Our love with Wagner

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Not so much as a poll, but as a discussion topic.......How much do you feel the T206 Wagner has affected the value of Wagner's other cards? While he had a very successful career (and was highly regarded by his peers), there are several other players who had very similar careers (Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker) and are not considered in the same breath.

[Archive]

Posted By: BlackSoxFan

Interesting point, although i have no real expertise in this area, i would agree that the name wagner has brought with it an aura of sorts that brings with it..the other cards. It seems many collectors have started to move into the vintage market recently (last couple of years) and because they know the t206 wagner is THE CARD ... they are willing to pay a premium to get as close as they can to it. I have no real hard evidence or anything, just my opinion.

Where is all the love for my boys? Go Shoeless!

Regards,
Black Sox Fan

- - - - - - - - -

I'm Smart Enough To Know, There Are A Lot Of People Who Know More Than I Know

BlackSoxFan.com
email me

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

There is NO DOUBT that the "allure" and "popularity" of the Honus Wagner T206 card with the non-collecting public is what makes him a household name.

People who have NO IDEA what team he played for or what position he played or when he played...

they ALL know that he has the "most expensive card" (at least as far as they know).

Thus, there is NO DOUBT that people who start buying vintage baseball cards want to own ANY card of Honus Wagner... and the prices of his cards are higher than they probably should be because of this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I have an equal regard for Speaker and Lajoie, and a personal prejudice against Collins. It's partly the IMAGE on the t206 card (as with the t206 Plank)---everyone wants to own a Wagner in that pose. And then: hey, I've got a Wagner in a different pose, whoopie! Guess you're right--it is partly the card...aside from, his greatness.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

1) Wagner was the best of his time. Until Cobb came around Wagner was the best player. His eight batting titles speak for themselves. Lajoie, Speaker, and Collins were all very good but not equal to Wagner. However I do believe cards from those three are undervalued.

2) There is a preceived scarcity when it comes to his cards. To the average collector (modern card collector) many believe that the T206 is Wagner's only card. Many people just do not know he has caramel cards (or what a caramel card is.)

3) The T206 is Wagner's only tobacco card. Sure you can find him on a T200 but he doesn't appear on a T201, T202, T204, T205, or T207. Most other big name players have a couple other tobacco cards. With that being said if you want a Wagner (and who doesn't) you have to buy a caramel card, thus pushing the price of the E cards up.

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

If the t206 was not a rare card (silimar in production to Cobb) I think that his cards would sell for above Johnson and Mathewson and might even sell at the same level as cobb. I think the record shows that Cobb was a better player but not by much.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Having Cobb around made it a little more difficult for Lajoie and Speaker to fetch batting titles. If Wagner had been in the same league with Cobb, it would have been a different story.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

As a T206 collector the Wagner is a kick in the pants as with Plank. I think Wagner was one of the greatest players of his time if not the greatest. I also really like the card it’s a great image and color combo. Its times like this when I wish it was “Turkey” Mike Donlin who had a hard on against tobacco products. And while were at it why couldn’t they have supposedly dropped Bob Rhoades plate vs. Plank’s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Wagner was a great player. But you have to figue that the T206 cards of most players are their most abundantly available card so the lack of availability of his card in that set makes trying to collect a "T" card of Wagner very difficult. His name being synonomous with (arguably) the most famous baseball card in the world makes his other cards very desirable.

Not to hijack the thread or change the subject but can anyone tell me, approximately, how many Plank T206 cards exist?

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Plank my guess would be around 70-80. 150 series are the better cards (Clear & Crisp) of the bunch most of the 350 series seem fuzzy or out of focus. Maybe as time went on the plate really did wear down hence the short print.


The best looking Plank I have seen for sale besides the Harris/Copeland PSA 7 was a PSA 3 SCP sold a few years back, really great image.

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

The SGC 50 that Barry sold was a terrific looking card as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I have heard the theory about 150 Planks being less fuzzy than 350 Planks, but I am not convinced - at least not in all instances.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

it was also said that Wagner was the greatest FIELDING shortstop to play the game- combined with the titles and you would have to give him the nod over the other hof's.

certainly ,his other cards wealth is mainly because of the t206 , which most board members already know that.

I have my key Wagner cards
1) Tip Top psa2
2)e-105 Mello Mint fielding (raw)
3)e-92 Croft's Candy psa 3 fielding.....thanks Mr .Wesley

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Many people at his time considered Wagner to be the greatest player in the game. I am sure the T206 has added some to the mystique, but I would think he would still be a top teir HOF among collectors in the same category as say, Johnson, Mathewson, and Young.
JimB.......................................... ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Hal's probably gonna kick me in the teeth for asking this, but which of Wagner's cards from his playing days are NOT rarer than his T206?

