|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Brian McQueen</b><p><br />Got a new poll up for the remainder of the month. Won't leave it up more than a couple weeks but figured since I've overheard a lot of debate between these 3 cards.....might as well vote on it!<br /><br />-Brian
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Wow, I hadn't realized the Reccius pictured a 13 year old Wagner-(1887-89). Sorry, I couldn't resist- I'm sure you meant to put the date as 1897-99, just thought I would have a little fun.<br />-Rhett
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>Doesn't the scan show a 1918 Reccius Wagner?<br /><br />-Ryan<br /><br />
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>Prefer the Collins -McCarthy...see whole powerful body as well as face.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/cmwagner.JPG">
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Nice job Brian.....I know some board members have nice Wagner collections...
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>No, Ryan.<br /><br />The 4-digit phone number on the card is consistent with the 1899 time period, because by 1905, Louisville had switched to all 5 digit phone numbers.<br /><br />Likewise, the address is consistent with the 1890's census when the entire Reccius family resided in that area. After 1903, the cigar business moved to a different location on West Market Street.<br /><br />So the card could have been printed anywhere between 1897 and 1902.<br /><br />But Wagner left Louisville and started playing for Pittsburg in 1900...and Louisville's team folded..<br /><br />so the card was more than likely printed when Wagner was the BIG STAR in Louisville in 1899...<br /><br />than in 1900 or 1901 or 1902 when he was gone from the area.<br /><br />
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Harry Kress</b><p>1. T206 Honus Wagner <br /><br />2. 1914 Babe Ruth<br /><br /><br />3. Old Judge Anson in Uniform<br /><br /><br /> <br />4. Four Base Hits Kelly <br /><br />5. Just So Cy Young<br /><br /><br />T206 Wagner by large margin<br />#3 Well above #4 and #5<br /><br />
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Preece1</b><p>What I didn't like about the dating of the Wagner in the 1897-1899 time frame is that Wagner WASN't the big man in Louisville, it was Fred Clarke. Clarge was the player/manager and the star from 1895-1899 in Louisville. In that time frame, Clarke batted (according to baseball-reference.com) .347, .325, .390, .307, and .342. In addition, when Wagner came to the league in 1897, his averages were (again according to baseball-reference.com) .338, .299, and .336. Each year he was beat by Clarke in average. If there was going to be a card issued between 1897-1899 in Louisville, it would seem to be logical that it would be Clarke, not Wagner. Beginning in 1900, when Wagner was in Pittsburgh, that is when he became the "man" nationally and you could see how a Louisville cigar maker would want to cash in on one of their "own".<br /><br />Just my thoughts. Regardless of the date, it is a great card.
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The 1918 date to which you refer was for the "Honus Wagner" cigar box that sold recently.<br /><br />That is an entirely different brand from an entirely different cigar maker.<br /><br />Yes, it re-uses the old picture of Wagner from his Reccius card...<br /><br />but it is NOT a "Henry Reccius" cigar box. <br /><br />Nor is it a "Hans" Wagner box, which is how the Reccius card addresses him.<br /><br /><br /><br />To date, there has NEVER (according to the curator of the Cigar Box and Label Museum) been ANY type of "packaging" ever found that says "Henry Reccius" on it, whether it be "Hans Wagner" cigars or any other brand.<br /><br />Based on this total lack of packaging evidence, the curator believes, based on the "License Number" assigned to Reccius from the government, that he was a small-time "jobber" in Louisville in the 1890's who probably made cigars to sell to OTHER cigar companies for their brands.<br /><br />The "Hans Wagner" cigars were probably just distributed to Reccius's customers and to local cigar stores to try and get his name out there so that people would remember him over the 2,000 other "jobbers" who were rolling cigars at the time.<br /><br />According to the curator, these jobbers did not have their own fancy boxes... but basically just re-used plain old cigar boxes they had laying around.<br /><br />
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I beg to differ, Mr. Preece!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Who is the "hotter" name in marketing? <br /><br />Is it the old guy who keeps plugging along steadily... or is the GREAT NEW player who is setting the league on fire?<br /><br />I know in Atlanta this year... Jeff Francouer was ALL THE RAGE... while Chipper Jones is just the same old news.<br /><br /><br />Also, rule #2: Chick Dig the Long Ball!!<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br /><br />SO...<br /><br />when Honus Wagner finished SECOND in the entire Major Leagues in HOME RUNS and SIXTH in RBI in 1898 ...<br /><br />he was the ALBERT PUJOLS of Louisville!!!<br /><br />He was the media darling.<br /><br />He was all the rage.<br /><br />He was the PERFECT candidate for marketing ANYTHING in Louisville in 1899!!!!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Neat Poll Brian<br /><br />However, here we have a 1900 Cigar advertising piece<br />with Wagner's endorsement. And, we know he was a life-<br />time Cigar smoker since photos of him from the 1950's,<br />at an old age, show him with lit cigars.<br /><br />But, we have been told he that he would not endorse any<br />Cigarette product. Can someone tell me difference ?<br /><br />Because long term Cigar smoking is just as hazardous to<br />your health as are cigarettes. Something here is not con-<br />sistent with the story regarding Wagner's T206 card.<br /><br />Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on this great Forum.
