reprint wagner piedmonts

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

In another thread it was mentioned something to the effect that in the 1950s there were some Wagner Piedmonts reprinted that were so good that they'd be mistaken for the real thing if it weren't for disclosure that they were reprints.

If a Wagner could be reprinted so well, isn't it possible that pretty much any other card in the T206 set (or maybe ANY set?) could be reprinted similarly?

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think the grading companies, especially SGC, can catch pretty close to 100% of reprints. Recently I had the great fortune of seeing the Charles Bray- Piedmont Wagner in an SGC Authentic holder, debunking the rumor it is a fake card....at least in my mind. I doubt Dave Forman would want to buy back a 100k-200k card so my guess is that his guys were pretty careful....regards

edited spellin' and to change the 00% to 100%...dunno how that happened

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

well, i'm sure for a $100k+ card, they will spend the extra time (hours?) to ENSURE the card is not a reprint, but what about a VG/EX t206 common?

just unsettling to hear that some 1950s reprint of a wagner could be made so good to possibly pass inspection, so who knows what could be done to the common cards that i can afford (under a couple hundred dollars) and fly under the inspection radar.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Dwyer

I'm sure David Cycleback will chime in, but T206 cards were printed completed different than any of the modern T206 reprints. Under high magnification, instead of seeing dots you'll see irregular splotches. Today's cards show a pattern of dots. 1880's cards show brush strokes. T206 cards show irregular splotches.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I don't think reprints could be made today or in the 1950s that could fool an expert looking using his naked eyes, and I'm including many of the avid T206 collectors on this board. Further, original T206s were made with an antique printing process and ink that can be identified with the microscope and couldn't be duplicated on a good reprint.

The printing processes is a catch-22 for the forger. The original process was primitive and could not create great detail-- thus, the cards resemble paintings. If you tried to reprint a Ty Cobb using the original process the reprint would come not looking like the original, but a primitive reprint-- as the original process isn't detailed and modern enough to reproduce exactly an image. It's kind of like to make a reprint of a Van Gogh, you take a digital photo. If you tried to make a copy of a Van Gogh using the original process (oil paint on canvas), the copy's likely to come out horrible. To reprint well the T206 card from the naked eye level, you need a modern, detailed process (like a fancy computer printer), but the modern process would be easily identified under the microscope. Just as you can tell the digital copy of the Van Gogh isn't the real painting, as it has all those little pixels in the image ... So a forger can't can't mimic naked eye quality (looks real when sitting in my hand) and real microscopic quality (looks like the original printing process and ink). The qualities are mutually exclusive.

I don't believe the 1950s reprint stories, unless the people who were fooled weren't good at identifying authentic T206s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I hear what you're saying and I don't claim to have nearly the expertise you have to say you're wrong. However, conceptually, I don't understand why if somebody somehow had access to the original plates he could not by using the same inks and paper used in 1909 create undetectable duplicates, right down to the microscopic dot matrix pattern. As I see it, this is not like duplicating a Van Gogh where identity of painting style would be a prerequisite. Just like no two people sign their name exactly the same way, so too that no two artisits have identical painting styles. In the case of manufacturing a baseball card, though, what more to it is there than paper, ink and plates? So if someone in 1909 put in storage the plates, inks and paper to make T206's, and then removed them in, say, 1953, why couldn't he make undetectable reprints? And, if he did not save the inks and paper but someone had records of how they were manufactured and used the same manufacturing methods and ingredients to create the same inks and paper in 1953, why would the card look any different than how it looked if all this had been done in 1909? What am I missing in my analysis?

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

If you keep inks 50 years they age and change in how they display.
If you keep paper 50 years it too will tone and change and will not look the same post the printing process.
And those plates are large things, meant to run on awfully large printing machines (eg.30ft+ many many tonnes), and are not so easily accessed.
If you try and reproduce ink and paper with ingredients that are known but modern in construction, you will not end up at the exact same results, it just doesn't work that way. Sure at casual glance cyan is cyan and black is black, but put a pantone color chart next to the individual colors and the shades/tones that can arise are enormous.

I also seriously doubt a reprint would look much like an original t206 unless you accepted that the issue had great variation originally in display. ie. some stock had a different tone and feel and accepted the inks differently, thus resulting in an entirely different overall appearance.



