Is this the Wagner Rookie?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jay- it's not always a slam dunk.

If you took a survey and asked collectors if they thought N172's were baseball cards, you would get 100% agreement that they are. If you asked the same question about N173's, you might get 50% agreement.

Yet both issues were made by the same company using the same methods. The difference of course is the size, and the way N173's were distributed. So as long as collectors have different opinions, the debate will go on.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And I agree that Leon is probably kidding. Technically speaking, Boston Garters were counter cards. I think that accordion was just spread on a counter for customers to view. Are they traditional baseball cards? Jury is still out.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I do think the Boston Garters were used as counter displays, no doubt about it. They were also able to be collected by private folks as the ad reads. All you had to do was buy one or send in for one/some. Yeah, the fact it says it's a card probably doesn't mean it's card? There's some "denial" logic....As for the cards that say "admit bearer on receipt", I do think those are more tickets than cards...and the Red Stocking Schedule cards are probably schedules. Maybe they are ticket/cards and schedule cards, respectivley. Maybe your Supplement is a paper/card? I think the Garter cards were display pieces AND cards. Maybe display cards? Yikes, I better quit while I am behind.... take care

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

LOL--you are a card (certainly not a display piece).

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Richard - Thanks for the clarification on the M101-1 Wagner. I have actually owned the trimmed Wagner on two different occasions. I bought it about three years ago on e-bay when a large group of M101-1's (or possibly National Copper Plates) that were all similarly trimmed were put up for auction individually. At that time, none of the major grading companies would grade/encapsulate them so I decided to sell the Wagner. I recently picked it up again in 2008 through a Goodwin & Co. Auction and it was graded by GAI. Out of curiosity, how are you able to determine that it is an M101-1 and not a NCP?

Regarding the W600 Wagner, the street clothes version was only issued in 1902 and the uniform version began to be distributed in 1902 but continued on into subsequent years making it impossible to differentiate that one.

The Cy Young is another interesting topic. If we are going to include cabinet cards as rookies, then the Just So is not his rookie as it was produced in 1893 and another cabinet of Young was produced during the 1890-92 period by Ryder Studios located in Cleveland, OH. George Davis also had a cabinet produced from this same issue. The Young has been encapsulated by SGC as a c1890 issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I agree with Leon on the Boston Garters. They likely were items that could both be used both as store display pieces and customer collectibles. I do believe some where displayed in the store, but the back text certainly points to them being intended as collectible offering to customers. The back text essentially asks the reader to collect the other players in the set.

The Boston Garter may be more valuable as a trading card than a store sign, but in many ares-- advertising, rock 'n roll, toys and fashion-- the situation would be the opposite as unique store display pieces are highly desirable. In fashion memorabilia, a cardboard sign displayed in a store window would be considered far more desirable than a silly trading card. To those collectors, it come across as very strange for someone to want a rare advertising display piece to be instead called a trading card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lyman

Jay, thanks for starting such a fun and thoughtful thread. I now know that my baseball card collection is only about half what it used to be. The other half is made up of non-cards. No worries, though. In all honesty, I would have trouble choosing which half I like the best.

Now that we have achieved non-unanimous agreement on the definition of a "card," perhaps someone could start a thread entitled "What is vintage?" I'm sure we can have an equally lively discussion (and of course achieve equally non-unanimous agreement) on that topic also.

Happy Collecting (whatever you collect),
Lyman

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

Whether cabinets and CDVs can/should be considered baseball cards IMO depends on their distribution. A cabinet available to the general public (e.g., N173s) is very different than a cabinet distributed only to the person (or that person's designees) who posed for the shot. Much the same way a family snapshot of a player would be regarded differently than something produced by one of the card companies. So the fact a cabinet exists of Young c. 1890 in and of itself doesn't make it a baseball card.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

too easy,if it was a card it would not be labeled as a supplement.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I agree with Corey. The problems is with some CDVs you don't know how they were distributed. Some are clearly family photos (no trading card), some clearly intended for public sale/distribution/advertising, and others it is not known. Some photographers were known to commonly sell their photos to the public (Mathew Brady, Napoleon Sarony, others), so their stamp is consistent with the CDV a public collectible. If a Harry Wright CDV is found in an Omaha kid's scrapbook filled with trade cards, trading, die cuts, etc, that would be evidence, if not proof, it was a publicly distributed and collected item. I know of an instance where a baseball item was fairly judged as being publicly distributed as it resided in the scrapbook of an ordinary young fan. The scrapbook contents didn't point to the collector being a relation of player or executive, just an ordinary fan of the team who gathered the scrapbook items in ordinary team fan ways.

[Archive]

Posted By: frank

this is january 18, not april 1 /april fools day / I am a long time collector who does not chime in on the forum /rarely/ , but this is crazy to think this could be wagners rookie and to say a boston garter may not be a card makes me boil and probably a lot of other collectors, I think the wagner is a great supplement that would look good in a photo album . thank you frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Phil, that M101-1 Wagner came from a scrap-book that featured an almost complete run of M101-1's where all but 2-3 were trimmed down in the same manner as the Wagner. Rhys sold them individually on ebay after carefully removing them from the dcrapbook that was completely fallinmg apart.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Was the Just So Tobacco issue available to the general public like N173's? I would think not since there has only been one copy of each player known to exist. Since these were also cabinet cards, I don't see the difference between them and the Ryder Young and Davis Cabinets. So why then is the Just So Young so widely considered to be his rookie?

