|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
I know there will be mixed opinions, but lets hear what people have to say. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Dan McHugh IV
Yes and MY GOD it is BEAUTIFUL!!! Awesome piece to have! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: barrysloate
It's earlier than any known Wagner cards, but would people consider it a card in the traditional sense? That would be the argument. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: dan mckee
Not a card, a premium, but a great piece indeed! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Joe D.
not a card. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: 1880nonsports
it looks like Unglaub. Everyone always think they see a HOF player in every picture..... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
In all honesty, I'm not sure where I fall on the arguement as to whether this is a rookie card or not, but didn't someone put together a formula for determining what each HOFers' rookie card was, and weren't M101-1 type cards involved in that process? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jeff Prizner
thin paper stock correct? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
To add to the discussion, here is the write-up from a past REA auction lot containing the M101-1 Wagner. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jeremy
Yes, this is his Rookie, but No, this is not his Rookie card... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: 1880nonsports
if you weren't kidding - details? Bought out? Bankrupt? I have an N28 "6" card SWIMMING in a holder I'd like them to explain someday |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jason L
you can actually see individual hairs on his head! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jerry
What was the final consenses on this card?...if there was one. Was it determined to be 19th century or not. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: boxingcardman
I've never seen one before. Size? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Lyman
I realize that I may be in the minority here, but I tend to view supplements, pins, silks, leathers, etc. as "cards." Afterall, Jefferson Burdick did when he listed all of these in the American Card Catalog. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: dan mckee
Adam, Hal owned that piece and I believe it was postcard size if I remember correctly. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: dan mckee
I see a very large debate right around 1951 and after, Is the Mantle rookie card 1951 Bowman or 1952 Topps? Seems very obvious which it should be. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: barrysloate
I think the general feeling on the Reccius is it was likely issued later than 1897. Nobody knew for sure and that was the problem. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Ken Wirt
I'm with Lyman. Beautiful large rookie card! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Marty Ogelvie
Rookie 'Card' or not it is simply magnificent! Thanks for sharing! Marty |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)
My general sense is that its not a "card" but there is case that can be made that if someone (i.e. a grading company) will put it in a holder, authenticate it and grade it, then its a card. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Wesley
The supplement is not a card. At 8 3/4 x 11, it is closer to a poster. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Phil Garry
Jay: |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Michael Steele
I echo the thoughts above, magnificent item no matter if it is considered a "rookie" or not or a "card" or not. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Wesley
Can the largest Becket holder fit the 8-3/4 x 11 supplement? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Phil Garry
After my earlier post a little while ago, I just did some quick research and I see that the M101-1's are listed in the 2009 Standard Catalogue as having a glossy-type paper finish and the National Copper Plates do not mention the type of paper finish that they were printed on. Does anyone have examples of each to compare the paper? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
Phil--I think the National Copperplates and the Sporting News cards are printed on similar paper. However, there is one large difference. National Copperplate cards could be ordered in a portfolio as a set; Sporting News cards were only available once, when the particular issue of TSN came out. Sporting News cards are dated, National Copperplate are not. I believe that Sporting News cards are scarcer and more difficult to find in nice shape. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Bruce Babcock
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
Bruce--Isn't the Cobb/Wagner an M101-2? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Phil Garry
My main reason for asking about any differences in the type of paper used is because my trimmed Wagner could possibly be from either issue as the trimmed portion I have is identical in appearance in both cases. As for scarcity, I have seen fewer of the NCP's than M101-1's on ebay/auction houses over the past few years with the exception of Kid Nichols NCZP which seems to be more plentiful than most others for some reason (unless the exact same piece has been sold several times). |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: leon
The Supplement isn't a card....silly rabbits. It's a great image though...I think they can be collected like cards just like felts, pins, silks etc...that have great player images. But none of those are "cards"....imnsho....(in my no so humble opinion) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
Leon--Like I said previously, I'm not sure how I fall on this one. However, if these are not cards then are Boston Garters cards? Are schedules with players pictures on one side cards? Are tickets with players pictures on one side cards? Beats me. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: boxingcardman
If it is in the ACC, I think it is pretty safe to say it is a card... |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
I agree with Leon -- it's not a card, it's a collectible. A 'card' is something you can at least hold in the palm of your hand. Exhibits, postcards...hmm...yes, I'd say they are cards. T3? Tougher call. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: barrysloate
Jay- as you surely know in an earlier era it was easy to determine what a card was: Old Judges, Allen & Ginters, T206, Goudey, Topps, Bowman, to name a few , have always been baseball cards and have never been disputed. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: leon
As you know there is no definitive, absolute definition of a card. You can call your Newspaper Supplement a bathtub for all I care. Calling this a baseball card won't make it one though....but it's always a good debate. For the record I do think Boston Garter's are cards, how do I know? Because when I pick one up it is made out of cardboard and feels like a card. Try picking your piece of paper up by one end and see what it does. As I said, I do think they can be collected as "cards" if someone wants to. This is only my opinion...everyone has one........take care my friend |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Phil Garry
Let's go back to Jay's original question and if you agree that it is, let's just call it a Honus Wagner Rookie or earliest Wagner collectible picturing him individually in a Major League uniform. This eliminates the ongoing debate about what constitutes a card and I don't think it was the purpose of Jay's original question anyway. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
Leon--You raise an interesting point that, if you don't mind, I would like to pursue. If thickness is a determinant of whether something is a card then it should be noted that the M101-1s are closer in thickness to an N167 than an N167 is to an N172. Personally, I don't think thickness or rigidity can be part of the definition. If something is too thin to be a card can something else be too thick to be a card? I think the definition of a card might be based on size, method of distribution, and purpose for its issuance. Should a store display piece be a card? If not, is a Boston Garter a card? If yes, I have seen large cardboard beer signs in the local liquor store with players pictures on them. Are these cards? My bank used to give out calendars which were the size of Topps cards with Derek Jeter's picture on one side. Are these cards? If not, why are schedules with player's pictures on one side cards? Don't get me wrong on this; I'm not trying to convince anyone that M101-1s are cards. I love them as collectibles because they represent the earliest representations of many players and because they have neat bios on the back. Whether they are called cards or not will not change my feeling about them one iota. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: leon
This is a good debate. There is no definitive answer to your question though. As Barry has said....the market does dictate some things. It's beyond you or I. I know if I go to sell, or buy, a Boston Garter then the price is around what I would pay for a card. I have as much vested interest in other things as almost anyone. The S74 silk I recently got, of Cobb with a Helmar back, was quite expensive...but I don't think I would call it a card...and the market has priced it close to what a "card" would be. I just don't think Supplements are cards...and rigidity isn't the sole determining factor it was just one factor I used for one bit of criteria. regards |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: barrysloate
Jay- you've kind of answered your own question: we can't really agree anymore on what a baseball card is. There are too many variables, and I preferred it when a 1952 Topps clearly was but a magazine premium clearly wasn't. Now it's more difficult to tell. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
Barry-M101-1s in VG of common players tend to sell for $250-$300. That is comparable to Old Judges of common players. In that respect they are priced comparably to cards. Common HOFers of M101-1s tend to sell for roughly $1000, again in line with common Old Judges. Therefore, I think the marketplace, at least for commons and common HOFers is calling M101-1s cards. I only remember one Wagner (and I can't recall a Young) selling at auction in the last few years. You know the market better than I do, but I don't think there is really much data as to what a Young or Wagner M101-1 would sell at individually in an auction. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: leon
I knew one of the Boston Garters had a factual implication as to it being a card.....So, if the card in question, says it's a card on the card itself...then I think that can be a good criteria for it being a card ....take care (right below the 2 prices, near top middle, is a paragraph stating this is a card!!) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: barrysloate
I don't know what an M101-1 Wagner would sell for either. But if you put one in an auction along with an E107 Wagner, more rightly considered the rookie card, I think you would see a huge disparity in price. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
Barry--Personally, I think the order for Wagner rookie would be the M101-1 and then the W600. Didn't the W600 come before 1903? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: barrysloate
The W600 was right around 1903, but they were issued for many years and I'm not sure. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Richard
Jay - I believe that the W600 Wagner was issued as early as 1902 so it could have predated the E107. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
I think I have beaten this dead horse more than necessary. I guess the easy thing would have been just to ask HOF rookie collectors what card, if money was no object, they would consider to be the rookie card of Young, Wagner, etc and see what their answers were. After all, like I said, it makes no difference to me, just interested in the discussion. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Richard
Wagner - E107 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: leon
At least you got an answer about Boston Garters being cards.....Thanks for the discussion on a quiet Sunday morning.... |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Is this the Wagner Rookie?
Posted By: Jay
Leon--I just thought you were kidding. Just because they call it a card on the ad piece (they also call it a picture) doesn't mean it is what we are calling a baseball card. My first impression on reading that was that card was used like placard, meaning an advertising sign. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ruth Rookie, Novelty Plank, DiMaggio Zeenut, Comiskey N28, Wagner M116, Willard Brown | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 2 | 10-01-2008 09:35 AM |
Highest Grade Hartnett Rookie, Colgan Chip Wagner | Archive | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 1 | 12-06-2006 11:00 PM |
Honus Wagner Rookie | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 04-26-2005 10:33 AM |
Honus Wagner Rookie? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 04-17-2004 01:21 PM |
Wagner rookie | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 03-30-2002 02:27 PM |