how much will it bring?

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Constructive fraud isn't based on negligence. It is based upon the fact that the buyer is misled to his/her prejudice by the seller's representations which, although not made with fraudultent intent, are shown to be false. That's the common-law constructive fraud claim. There are also various consumer protection types of statutes which sometimes allow recovery for constructive fraud.

Kenny

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I agree with Barry that if the card is ever proven to date to a later period than the late 1890s, its value would be reduced substantially.

In regard to who would be liable if that were to happen, as I've said, I think it unlikely PSA would in this case have any liability. In regard to Lelands, it will depend on how they describe the card in their catalogue. I have to feel they are aware of the questions raised in this Board and know enough to have the card's catalogue description carefully reviewed by their attorney. In such an instance, I think it unlikely Lelands would end up having any liability either.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Corey,
Just to clarify on the Doyle card, SGC did pay damages to a subsequent purchaser: Alan Rosen. He bought the card in an SGC holder without looking closely at it. He was not the one who submitted it to SGC. His argument was that he trusted the authenticity of the card based on the assessment of SGC. On that basis, SGC paid him for the card (I forget the exact amount.).
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

So Kenny you are saying Leland's has what essentially amounts to strict liability if they say the card is from 1899 and it later turns out it isn't, even if they had no fraudulent intent, and could show that they believed based on a diligent investigation that at the time of the sale that the available evidence all pointed to 1899? Is there no defense available to Leland's at all if they make what is, in hindsight, shown to be a false statement?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I know squat about other jurisdictions but it seems to me that any certifying company could be held liable under negligence theory in CA. Since PSA is a CA company, the issue is of more than academic value. In CA we analyze the issue in terms of duty not privity. If you undertake a certifying role that you can reasonably anticipate will result in third parties relying on your views, you can be held liable for your negligence in forming those views. There have been several such cases involving CPAs certifying bogus financials and being sued by investors who were duped as a result.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Does PSA disclose how many cards it actually has bought back pursuant to its "guarantee," or the dollar value (or the value of any reserve they take for buybacks)?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick

any answers to the original question?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Rick,
I think it is so tough to guess on a one-of-a-kind card of such importance as this one, but I would guess it will go for somewhere in the $100k neighborhood. As always, it only takes a couple of people who want it really badly and have the funds for the sky to be the limit. HOF rookie collectors and others for whom this card is a fit in their collection could easily fall into that category. This is an opportunity that probably won't come again soon.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Peter,

No, I'm not saying that it is strict liability. However, at least in Oklahoma, constructive fraud can be predicated even on an innocent misrepresentation if there is an underlying right to be informed of the actual facts. Obviously there has to be a duty to disclose before you can be held liable, and if you don't have the information, or have the means of acquiring the information, liability isn't going to attach. Having the means to acquire the true information seems to me to be the key here.

My initial post was in response to Barry's question whether a buyer would have ANY recourse if the card later proved to be manufactured later than its label says. My point was simply that a claim against Lelands would probably be easier and have a better chance of success than one against PSA. That was all I meant to convey. Don't take it to mean anything more than that although, as an aside, I note that a claim by the buyer against Lelands would dispense with any privity issues.

In any event, I really think this is an academic discussion since Corey is likely right that Lelands will be savvy enough to cover its bases on dating the card. Nor am I questioning the date it has been given by PSA. I don't know, nor do I care, when it was manufactured, and 1897-1899 is as reasonable to me as any other date. However, that being said, there has been some issue raised as to when the card was actually manufactured. If Lelands says that the card is definitively from the 1897-99 time period and information that was reasonably obtainable at the time of auction later shows that representation was wrong, I think I could probably get the case to a jury here. I'm not saying I'd win, nor is it even a case I'd be interested in taking. However, IF those other two ifs could be proven, at least here, the case would probably go to the jury.

Kenny

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Kenny that all makes sense. It will be interesting to see what Leland's says about the card. If we were advising them obviously we would have them put in sufficient disclaimers, but as we also know businesspeople don't always take advice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Hal,

Sorry to hear you're "feeling the pinch" and have fallen on such hard times with your oceanfront properties. It's interesting that you mention you previously listed the trade card on ebay "the LAST time a 1914 Ruth card appeared in an auction..."

Are you saying you listed it on ebay in order to bid on or buy the Baltimore News Ruth? Or, are you telling us something that is technically true (you did list it on ebay while the Baltimore News Ruth auction was still open) but really didn't have anything to do with why you listed it?

But this time you're going after the Baltimore News Ruth in the upcoming REA auction? Is that what you are implying by saying we "ought to be able to figure out the connection"?

The only reason some of us are curious is that a few of us remember the fact that you listed it on ebay within an hour or two of when the Robert Edwards lot description for the Reccius cigar box was changed to reflect the discovery of it actually being from 1917, not 1897-99. In fact, within minutes of the cigar box being dated 20 years later than originally had been thought, you listed your Wagner on ebay.

I suppose it could have been mere coincidence that you listed the card immediately after it was publicly announced that the cigar box thought to correspond with the trade card turned out to have been produced so much later.

There sure are a lot of strange coincidences surrounding this card.

To answer the original question of this thread, an 1897-99 baseball card of Wagner would certainly sell for over $100,000. A 1917 trade card of Wagner would probably sell for $10,000 to $15,000. With all of the questions about the trade card Hal consigned, my guess is somewhere around $35,000 or $40,000. Whatever it is, it's certainly rare and interesting which means it's also valuable.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Peter- You are correct. No court (at least in CA) would extend any "duty" PSA (or whomever) arguably owes, to a subsequent purchaser. Arguably, only those "reasonably foreseeable" persons could sustain a negligence case, assuming there is any duty found owed to anybody. This would likely be a Breach of Contract action.

This was my point in my initial post. Although PSA may stand by their grades now, I can guarantee you if this issue becomes more common, they may not be so cooperative (understandably so).

And Hal- I'm not sure to which post your comment about slabs being "worthless" was in response to, but I agree with your point. They are NOT worthless, unless of course they are defective. Their value, slabbed and graded, speaks for itself. If they mis-grade something (i.e. authenticating something that's not in fact authentic), then of course they are worthless.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

All Leland's has to do, in addition to their own narrative, is offer the exhaustive research that Hal procured. I think it is safe to say that Hal knows more about this card than anyone. With the information available to us today Hal was able to prove the card was issued between 1897 and 1899. He went to great lengths to disprove the card was issued during that span of time and was not able to secure information to the contrary, based on what he has shared with us.

If however down the road, it turns out the date is off significantly, I do not see how the present seller, grading company or agents for the seller could be held liable for negligence unless it could be proved that they knew the documented information of today, was not correct. I see the grading company as the least liable since their job is to offer an opinion on authenticity and condition. The card is at this point, unique. It is an unaltered, authentic Reccius Wagner in poor condition according to PSA. I do not see PSA's role in grading the card as analogous to a CPA firm's with respect to certifying bogus financial statements. The card will always be a Reccius Wagner in poor condition and may also remain unique, regardless of the date of issuance.


Greg

P.S. Good luck with it Hal. I hope it exceeds your expectations.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Hal,
Good luck!!!!
I hope you get a great price for the card. Just promise me you won't bid on any rare backs with the money you make.... Be well Brian



PS We are both morons for not bidding on the Johnson 460 in Mastro.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Ryan (or someone who remembers), what was the connection between the cigar box and Hal's card? Was there any reason to believe the card came from that very box, as opposed to one like it that might have been issued at some point during the years the cigars were issued?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

That was my view of it based on my understanding of Massachusetts law growing out of the famous old Ultramares case, and common sense, but Adam seems to suggest California has expanded the scope of the duty of care to anyone forseeably relying, and by that standard I could see how a subsequent purchaser (even if their precise identity was unknown to PSA at the time) could fit within that group. I leave it to you and Adam to debate the finer points of California law.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I just have to throw out a bullsh** flag....sorry to interupt the pity party. If I am a rookie collector I ain't selling Wagner's rookie....other T206 Wagners can be had when times get better....the Reccius can't....It's a cool card regardless....and with all I know I don't think it dates where the flip says it does....but again, see the message title....it's just me...being me....Clarke was a better player...it would be him on the card...and the 1919'ish box seems too coincidental.....again, see message title....

edited to add this is not any kind of personal attack on Hal...Hal has been nice to me personally and nice to this board....I wish the card all the best in the auction though the motive to sell is still puzzling, to me, given the circumstances

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Peter,

Here is the thread with the answer to your question about the relationship of the cigar box and Hal's card.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1114196060/last-1114540253/%28Honus+Wagner%29++CIGAR+BOX

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Peter: I'm with you- but I do see Adam's point as well. Just as subsequent home buyers can sue the developer for construction defects (under a negligence theory), there is caselaw that protects subsequent purchasers of certain items.

On the flip side, I can't see a "service" being given the same benefit - that is - to subsequent puchasers of a "service." As Adam astutely points out, CPA firms owe a duty to the investors of a corporation which retains them. True, the CPA does not know the exact identity of each and every investor (potential plaintiff), but the investors OWN the company which retained the CPA, thus, the investors/owners employed the CPA and thus are foreseeable plaintiffs.

For example, if I get burned on a transaction of a home appraised at X and it is in fact not worth X after I've paid for it, I doubt I can go after the appraiser (whom I did not retain).

Maybe if there's enough of this, we can make some new law (hopefully not for us collectors though).

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Within that thread was an ebay listing no longer available, do you recall what it was?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Peter,

That was the Hal's listing of the Reccius Wagner which he ended shortly after listing it and had decided he would keep the card--which I thought was a great choice.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I think that the Reccius Honus Wagner is a fascinating card. I reread the discussion in the old thread as well as the amendments for a different item in the REA auction. It seems that some posters in the old thread originally connected the Reccius card with the cigar box in the REA auction. However, the only connection between the cigar box and the Reccius card is that they share a similar photo. Nowhere on the cigar box is the maker of the cigars identified. Nowhere on the cigar box does it say that there is some conenction to the Reccius product.

In REA's amendment to the cigar box auction description, it is pointed out that there is a rectangle or gold revenue stamp that identifies it as post 1919. Apparently, revisions in the law at the time required these identification marks be on every tobacco product after 1919. In looking at the photo of the Reccius card, there is no rectangle or gold revenue stamp. This seems to be a very important distinction and perhaps one that proves that the card and the box were for two separate and distinct products released at different times. If the rectangle or gold revenue stamp is required for all post 1919 tobacco products, one would think that it would appear on the card if from a post 1919 tobacco product. It is important to note that on the Reccius card, there is no such such revenue marking and is likely prior to to the enactment of the new law.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Wesley-The revenue stamp simply showed that the appropriate tax was paid on the tobacco product. It was to be placed on the box, not on a box insert which the trade card could have been. Originally revenue stamps were positioned so that the stamp would be defaced when the product was used thereby eliminating the possibility of reuse (ie over the bung on a beer keg so that tapping destroyed the stamp). I'm not sure where this stamp was placed or if that rule still applied in the late teens.

That said, this is a neat card and I wish Hal the best with the sale.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

The cigar box was for "HONUS WAGNER" cigars.

The Reccius card was for "HANS WAGNER" cigars.



The cigar box did NOT say "Reccius" on it anywhere.

My Wagner card has "RECCIUS" on it in print that is bigger than Wagner's name.




For any of you skeptics to believe that my card was associated with that box...

you would have to believe that Henry Reccius SPELLED THE NAME OF HIS PRODUCT WRONG and also FORGOT TO PUT HIS OWN NAME ON THE BOX.

All of you are too smart to know that this didn't happen.



This is exactly what the curator at the National Cigar Museum confirmed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

PS - Pay no attention to Leon's bull@@ flag.

He was the underbidder the FIRST time the card sold and is also interested in buying it now.



What do you think, Leon? That Henry Reccius IV called me up and told me that he remembers seeing his great-grandpa print that card in 1905 and not in 1897?

Please.


The freakin card doesn't even go on sale for another month and the auction doesn't end for another two.

If there was some "smoking gun" out there, then won't somebody find it in that time if they really care to look?

More power to them...

but you floating some "secret black flag" over my card without any proof at all is pretty weak...


especially for the moderator.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott ingold

Wow , I really hope that people's agenda's are not that obvious. But each time someone seems to throw stones in regards to Hals card he mentions that they were an underbidder somewhere along the line.

To me this screams don't bid because it's not legit...but i will. Getting it at a lower price of course has nothing to do with it.
Yeah thats it.......I swear

Definitly seems to be some hidden agenda's here if you read what some say.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Hal: as the man who has given more thought and effort than anyone else to to the subject of identifying "true" rookie cards, do you continue to believe the card you are selling is Honus Wagner's true rookie card?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Yes, I was the underbidder when it was the in auction at Mastro. At this time I have no interest in the card as the date is not known. You have my word...I won't be bidding on it, unless the date is proven....As far as a black flag I doubt there is one. What there is is enough doubt about the cards true age to keep me away. It's a cool card..and I will even consider it a card....but the date is the issue...much like an AUT card ....cool card...just not going there. If it was proven definitively to date pre-1900....I would bid heavily...yes, I am the moderator but as a principal at an auction house said I should be called "the opinionator" as I do have one....just like you and everyone else...I am sorry if I offended you (truly) but had to speak my mind...For the record I am NOT saying I know the age of the card and I am NOT saying it's definitely not from the year on the flip...I AM saying I still have unanswered questions in my mind about the age and the motive to sell..I am sure there will be plenty of bidders for your card...I have no idea what it will bring as a unique Wagner card but I hope you get 100k for it...best regards

edited to use the correct form of "principal"

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Yes Peter, it is definitely Wagner's rookie card.

And just like the Cy Young and Jesse Burkett "Just So Tobacco" rookie cards, it is one of a kind.

Just like the Alphas are the rookie cards for McGraw and Jenings and Kelley... and the Alleghany is for Tinker... and so on.


My point is this:

I realized with the recent sale of the Alphas that I am NEVER going to be able to own ALL of these ultra rare rookie cards... so getting rid of the Wagner is not going to bother me as much now.

Am I changing my collecting goal? Yes, I think that is a fair statement.

Sure, I hope my card sells for at least the $65,000 that I paid for it a few years ago... and hopefully a lot more.

I have just reached a point to where spending huge money to try and own certain cards is not in my goals.

Doesn't mean I won't spend to own certain cards... I would still love to complete my N167 HOF set... but it means that I am changing my goals.

For instance, I won't be bidding on the Gibson postcard.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Why all the analysis on this card? Hal doesn't owe anyone an explanation as to why he has decided to sell this card. Maybe he thinks that the card wasn't period, maybe he thinks the card market is about to drop in value, maybe the card reminds him of an old girlfriend--doesn't matter. At this point all that matters is what potential bidders think of the card. If their view is based solely on what Hal thinks of the card then they need to rethink why they are spending good money on little pieces of paper.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The fact you say it's his rookie AND you are somewhat changing your collecting goals tells me a little more about "motive". I respect your thoughts on that subject. I just couldn't get over the most passionate rookie collector selling this card. If you are changing your focus then so be it...You don't "need" to explain yourself but I appreciate the fact you do/did....good luck with the auction...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Thanks Leon!

I have no motive for selling, other than that I have decided that I can live without the card.

No different than Dan McKee selling the Alphas. Nobody questioned whether the Alphas were suddenly suspicious or wrongly dated.

I may be a collector, but I live in the real world. EVERY card I own is for sale if the price is right.

Anybody want to buy a PSA 8 Plows Candy Matty?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hal- I think you just have to accept the fact that this is an unusual card that will elicit many different opinions and I'm sure you knew when you decided to sell it that you would be barraged like this. I reiterate what I said earlier and Jay Miller added and that is you owe nobody any explanation at all as to why you are selling it, as long as you know you are doing so in good faith. Some of the greatest rarities I have ever owned I have sold, and many of the pieces I have chosen to keep in my collection are not nearly as significant as the ones I parted with. And why did I choose to sell my best pieces? It's just business, that's all. No further explanation needed.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

I was hoping this thread would keep going down hill....and the price would get so low I could bid on it.. Just kidding all. Great read and good to see Leon and Hal came to some kind of peace on each side. Hal, its a great card and glad you have the opportunity to collect what you like with out scutiny from every one and his brother. Again, good luck on the sale. If you want to end it early I have some 1980's Topps for trade.

A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

No matter what your views are on the issues discussed in this thread, "Train Reccius" is friggin' hilarious. Bravo, Jay!