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

To build on what Frank has just said, let's never lose sight of the adage that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then regardless of how much technical analysis might be bestowed to convince us it is not a duck, it is still a duck!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Rhett - Thanks for that info, now I can be sure that mine is an M101-1 which I guess is good and bad. The M101-1's are much more valuable in price guides but were likely issued a year later than the NCP's thus not making it the earliest Wagner. It also appears that the 2009 Standard Catalogue is incorrect identifying the M101-1's as being glossy paper when they are actually a matte-type finish.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

You make a good point. Perhaps the Just Sos were really proofs for a card set that was never issued. Also, if the 1890 Young cabinet was issued with cabinets of other members of Cleveland then maybe it should be considered to be a card and that would make it Young's rookie. THese are really interesting discussion points.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

"Was the Just So Tobacco issue available to the general public like N173's?"

To answer your question, yes. Just the same way other extraordinary-rare cards (e.g., Four Base Hits Kelly, N172 Anson in uniform, many e107s, etc., etc.) have only a small handful of known copies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach Rice

Phil,

I believe the general conscious on the Just So Tobacco issue is that they were available to the general public, distribution however, was regional to the Cleveland, Ohio area. Also, although these cards arent regular tobacco card size, they are certainly not cabinet cards. They are approximately the same size as Four Base Hit and Kalamazoo Bat cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Corey--what is the most number of copies known of any Just So card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I own an M101-1 Wagner. I have never considered it a card however I would consider it a rookie issue due to the method of distribution. The E107 is Wagner's rookie card.

A postcard should be considered a card and, if nationally distributed, any cardboard type issue should be given consideration for a rookie card.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Addressing Frank's post, I agree that just because something is made to be collected doesn't make it a card. There are collectible/advertising mini-bats, baseballs, teddy bears, batting helmets, balloons and T-shirts. Sufficient reason that the Wagner print is not his rookie card is because it not a card. It's also not his rookie T-shirt. It should be interesting for readers to go back and note that Jay's initial post, and the title of the thread, says "card" nowhere in it.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

Jay,

So I understand, is it your point that if a card is so rare that it has only one known copy, that in and of itself makes it reasonably possible that it is a proof? This taken into account with the facts that it part of a set some of the other members of which have several known copies and depicts a player on the same team as those other members and who would reasonably be expected to be part of the set issue?

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil Garry

Zach - You're right, my mistake on calling the Just So's cabinet cards when they are not.

The E107 Wagner is still not a rookie card even if you eliminate the M101-1's and NCP's because they are premiums/supplements. You still have the W600 Street clothes Wagner issued in 1902. Would collectors be paying $20K - $30K + for these in nice condition if they were not considering them cards and thus making them fully eligible for rookie card designation? Not only Wagner, but many other w600 HOF'ers have been selling for big, big $$$'s as well lately. So again, if these are OK for rookie status, why not the 1890 Young cabinet? (I know we're back to the method of distribution again)

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There are some Just So's with more than one known copy, although I don't have a list. I think it's reasonable to assume it was a set that was available in Cleveland for a period of time, but that it did not circulate well and few copies have survived.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

Jay,

To respond, off the top of my head 2-3. Again, are you saying that if something is so rare as to have only one known copy, that in and of itself is compelling evidence it is a proof. Aren't there some N172s and N173s with only one known copy? Assuming that is the case, and assuming your universally-touted Old Judge book does not identify them as possible proofs (something I cannot opine on because I haven't yet seen the book), are we to expect a second-corrected edition coming off the presses soon?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Corey--I had two points. The first was that if all the cards in the set are unique then perhaps it was a proof issue. If there are multiple copies of some of the cards then it is most probably not a proof. That is why I asked which cards have multiple copies.
My second point related to the Young cabinet. If there was a team issue of these cabinets (with multiple copies known), even if only in the Cleveland area, then it seems like one might call these cards, and the Young cabinet could be the rookie. I don't know if either of these criteria hold.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Corey--Per my post above, since there are multiple copies of some N173s they are not proofs. We also have additional information as to how they could be ordered which makes the proof arguement moot.
Get a copy of the book, you might enjoy it!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken Wirt

My definition of a card (not that anyone gives a rat's ass):

1. Depicts an image involving baseball
2. Is relatively flat
3. Is a stand-alone item (not cut out from something it wasn't intended to be cut out from)
4. Was meant to be collected or appreciated

This definition encompasses postcards, supplements, CDV's, cabinets, silks, pins, blankets, add pieces, etc. I think that limiting oneself to the biased 1952 Topps baseball card paradigm, limits the imagination! CWYL

Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My opinion is that a pin isn't a card, but that no one ever said a card collector can't also collect pins.

I tend to be restrictive in my hobby definitions (I'm no fan of convenient definitions, in particular ones convenient to the definer), but that doesn't mean my definitions drive what I think people should collect. Whether or not the Wagner thingamajig is a card, I consider it a worthy item to collect. I think one person can consider it a card, another not, and both want to buy one for their collections.

Perhaps we should introduce the term quasi-baseball card, meaning something isn't literally or technically a baseball card but for all practical purposes works as one. For example, a 1964 Topps baseball stamp isn't literally or physically a card, but is baseball card-like in about all other aspects aspects, including being almost exclusively collected by baseball card collectors.

If your wife kicked you out to the couch seven nights straight, you slept on a quasi-bed.

I wouldn't call a S74 Silk or Topps Coin a baseball card, but might agree to call them quasi-baseball cards.