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I can't understand how this theory can continue to have legs.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. shanus

Thanks for the response. What you say makes a lot of sense. Certainly I can understand how inks and paper chemically can change over the years, and as a practical matter be unusable many years later if the sole purpose is to create undetectable reprints. And I also hear your point that modern manufacturing methods would result in papers and inks different enough from those made years ago through cruder manufacturing processes, once again preventing the reprints from being undetectable. The only caution I have to all this is that given the extraordinary economic incentive to create the perfect Wagner reprint (right down to the microscopic dot matrix pattern), I wonder if somehow somebody could recreate the primitive manufacturing processes necessary to create ink and paper identical in all detectable aspects to those used in 1909. I'm not saying it would be easy, nor even possible, only that with a successful outcome you've just created a multi-million dollar card. Certainly gives counterfeiters a lot of incentive to try.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I suppose there would be some incentive to try, but it seems like an aweful lot of effort and money to put into something that probably will not pan out. I would think there are easier scams to pull off for those so-inclined. It certainly would not have been financially viable in the '50's for somebody doing it without the intention of making large sums of money off of fakes.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Based on what I've just learned in this thread, I agree that the notion of 1950's reprints passing muster is as a practical matter not possible. Not that I ever had reason to believe the PSA 8 Wagner is not a period card, only that now I understand why for all practical intents it cannot be a reprint. Going forward, however, and forget about the PSA 8 Wagner, as I said at the end of my last post, given the incredible economic incentive to somehow make the perfect undetectable reprint, I not only do not discount the possibility that someday it will be done, but feel that in the future should any PSA 8/SGC 88 Wagner surface, without provenance I'm not sure I'd be willing to bet the millions of dollars it would take to buy the card that it was real.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Absolutely true Corey, enormous incentives.

But to buy a period printing press (eg. authentic Heidelberg) will cost you 100K plus.
Then all the incedentals of ink, paper, and technical research and application to achieve the result...in all I don't think you would roll off a copy to even check for under 150K - 175K.

And then, you better hope like hell your reprint doesn't look like exactly that, otherwise you could be doing nothing but producing reprints for 10c a piece in the hopes of one day recouping your investment. A Methusela type prospect!

Sounds dumb to me, but not impossible


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

Absolutely true Corey, enormous incentives.

But to buy a period printing press (eg. authentic Heidelberg) will cost you 100K plus.
Then all the incedentals of ink, paper, and technical research and application to achieve the result...in all I don't think you would roll off a copy to even check for under 150K - 175K.

And then, you better hope like hell your reprint doesn't look like exactly that, otherwise you could be doing nothing but producing reprints for 10c a piece in the hopes of one day recouping your investment. A Methusela type prospect!

Sounds dumb to me, but not impossible


Daniel

Not if all this was available to you and you were just doing it to see if it could be done. Like if all the presses at Topps or the presses that created Goudey's were available to your disposal. Hmmm, funny thing about this board.
Creating real looking reprints back in the 50's are out of the question, but making a freaking Goudey Calendar from 1930 as a proof and put it in the printers desk is a possibility. Yes you've all seen the Wagner. Yes it's been blessed by PSA. How could they ever make a mistake the large. Who says they made a mistake? That single card put them on the map.


In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

A question is why would anyone in 1953 recreate the original T206 ink and paper? What was a Wagner worth back then? I can see someone reprinting baseball cards in 1953. However, at a time when a T206 Eddie Plank was worth $3 and Allen & Ginter Cap Anson 30 cents, setting up a chemistry lab to recreate 1909 paper and ink seems far fetched. That is unless he was also working on a time machine to get 2007 prices (Be wary of the man at the National Convention who dresses as if he's from 1953 and uses phrases like 'Territory of Hawaii,''Vice President Nixon' and has a companion named Romana).

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

The Wagner was worth $50 and the Plank $25. Forget the money, even thought $50 was a months salary in 1950. Comes out to what? About $5000.00 in todays dollars? What if you didn't own one? What if there was no e-bay, no cell phones, communication by letter. Hmmmmmmm, chances are you may never own one. But my buddy does and all my buddies work or have ties with major card publishers. Let create some cards for fun, like a sheet of T206's with a Wagner and a Plank with a Piedmont back so now one will ever confuse it with a real one. How about some wrong # Goudeys? How bout a #116 since everyone has that spot open because of that Lajoie fiasco. How about some Goudey's with differnt color backs so know one will ever confuse them with real ones.

You guys don't ever do any government work at work? Gosh knows, I don't.

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Two things about the Calendar Ruth card.

A. It wasn't very good and was instantly judged a fake the minute anyone with hobby experience held it in hand.

B. And as a one off, printed on white stock, with only black (or blue - can't remember) as the printing color, there was nothing to compare it to or colors to be judged against....and even then everybody thought it was crap upon inspection.