I assume that both of the E125 American Caramel poses, the M110 Sporting Life Cabinet, the Fleischman Bakery card, the E107 Breisch Williams, both W600 Sporting Life cabinets, the Harry Reccius, the T216s (all varieties), and the D322 Tip Top are all rarer. I assume the M116 Sporting Life and E90-1 are more common. I'm guessing both Cracker Jacks are more common, but don't really know for sure.

But what about the rest of the E's (E90-2, E92 through E106)? How about the E135 Collins McCarthy or the M101-4/5 Sporting News cards? Are there more than 50-70 of any of these cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Of the caramel issues I am most familiar with, the Wagners in all of them are more common than the T206 including E92, E93, E94, and E95. Certainly both '14 and '15 CJ Wagners are more common. That the T206 Wagner is scarce is obviously only one of the reasons for its high value. I doubt anyone here would argue otherwise.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I agree with Jim in that scarcity is what makes the T206 valuable. No doubt it has more historic significance and comes from the most popular prewar set of all time.

The scarcity of caramel cards are hard to judge. If we are looking at all E92 Wagner cards collectively, they might outnumber the T206 Wagner. On the other hand, if we look at the different E92 variations, there are several back variations that might be tougher than the T206 Wagner. The population reports show OVER TWENTY T206 Wagners graded. The same population reports show only TWO Crofts Cocoa Wagner graded. While it is possible that people simply have not submitted all of their Crofts Cocoa cards, current information tends to suggest that the Crofts Cocoa Wagner is a tougher card. Likewise for Nadja Wagners and Crofts Candy Wagners, some of these variations are a lot tougher than most people give them credit for.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I would have to agree with PaulPaulPaul on issues of Wagner that are much rarer than the T206. I would add the E105 Fielding pose to that list.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Only the Dockman E92 is more common than the T206 (out of the E92 possiblities) - and not by that much I would say. The T206 Wagner has "hyped" value. This began early on and will always be so.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

just as they wanted the famous Wagner in that 8 to be the first million dollar card. Just because.

like many rarities that we all try to pounce upon, we pay what someone wants to sell it for regardless of book. It wasn't always this way. Many things have aggressed this happening.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The T206 mystique draws you in and IMHO drives collectors to the M116, etc. that share the pose of the T206, pushing up those cards (same is true of the Plank cards that use the same portrait).

The Dutchman was flat out one of the greatest if not the greatest SS of all time. Picking teams on the sand lot, I'll take Hans and you can have any other SS you want, and I still think I come out ahead. That makes him a must-have main HOFer lik Cobb, Ruth, etc. In actuality I think some of his cards are undervalued given his place on the short list of the greatest of all time. No accident he was one of the original 5 in the HOF.

Finally, as noted there are a heck of a lot of sets missing a Honus. Since you have to have one to be a self-respecting HOF collector, you are forced to compete in a smaller pool of cards.

For those on budgets, the T200 team card, the 1936 Fine Pen, and some PCs are the best way to get a vintage Wagner at a reasonable price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

For a shortstop, you may be right. But, I don't think he was far heads-above everyone else for the time period. A tremendous talent, yes. But not THAT much better than the above mentioned three players.

Nobody sling rotten tomatoes, but Alex Rodriguez wasn't a half bad shortstop either.


Food for thought, even though it's somewhat apples to oranges.

Wagner - Lifetime Avg .327, 10430 AB, 2792 games, 3415 hits, 8 batting titles

Gwynn - Lifetime Avg .338, 9288 AB, 2440 games, 3141 hits, 8 batting titles

[Archive]

Posted By: John Spencer

In addition to the t200 and t206, Honus appears in 2 other tobacco issues that I am aware of: the T5 Pinkerton and T216 Kotton, Mino, Virginia. Can anybody think of any others?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Paul: I would never kick you in the teeth!!

I know that my T206 Wagner is not "ultra-rare".

Heck, I think most of my OTHER Wagners would be considered more rare:







I'm pretty sure that these are harder to find than the T206.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

You can't use pop reports to judge how common a card is relative to a set. HOFers are going to appear much more often than a regular player becuase HOFers tend to get slabbed more often. Pop reports are not a reliable indicator of rarity in genreal. All they indicate is how often they have been submitted for slabbing. All my uncatalogued e104-3s got slabbed. Just because they now appear on the pop report and other cards from the set don't, doesn't mean these cards are more common than ones that haven't been submitted yet.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Many other factors have gone into the obsession with the T206 Wagner, which were covered well by other posters in this excellent thread.