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>AParks</b><p>But is the Reccius Wagner a baseball card?
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I don't care if you call it a "baseball card" ... a "trade card" ... a "birthday card" ... or a "wild card"...<br /><br />I don't regret buying it for a second!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />One-of-a-kind item featuring one of the biggest stars in vintage baseball folklore...<br /><br />is right up my alley!!<br /><br /><br /><br />Is the 1875 CdV of Candy Cummings with the Hartford Blue Stockings a "baseball card" in the strictest sense of the word?<br /><br />NO... but I still love it!!<br /><br />Is the one-of-a-kind 1894 Alpha Engraving or the 1904 Alleghany a "baseball card" in the strictest sense of the word?<br /><br />NO... but who would turn those down??<br /><br />Heck, is the T206 Ty Cobb with Ty Cobb back "really" a baseball card if it was never distributed??<br /><br />NO... but everyone wants one!!
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>TED:<br /><br />The curator of the Cigar Museum says that there is a 99% chance that Henry Reccius DID NOT have any permission or authority from Wagner to use his image.<br /><br />He says that using famous images back them without permission was pretty much common place.<br /><br />
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>AParks</b><p>I would love to own it Hal -- I'm just yanking your chain. It's a great piece of memorabilia. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I know, I know!<br /><br />No hard feelings at all!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I'm just glad that my Reccius is getting ANY VOTES at all!!!
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>In response to the issue of it being a tobacco product, this was 10+ years before T206s and<br />1. Maybe Wagner hadn't thought that much about smoking and the effect his image on any sort of enticement might have.<br />2. Maybe he didn't feel like a big enough superstar to stand in the way of something like this or,<br />3. Maybe he knew Henry Reccuuis and did it as a favor for a friend or the local cigar outfit.<br /><br />I am just throwing out possibilites. It is all speculation.<br />JimB
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Rehashed from an old thread about the 1919 "Honus Wagner" cigar box:<br /><br /><br />Listen to what the Curator of the National Cigar Museum had to say in response to my questions:<br /><br /><br />From Mr. Hyman:<br /><br />Dime cigars were considered good cigars in 1900. Cigars sold for every price imaginable but nickle cigars were common goods, domestic and blended cigars, whereas dime cigars would be cuban filler and domestic or sumatra wrapper, a better grade cigar.<br /><br /><br />From me:<br /><br />Am I correct in assuming that even though my card has a similar picture as the one on the 1919 cigar box... that they are in fact NOT RELATED???<br /><br /><br />From Mr. Hyman:<br /><br />That is correct. They are not related. A label, a brand name, a picture...anyone could and would use it. As late as 1979 I interviewed a prominent Penn. cigar broker who had a cigar brand called DUTCH MAID with a full color pirate picture of the OLD DUTCH CLEANSER girl on their label. Not a take off. The EXACT girl from their well known product. "Isn't this copyright infringement?" I asked "Hell yes. But it will take them five years to find out and another five years to make me stop and by then I'll have sold all them damn cigars."<br />If that attitude was prevelant in the litigious modern day, how much more free do you think people were 100 years ago?<br /><br /><br />From me:<br /><br />The 1899 Louisville City directory and the 1900 census both show Henry Reccius as a Cigar Maker in Louisville, does this match what you have on file?<br /><br /><br />From Mr. Hyman:<br /><br />Yes. The Federally Assigned number for Henry Reccius was Fact. 45, 5th Dist. KY. By 1893, they were already assigning factory numbers in the 600's in the 5th tax district in Kentucky. So his is indeed a very early number. Reccius was obviously making cigars long before 1890, which is consistent with the US Census data you showed me on Reccius and his occupation.<br /><br /><br />From me:<br /><br />Do you have any specific information on file at the museum as to when Reccius was selling these "HANS WAGNER" cigars mentioned on my card??<br /><br /><br />From Mr. Hyman:<br /><br />Nope. The ONLY hope you'd have is if whomever he was making them for advertised them in the local paper. Most cigars were shipped somewhere and Reccius could have made those for someone anywhere in America. <br />Railroads shipped hundreds of thousands of cigars daily. I've got company records from an upstate NY company that made more than 100 <br />brands selling from Chicago to Boston. The fact that the Reccius name was prominent in 1900 in Louisville ups the odds somewhat that it may have been sold there, but does not make it a certainty.<br /><br /><br />---------------------------------<br /><br /><br />Remember, there were two Reccius brothers who PLAYED major league baseball in Louisville in the 1880's and 1890's (John & Phillip), so the family name was HUGE in Louisville in the 1890's.<br /><br />This fame and the fact that his brothers were former players would have made it VERY EASY for Henry to get unlimited access to the team and to Honus Wagner in order to get his permission to sell the cigars.<br /><br />Henry Reccius was 48 in the 1900 census, John was 42, and Phil was 38.<br /><br />Henry was born in Germany in 1852, but came over to America with his parents in 1854 and they settled in Louisville, where John and Phil were later born.<br /><br />All of the family lived within 2 blocks of each other in and around the "Elliott Avenue" address from 1890-1900.