So when a freak one-off card (that many would WANT to be real and have the chance at making a 'find' of) can be quickly discounted for authenticity, how does one in full blazing color known intimately by so many hobbyists manage to reproduce the 'magic' of the original printing and pass itself off?
Its not like you could print half a dozen to make retiring money off of, the hobby would be incredibly suspicous if more than one or two fresh wagners or planks turn up in the next 10 years I would think.

It does make me wonder though, if somebody REALLY wanted to reprint something in the hopes of passing it off as real, a black and white card would certainly be a tougher example to discount - especially over the internet.




Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

But Joe, 50 years later?

This isn't like printing USA greenbacks of today because you can find matching stock and the ink is one color......

I'm not saying you wouldn't make nice reprints, but line them up against orginal t206 and tell me you couldn't instantly tell them apart.

Goudeys on the other hand were printed on stock that seems to have much greater variance in it - grayer/bigger grain/larger pulp , so too the inks. If you wanted to make nice dull goudeys to pass off, I could certainly imagine doing that some 15-20 years after the originals were created. Even then, those who have suggested the 'prank' were careful to make it kind of obvious.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"But my buddy does and all my buddies work or have ties with major card publishers. Let create some cards for fun, like a sheet of T206's with a Wagner and a Plank with a Piedmont back so now one will ever confuse it with a real one. "


Few, if any people knew in 1950 that the Wagner was only issued with Sweet Cap backs. In fact, one of the few hobbiests who might have known that sort of thing, Charles Bray, had been offered a copy with a Piedmont back. Collectors were way to spread out and too few people had ever seen a Wagner, much less owned one from which to reprint. I think this scenario is very far-fetched.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Too many attacks. Regarding David Rudd's statement above about people not knowing what to look for in a real T206 regarding these 1950's reprints - is that a blanket statement David? If so, you would be referring to Mr. Heitman not knowing what to look for in a real T206. Again, I doubt anyone in the Hobby has handled more raw T206's and done as much research as Mr. Heitman has done. Again, I have seen two of these 1950's reprints. One was on ebay in the early days - the seller was honest and selling it as such - the bidding still went into the high four figures back then. I remember when the bidding was over $7k, I really took a close look at the enlarged scans and said to myself "with knowledgeable people bidding on this card, and it looking so real, I believe this seller might have a real Wagner and doesn't really know what he owns". Well, after exchanging e-mails with the seller, I realized he was knowledgeable and knew exactly what he had - as he acquired it in the 1950's as such and told me the story about these 1950's reprints with different - Piedmont backs (as late as Lipset's Encyclopedia, the Wagner was only known with a SC 150 back). Also, in 1987, I was at a card shope in Gatlinburg, TN and the owner had a display with one of these 50's reprints and a real SC 150 Wagner. I was speaking with him about the difference and he said over 90% of the people who tried to guess which was real or fake were wrong. He then showed me the backs - one was a Piedmont and one a SC 150 and told me that real Wagners would only have a SC 150 back, as that was the only cigarettes the cards were issued in.

Anyway, I have spoken via e-mail with Joe about this. Joe seems to know all about these reprints and has some great knowledge and information. Also, with Bill Heitman talking on this very board several weeks ago about these reprints and even stating that their is really NO WAY to tell that these are not real except for the "different backs" - like the Goudey #106 Durocher (which I have pics of if anyone would like to see it). Well, according to David Rudd, Bill Heitman, myself, Joe, nor anyone else who knows about these real looking 1950's reprints doesn't know how to spot a real T206. Personally, I have had tens of thousands of T206's over the years and I wouldn't doubt for one second that Bill Heitman has handled well into the six figures of T206's over his collecting career. Again, as Mr. Heitman stated - a lot of these people were printing cards at Goudey and Bowman factories, so they did not have to shell out all this money for the euquipment, inks, etc. This was NOT done to fool anyone, as that is why the backs WERE and ARE different. Also, a lot of these were printed up for Woody Gelman by some of his buddies at these factories.

I may not know much about printing or photographs David Rudd. However, I have been collecting and researching cards since 1978. I have been fooled in the past by a fake card and early on by some trimmed cards. I am not perfect. However, like I stated in another post, if I would have saved every book, magazine, catalog, etc. I have read and owned about this Hobby, I would need another home to store this material in. I still read about the Hobby every day and am still learning. I can tell you that I found out about these 1950's realistic reprints with different backs around a dozen years ago and it sounds like Mr. Heitman has known about them much longer. If you say these do NOT exist, you simply do not know what you are talking about from a Hobby standpoint!

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Read again what David has written.

So please explain, through all your bluster, exactly what you are claiming.
As I remember from the Heitman post, all he suggests (rather vaguely) was that mocking up copies of these cards happened by a few good buddies, who left plenty of clues of their deception because they weren't really out to fool people.
I do not remember him saying they were perfect, or that no one but the pope could discern authentic from fake.

Are you suggesting Joe has examples he could share, or has enough personal experience with authentic wagners and the reprints that he will confirm they are indistinguishable?

And while you may have great experience with cards in the hobby, until you produce an example of this 50's reprint with miraculous powers of convincing all who see it, I will very comfortably say you are full of hot wind.

They may exist, but line them up alongside an authentic SC wagner and lets see who's fooled. I'd take my chances of picking out the one authentic card in a line up of ten fakes.
In the spirit of recent wagers you can have my E103 Wagner If I'm wrong.
Game on.



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Most forgers pick an audience. Most forgeries aren't intended to fool Rob Lifson and most forgers don't try and sell to Rob Lifson. The forgeries are intended to fool people unfamiliar with the cards, including people who may not actively collect. The maker of those AAA slabbed picture cut outs probably knows that someone who owns a Standard Catalog and reads this board knows they're not cards, but that's not his targeted audience.

Personally, I don't know why a forger would chose Rob Lifson and Bill Mastro and Lew Lipset as the intended buyers. It's like having to give a critiqued math lecture and picking the M.I.T. math department as the audience. In particular if you are worried about the audience discovering you aren't good at math, a better audience might be a first grade class or the dementia ward. Even if you think your are great at math and practice on your abacus every day, the M.I.T. department will probably still find a plethora of errors in your lecture.

One thing a successful scammer knows is that a collector with little to no knowledge about the material has money like everyone else, sometimes more money than the expert. If the scammer aspires to either, it's not to scam the person with the most knowledge but to scam the person with the most money. If the person with the most money has the least knowledge, that much easier.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

Don't take me as a zealot on this issue,( just take me out to the ball game) but when the senario arises you have take a look at the history of the card. Didn't show up until the 80's. The most world known baseball card in pristine condition remains hidden for 80 years. Ok, I'll buy that. The most printed back in the history of baseball cards and there are only 2 known examples? Paper drives got the rest huh? But 60 or so SC's made. Now I know all of you that have calculated the odds of how many T206's were original printed with every back and how the % of how many survived would have to say that this number, 2, is unbelievablly low to say the least. Wouldn't the estimate be near 90 or 120?
Did they just print them for 1 day and no one smuggled any out? No baseball fans in the printing plant. No printer scaps? Just 2?

And the Plank. Just 1? The rarest card in the world.

Let's move away from T206's for a minute. If you are to believe or not to believe what B.H. the author of the monster, who has probably seen as many T26's as anyone, look at 1 goudey card.

In a recent auction a #116 Goudey came up for sale. It's listed as a proof. Was it a proof? Or was it a card made in the 1950's? No #116 was issued that year, the Lajoie was issued the next year by mail to appease angry collectors.

Now if you believe any of this you believe the hobby is built on a scam.
Haven't we all found out recently that some of the most trusted names in the hobby are shilling their own auctions, not honoring (without threat of lawsuit) guarrantees, card doctors, false discriptions, including trimmed cards in major auctions, grading companies doing major favors for auction houses and auctions actually doctoring cards submitted for auctions. Did I miss any thig besides dinner in New York or Seinfeld?

By the way, where are rest of the cards printed on this one mind boggling only surviving T206 sheet? How come only 1 has ever surfaced? And then only 80 years later. 80 years later. Don't throw Tango eggs in this, because they were never heard of and had no value at the time. T206's were a well know issue long before the 80's or any other unkown ISSUE.

I'm throwing all this on the wall and see what sticks.

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

However, let me clarify a few things. First of all, when a Wagner is sold, have you ever seen another by its side for comparison? Especially a Piedmont Wagner?

Also to David Rudd's statement that I understand just fine. If you know the history of the PSA 8 Wagner, it was NOT sold directly to Bill Mastro. I don't even know if the sheet was sold as real or not. I do know it was sold at a FL Flea Market and ended up in New York. Bill Mastro was not the intended buyer for ever who made the sheet. For all we know, the person who produced the sheet might have been deceased - if it was printed in 1909 or 1950. So, this argument that someone selling a forgery would not target Mastro is true, but has NOTHING to do with a Piedmont Wagner that was printed in the 1950's! I don't even think Bill Mastro started collecting cards until the early to mid 60's anyway.

Also, a MAJOR FACT some of the people attacking these 1950's reprints are missing is that NONE of the known Piedmont Wagners have any provenance that can be traced back beyond the 1950's! Is that a coincidence? You might think so, I think not! I remember Doug Allen e-mailing me with a letter stating he had proof that the last T206 Piedmont Wagner Mastro sold was an original issue. Well, in typical Doug Allen style, he was spinning the facts - the letter was dated in the 1950's! I told Doug this letter only provides provenance back to the 1950's, and since it is no earlier, really adds more fuel to the fire that these Piedmont Wagners were printed in the 1950's! Also, ALL of these Piedmont Wagners have been cut from sheets! Also, Piedmont is the MOST COMMON T206 back - there should be twice as many T206 Wagners with Piedmont backs as Sweet Caporal backs if they were issued in 1909 with Piedmont backs! I have given some strong arguments here as to why I believe the Piedmont Wagners were printed in the 1950's. SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE SOME PROVENANCE OF ONE OF THESE PIEDMONT WAGNERS BEFORE 1950! Don't just say, well they couldn't have been printed in the 1950's or Bill Mastro said so - I WANT REAL PROOF. You won't be able to find it - I know, as I have looked for it myself over the years! You won't even find anyone talking seriously of a Piedmont Wagner until after Mastro sold the one that now resides in a PSA 8 holder to Copeland. There must be some reason Mastro would not let Rob Lifson look at the Wagner closely when they went to buy it with Rob's money!?!?!? Again, list some proof. I can say we all know technology usually advances. If the printers could print sheets of T206's in 1909, do you really think that some of these Bowman employees (who were fair printers in their own right I am sure) couldn't have done something that was done in 1909 in the 1950's

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

These posts are very interesting, but when did this urban legend start? I have never even heard this story in the 35 or more years I have been in the hobby. I know Bill Mastro, have met Rob Lifson years ago. I also knew Frank Nagy and I don't remember him mentioning these reprints either. I am not an expert on the T206 cards, but this could not have been hidden all those years, could it?

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

Geez Scott, I thought I just said all that 30 minutes ago? LOL

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

You guys are talking as if these people in the 1950's were printing Wagners and other cards to make money - THEY WERE NOT! They would print some cards that were unattanable to fill holes in their collections and their friends collections. These people were NOT trying to deceive anyone or make a fortune (If you look at any price guide in this period, baseball cards were not worth a fortune and collecting was really looked upon as a kid's activity). At least these people "fooling around" with the printing presses were honest and put different backs on cards they did print. I am certain if these people were dishonest, cards were worth a fortune in the 1950's, and these people had these presses at their disposal, they would have printed Wagners with Sweet Caporal backs (that is IF all of this were true and they were trying to deceive someone for financial gain).

Again, for those of you who think you are experts, I have the front/back scans of the #106 1933 Goudey Durocher that came from Woody Gelman (who was friends with a lot of these printers and employees at Goudey and Bowman and obtained a lot of "stuff" from his friends). I would like to see if you can tell the difference between this Goudey printed by the Goudey printers and another Goudey, besides no bleed through (but some Goudeys don't have the bleed through on the back). You cannot tell the difference! This card was probably printed at Goudey in 1933 - just not a print run that would have been inserted into packs - and was later obtained by Gelman.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Evidently, you have to repeat things on here for some to comprehend what you are saying. BTW - this has been known for years - just go back several weeks and look at Bill Heitman's post about these reprints. He did not go into detail about them, and I don't blame him - he would be here explaining himself over and over like Joe and I are doing!

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Corey (and Scott and Joe, for that matter), please don't take my flippant earlier comment as disrespect toward any of you. In fact, Scott and I had a brief debate about this very issue on another board this week, and it was a pleasure to debate so civilly. So I didn't mean to sound disrespectful.

That said, my comment was based solely on my belief that printing these cards in 1950 would have been UNBELIEVABLY COMPLICATED, too expensive to do for a goof, virtually impossible to pass undetected by 67 years of experts, and highly unlikely to be done without leaving evidence.

On the other hand, printing up two or three sheets of make-ready sheets or proofs that were never cut down from the sheet until some time after 1909 is not only possible, but it's extremely likely. Because that's how printing works.