I just want to respond to the issue of Wagner's place among the greats of BB. I almost posted this on the Cobb vs. Wagner thread a few weeks back, but never got around to it. I'm puzzled why some people seem to have an itch to downgrade Wagner's achievements, but I've seen this emerge in a number of posts.

Adam is right: Wagner's cards are undervalued, if anything. If card prices reflect greatness, they should be well above Cobb's, and nearly at Ruthian levels.

In Bill James' Historical Abstract, an amazing book anyone on this board would enjoy, he lists Wagner as the second greatest player in major league history. Period. Not the second greatest dead-ball shortstop. Only Ruth ranks higher in his system. (Cobb is fifth.)

Among his shortstop ratings, James notes (p. 594) that the "difference between the number one shortstop (Wagner) and the number two shortstop...is about the same as the difference between the number two shortstop and the number 30 shortstop."

No player ever dominated his position more than Wagner. I believe that no player except Ruth ever dominated his era the way Wagner dominated the 1900s.

James (pp. 548-549) argues that Wagner's 1908 season, placed in context of the offensive levels of the time, ranks as the greatest single season of the 20th century, outstripping even Ruth's best.


FYI, James' top ten shortstops:
2. Vaughan
3. Ripken
4. Yount
5. Banks
6. Larkin
7. Ozzie
8. Cronin
9. Trammell
10. Reese
*(#30 is Dick Groat.)
*A-Rod places 17th in his ratings, which go through the 2000 season. No doubt he'd be higher by now-- although it appears he's no longer a shortstop....

3 cheers for the Dutchman!

Tim


PS. With apologies to the Rogers Hornsby contingent: James calls comparisons of Wagner to Hornsby similar to "confusing Ken Griffey with Bernard Gilkey"

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

One thing that's always confused me is how much difficulty Jefferson Burdick had finding a T206 Wagner. If I remember the story correctly, he and most other collectors at first didn't believe it existed. Burdick then went many years without owning one, until a friend finally sent him one (for free, I think), not too many years before he donated his collection to the Metropolitan Museum.

I've never seen Burdick's collection, but I've always assumed he had a T216 of Wagner, an E94, an E103, and lots of others. I bet he never doubted the existence of these cards. And I bet he didn't struggle as long to find them. Maybe I'm dead wrong on both of these bets. But it just seems strange that Burdick had such a hard time finding a card that, by his very lofty standards, isn't that rare.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

for my collecting bucks, the T200 with Wagner is one of his best looking cards. I may be projecting things but Wagner looks so relaxed, warm and pleasant in the photo with his teammates, just the completely comfortable opposite of every picture of Cobb I've ever seen with his supporting cast. Then again, knowing what I know about the two, Cobb may just come across like Nixon, as one of those people incapable of radiating warmth to others. One of the great portraits of all time is the Nixon portrait that Norman Rockwell did as the official portrait of him because it actually makes the man look pleasant.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

"If card prices reflect greatness, they should be well above Cobb's, and nearly at Ruthian levels"

How do you figure? Not to take anything away from Wagner but I still see no basis for elevating Wagner above Cobb or near Ruth. None. I know there is some danger in working strictly off statistics, but first-hand accounts are subjective too. After all, McGraw called Collins the best ballplayer he'd ever seen; Mack said he was the best second baseman by far. So, did he dominate any less at his position?

Wagner's stats are very nice but it's stretching it a whole bunch to say that he was greater than Cobb. Removing stolen bases out of the equation, I can rattle off quite a few other players that have numbers that are just as nice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shannon

Not to take anything away from wagner, but he rates 4th in my book behind cobb,ruth,speaker then a tight 4th with Lajoie who I think was the best to play 2nd.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

Bill James is a smart guy, but 100% biased and wrong very often. In one of his books he basically says Lefty O'Doul was an overrated ballplayer and compares him to Mike Easler. Wagner to Hornsby? Wagner was probably better but give me a break with that comparison.

