubious.