The Honus Wagner Cabinet is Relisted on Ebay

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

http://tinyurl.com/2tbunl

This piece just doesn't add up - he claims 1917, a date of 1928 is written on it, but Wagner is wearing a home uniform from 1912 - the only year the Pirates wore that style of uniform.

He is now claiming that people have told him the price it ended at the first time he listed it was half of it's real value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

I have never seen that cabinet before? I saw that listed the first time and thought it was nice looking. But it scares me to bid on it (6th sense) Now if it was in a MAJOR auction , that would be a different story.. Funny how that works...

[Archive]

Posted By: chris bland

I dont want to post the details of my discussion with the seller (I was the previous winner) on a public forum, but anyone who is interested in this piece and would like to discuss my findings is welcome to email me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I've emailed the seller asking for his provenance that he claims to have....I'll post it here if I hear from him. I also asked about the inconsistency in the dates.

[Archive]

Posted By: George Dreher

It doesn't have a calendar on the back, so that's one plus.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

To me, it doesn't appear genuine no matter what date is assigned. The seller has a strong authenticity guarantee, so I'm not suggesting his intent is nefarious. I'm sure it would be worth more than 2x the last price if it was original.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Here is his reply for my request for provenance.....

"Hi, Purchased as a lot of Vintage photo's from a local (Poughkeepsie NY) Gentleman Every Piece Is Vintage 1840's-Late 1930's. I thought initially the date was 1928 as that is penciled on the mat. However during the original auction I was contacted by another local who told me he had the same pic and that it had been shot on Mr. Wagners Birthday in 1917 and a few dozen were then handed/mailed out. Not sure why he would have chosen to wear the 1912 uniform but this pic was studio shot not field shot. Either that or it's 7 years earlier than we thought..."

That's not what I would qualify as "provenance", but there it is.