The definition of state sovereignty ("Westphalian sovereignty"), in the sense we understand it today, really only goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), before which the idea of "recognition" doesn't easily apply in a modern sense. Thus, pre-modern "recognition" would effectively entail the period between the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and the end of the Second World War (1945), or approximately 300 years.

So this question is really the crux of colonialism: the absence of recognition of the Other in "international" affairs (really better considered "extraterritorial" affairs during this period because there was recognized civilized territory and unrecognized savage territory that lacked borders, integrty, etc.). This was expressed through the very general, widespread practice of not respecting the territorial integrity indigenous peoples and "First Nations" in effectively all locations outside of Europe, for reasons which included the lack of civilization as defined by the civilized. Specific examples can be considered from every country outside of Europe and even those countries of Eastern Europe conquered by the USSR after the Russian Revolution (1917).

Haiti might be considered a good example of a lack of recognition. Originally (after first being conquered and stolen from the native peoples of that island) called Saint-Domingue after changing hands from Spain to France, it was much as any other slave colony until the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), which effectively ended with Napolean's withdrawal from the Americas (the reasons for this are complex and had much to do with his being overstretched in Europe). Haiti, however, was not recognized by the United States until 1862 and there are obvious political reasons for this: it was a slave colony that liberated itself and asserted independence. The lack of recognition was essentially to appease the Southern States, but this was no longer a concern by the time of the Civil War (Lincoln abolished slavery altogether 6 months after establishing relations with Haiti).

Declarations of independence from foreign rulers, along with recognition as independent states by other nations, are something of an exception -- the United States is a usual example. But this example also disregards the reality that there were already in place nation-to-nation treaties between the North American "First Nations" and Great Britain. So what the United States effectively did was sever those treaties and illegally claim title, which was later made "official" in the Treaty of Paris and related treaties that involved Britain and the United States. The historically sovereign nations of the claimed territories had no say.

Another interesting modern example of no recognition is Somaliland, a territory that has claimed independence since 1991 but has not been recognized internationally as being separate from Somalia. What is remarkable about that situation is that Somalia, for decades, lacked effective central governance of any kind and was widely considered a "failed state" -- so Somaliland, while having a government and exercising control over the territory without an effective competing claim from Mogadishu, should have received international recognition according to the rules for this.

EDIT: typos (iPad).