Also, Cobb gets a raw deal in this era. His numbers are better than Wagner and although Wagner was a better fielder, Cobb was the most dominant player in the game during his time and could take over a game all by himself. His lifetime average is 40 points higher than Wagners during the same era. Give the fielding edge to Wagner and the baserunning and mental edge to Cobb and all you have left is two guys with batting averages forty points apart from each other during the same era. Everything I have ever seen or read from the 1908-15 era places Cobb in a league of his own with no peers. Just my opinions but I do not get people's obsession with Wagner.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

To be brutally honest, Wagner couldn't have held Ty Cobb's Jockey Strap! Cobb's numbers blow him away, and at the same era! The only difference I have with Shannon's list is that I would place Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby and Shoeless Joe Jackson ABOVE Wagner on an all-time greats list! My top five in order would be: Cobb, Jackson, Lajoie, Ruth and Hornsby.

One player whose cards will have to go up to nearly Wagnerian levels soon (caramels and other than T206 Wagners) is Cy Young. Afterall, the biggest reason Wagner cards are going to levels at or above Cobb's now is due to the popularity from the T206 Wagner. Thus, you have the name recognition. What pitcher has better name recognition than Cy Young????? Youngs have started to increase slightly. However, I feel there will be a big jump in price as new people enter the Hobby and want a card of the famous pitcher who still has an annual award named after him going to the best pitcher in each league.

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

young is underrated but his prices have been soaring above johnson and matty, where it should be. cobb is head and shoulder above wagner, but with the t206 mystique you can certainly understand where wagner gets his popularity. this also applies to plank as his cards command a huge premium in all the sets i collect.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

no player comes close to Ruth in terms of popularity (then and now), and impact on the game. no one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shannon

Cmoking Ill give you no one was more popular than Ruth period. However as far as change the game nobody changed it the way Cobb did. Imagine just about everyone hating your guts, even your own teammates and still do the the things he did in the deadball era. Im sure most of you know the facts heres a few 367 lifetime batting avg. 892 stolen bases, batting over 300 for 23 consecutive seasons, 3 times over 400 and last but not least he won 12 batting titles. Dont get wrong the Babe was awesome, Ill always give the edge to Cobb. Maybe because I was born in Detroit. No! He was simply the best to play the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Chicks dig the long ball.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

so how did Cobb change the game? I seem to have missed that part. Ruth completely changed the way the game was played. Cobb didn't do anything that Wagner, Crawford, Lajoie and others weren't already doing.

Ruth also was a pretty fair pitcher too. I don't recall Cobb ever pitching.

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott ingold

Without a doubt RUTH changed the game forever whereas Cobb did not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Cobb didn't change the game. He just played it better than anyone else! Ruth did change the game from speed and brains to pure power. Like it or not, it is true. I LOVE Cobb, but I will also give Ruth the credit he deserves - he was a pretty good ball player for a fat guy (just kidding, before I get attacked by a bunch of obese people!). At least Ruth was not using any needles to achieve his power - just food and beer!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Ruth did change the game. If it wasn't for Ruth and his homeruns, steriods wouldn't be a problem. Steriods don't help players get base hits.

Far fetched I know but there is some truth to it.

Also the case could be made that Ruth dumbed down the game. Baseball was a game of strategy which Ty Cobb was by far the greatest at. Don't really need strategy when Ruth steps up to the plate and hits one out of the park.

One more thing. When discussing the greatest you are forgetting the most important component, gate receipts. Who was able to bring the most fans to the park and pay to see that person play. In the early days of baseball that is one of the only stats that mattered.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Ruth was so good, he was willing to put himself at a huge disadvantage by eating a hot dog and drink a pint of beer every time he went into the dugout between innings. Now, that's greatness!

Folks, this isn't even worth an argument.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

Before I say this I am a HUGE Ruth fan and I think he is the greatest baseball player ever without a real solid competitor. But, Ruth did not change the way the game was played, he was just the first to take advantage of the way the game was changing naturally. If you had put Ruth in the 1880's he would have led the league in home runs for sure, but he probably would have also led the league in flyball outs because the ball was mush and no matter how hard you hit it it would not have flown 400 feet. In the late 1910's they changed the construction of the actual ball to make it tighter and able to go further when hit, and after the Ray Chapman incident directed all sorts of things to go into the hitters advantage. Ruth was there to take advantage of these changes like never before and speed change into the direction we know the game today.

Ruth was the greatest player ever but he did not change baseball or the way it was played, it would have changed without Ruth to the same game we know today, he just made the change more dramatic and quick to catch on. Right player at the right time to speed up change, but the game would have changed with or without Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Ruth didn't change the game? HR record before Ruth vs. after Ruth. I would say so.

There's a great book out by Frank Deford about how Matty and Mcgraw shaped modern baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

OK... first, you can't compare the numbers. Gwynn had a sweet swing. But I saw him field and throw. He isn't in the class of Wagner. Tony belongs in the Hall (not Puckett nor Carter), but Tony isn't Wagner.