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>BTW, those figures for a first, second and third year man are pretty awesome!<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/colganswagner2.jpg"> <br /><br />Like this one, too..it's be in some corner of the auction.
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>Hal,<br /><br />Sounds like your working overtime to convince us of the date on the Wagner again. Seems like there was a huge thread about it where all of these arguments were made on all sides of the issue. It might be easier just to post a link to it. But here was the most convincing argument in the current thread:<br /><br />Question from Hal:<br /><br />"Do you have any specific information on file at the museum as to when Reccius was selling these "HANS WAGNER" cigars mentioned on my card??"<br /><br />Answer from the Curator of the National Cigar Museum:<br /><br />"Nope."<br /><br />I'm not sure how that answer means it was from 1899 and not 1918, but I guess it does. <br /><br />In all seriousness, though, the Reccius Wagner is a sweet item, whether it's from 1899 or 1918, whether it's a baseball card or a trade card or a birthday card. Whatever it is, it's extremely cool and one of the best Wagner items around! I know you are happy with it and as I'm sure you would freely admit, that is all that matters. Does the fact that I think it's from 1918 really change how you feel about it? I strongly doubt it. Does it make it any less valuable? No. <br /><br />The fact that others are voting for your card shows that you are not alone in your belief of when the card was produced and how important it is. <br /><br />Any way you slice it, the Reccius Wagner is a premier item. <br /><br />-Ryan
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Ryan:<br /><br />Did I forget to tell you that Henry Reccius was from Cuba and brought these Hans Wagner cuban cigars over with him by boat in 1898?<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>There ought to be a rule against rehashing threads that already have been beaten to death. In pace recciuscat, hope one or more of you Latin scholars get the pun. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>AParks</b><p>I knew those four years of Latin in High School would pay off some day!
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Now you guys have done it. You have made Hal rehash the results of his time travel. Can you imagine what he is now going to make me pay for <A HREF="http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=28270&item=6580572 573">this?</A>
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>HAL<br /><br />Maybe I've had too much Turkey today, or maybe I'm just<br />a Turkey....but, it's not just my thinking....BB players<br />depicted wearing suits and ties on cards are less desir-<br />able than players in uniform. On photos these depictions<br />look great; but, not on sportscards.<br /><br />This could account for the overwhelming response in favor<br />of the T206 card of Wagner. So, don't feel disappointed<br />regarding your Reccius card.<br /><br />It would be very interesting if another similar style poll was<br />conducted with tough Wagner cards like an E90-2, 1914 Cracker<br />Jack, M116 (BLUE), 1914 T216 Kotton (Peoples Tobacco Co.).<br /><br />
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>My favorite Wagner image is a Sporting News Supplement:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1132892576.JPG"> <br /><br />I have a theory that his nose was broken later in his career.<br /><br />Patrick
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>because I LOVE cards depicting players in suits and ties. I know of one other board member that feels the same way. That's one of the reasons why I enjoy the e107 set so much....so many great suits, ties, bowties, and even a few tuxedos! Whoo nellie. Oh, and I'd take the e107 Wagner over the t206 any day of the week.
|
New Poll....finally.
Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/1910e93wa.jpg"> <br /><br />This one ain't exactly, hay, either...
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:20 PM. |