Collins and Speaker were great, Lajoie very great. But read Ritter!!!! Read what these guys say about their contemporaries. Honus was the Man.

I have to figure if the T206s players have a pick up game in heaven, Honus is picked first every time.

Bryan mentions the Chapman incident, which lead to tighter better balls, and the idea of keeping white visible balls in play. One change often overlooked involved bat physics. Bats of the T206 era were longer, with thicker handles and less taper. With Ruth shattering the ozone, players changed to slightly shorter bats, with bigger barrels, the center of gravity moved outward, and thinner handles. In T206 days 2 bats might last you a season, today 2 bats might not last a plate appearance.

Honus could play every position. He was the Man. All the skills. Blazing speed, super glove, smart, competitive, durable, he was the Man. That is why he got baseball's first endorsement, Jack Hillerich paid him to use his name and likeness on bats. I suspect that taste of compensation prompted him to ask about his likeness on the cards of the American Tobacco Company.

This link will get you to an article about it.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005509020409

So the answer is yes, the T206 Wagner affects the value of all Wagner cards a bit. I have a Wagner card, I wanted a Wagner card, and it is an E102. I wanted a Plank card, too. And I got one, an E90-1. Yes, it has a slight effect. Him being one of the best players ever, an initial inductee to the Hall of Fame, and a good guy doesn't hurt values either.

Now wasn't that Mino Wagner a beautiful sight!

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Hey, Gwynn did win 5 gold gloves and steal a fair share of bases early on. I wouldn't say he was a slouch at all. Again, it's hard to compare players with almost 100 years between them. The game is so much different. You can't even bring Stan Musial into the mix, who I feel is WAY underrated.

Now back on topic.....

Yes, those Wagners were beautiful.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up Bill James. While some of what Bill James says is true, I would caution anybody from putting too much faith in his "statistical analysis."

Some classic Bill James comparisons...
Hal Chase with Vic Power
Bill Terry with Cecil Cooper
Frank Frisch to Rick Burleson
Dave Bancroft with Don Kessinger
Joe Medwick with Hal McRae
Max Carey with Bill North
Billy Herman with Dave Cash
Earl Averill with Chet Lemon
Earl Combs with Mickey Rivers
Hack Wilson with Jimmie Wynn
Heine Manusch with Jose Cardenal
Harry Heilman with Tommy Davis

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

How did Dave Bancroft make the HOF anyway? His batting was nothing special, and his fielding wasn't even much over the league average - was he another buddy of Ted Williams?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

"I would caution anybody from putting too much faith in (Bill James) "statistical analysis." "

To argue for or against Bill James is something I have neither the time nor ability. However he did revolutionize the way people evaluate BB players. I would highly recommend his historical BB Abstract book where he goes into great detail about his "statistical analysis."

I will say that if you are annointing greatness SOLEY on Batting Average without any thought given to the era you are definately missing the boat. If there are two things people like Bill James have helped us understand it's the importance of on base percentage (and slugging) and the fact that batting .301 in the 1930 NL means you are an average player. Batting .301 in the 1968 AL means you are a tremendous player. Hence many players of the 1930's are terribly overrated.

Everything in context.

If I had first pick in 1910 I'd take Wagner mainly becasue I think the difference between him and any other SS if far greater than the differenct between Cobb and any other OF.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Bill James' work has been revolutionary and incredible for the game of baseball. However, one of the things I always wondered was: don't we have to take into context the knowledge of the game at the time?

Here's an example:
We now know that OBP, SLG and OPS are better indicators of a player's contributions to the game than AVG. However, people didn't know that back in 1910. AVG was the only thing they were thinking about. So can we blame a player for purposely increasing his AVG at the detriment of SLG and OBP? What if he swung at a few more pitches instead of taking a few more walks? What if he slapped at balls more often in order to hit singles instead of trying to slug it for a double? I don't think we can blame players in that era on the general baseball knowledge of their times. By the way, this would be an argument that Cobb is underrated.

On another note, recent research has shown that strikeouts by batters don't really matter that much compared to a different type of out. The type of complaint one would hear about Ruth was "yea, he swings for the fences and hits a bunch of HRs, but he misses alot and strikes out alot". Striking out back then was more of a negative than striking out today. But Ruth didn't know that. Maybe he was lucky in that his game just happened to fit correctly, whether he knew it or not.

Cobb avoided what people thought was the worst thing back then - strike outs. While he did what people thought was the best thing back then - high AVG. I think this is the best argument for Cobb.