So, what I'm basically saying, is that the Wagners were cut from proof sheets with Occam's Razor.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

What you're saying is that 1950's reprints made with original plates but using either (i) 1950's ink and paper or (ii) ink and paper chemically consistant with that used in 1909 but manufactured in the 1950's would result in a card undetectable to the NAKED EYE to T206 experts compared to an original made in 1909.

Is this possible? Not being an expert in these sorts of things I can't say for sure but from a layperson perspective I would say it is, especially given that (real) T206's of an identical card exhibit subtle variations in color tone. However, let's take the next step. Are you saying that these 1950's reprints would also be undetectable when viewed though a microscope? From the previous posts on this thread it is that threshold which makes 1950's reprints as a practical matter impossible to pass scrutiny (due to the economically insurremountable barriers to recreating the 1909 manufacturing processes necessary to create the inks and paper). Is there anything I've said that you disagree with, and if so, why?

Finally (and I put this question to anyone), is it true that there is only one known T206 Piedmont-back Plank and it is trimmed/hand-cut?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I know you and I have had our debate and we have to agree to disagree - which is fine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Also, I have never looked at any Wagner under a microscope or a loupe (I doubt many here have). I saw one of these 1950's Wagners in person at a card shop in Gatlinburg, TN in 1987 and another around a dozen years ago from an eBay seller with large scans. The only thing I can tell you is the one in Gatlinburg looked identical to the real Wagner it was setting beside of (but, both were in a glass case and in the thick screwdowns of the time). Also, the one on eBay looked real (by the scans of course). In fact, both of them look identical to the Piedmont Wagners I have seen that are claimed to be real. Also, it is widely known that Bill Mastro wanted the PSA 8 Wagner graded quickly and put in a slab! If I sold someone a legitimate card that was not trimmed nor questionable in any other way, I would not care if they slabbed the card or not!

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

But Al, Isn't it fun to debate something actually related to basball cards on this board? And when I say debate I mean civilly with no name calling and pouting? It's great we all have an opinion.

If it's agreed that the Wagner is hand cut, the hobby is still built on a scam, and alot of the major players are running their own types of scams. This hobby is like an onion. The more you layers you peel, the bigger it stinks.
Serious thoughts of selling all my vintage and getting out.

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I believe I posted one pic of it here and one on the other forum. It was auctioned in an old REA auction and is DEFINITELY hand cut. In fact, it is badly cut! I believe it to be the one that came from the same sheet as the Wagner that is now in a PSA 8 holder, as it is the only Piedmont Plank I can find a picture of anywhere. However, the picture is not that great unfortunately - I cannot remember without hunting it again, but I even think the catalog picture was black and white of the front and back of the Plank.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Al, you beat me to the punch. Of course I had to kick start my brain cells to work fast enough to understand what Scott has so generously tried to explain to the simpletons like myself on this board.....

How's this for a slight embelishment:
Firstly, if Piedmont were the first back printed, a couple of sheets were mocked up and shown to prospective players to get their approval. Most say yes, Wagner says no. So the sheets were saved by the then Gen. Manager of ATC (or whoever was commissioning the printing) as a keepsake. Thus, no more Wagners printed.
Unfortunately, when the Sweet Caporals were created from the existing artwork/plates the Wagner plate had not been changed out and was thus run alongside the rest of the player issue. Cards go out in packaging and the Wagner is quickly 'discovered' by the public who were only too aware of his non-appearance in the Piedmont packets - on the first day of sale I would imagine. Wagner hears about it and calls the Gen. Manager and threatens legal action if all existing copies aren't pulled from the factories and points of sale.
Thus, a smattering of SC Wagners survive to be the curious scarcity we know them as, and some time in the middle late 1980's the Piedmont sheets find their way into the hands of someone who wants to profit from them.

The rest is the rest.

How's that Scott?


Oh, and the difference between some printer buddies working at the same establishment as was responsible for an earlier set - having access perhaps to original plates and or artwork and thus mocking up 'fill in' cards, and generating ENTIRELY NEW artwork and plates for T206 Wagner, Plank, and unknown from...I don't know where, is a HUGE leap in rationale. If one of those workers actually owned a wagner, how big an incentive does he have to make the card less valuable? How long did it take him to attain it, and knowing its scarcity and history - why screw that up? How likely is it that all his mates were t206 collectors? And if they went to all this trouble to create them (and they would have lost their jobs if they had been found out) and run the risk of legal action over copyright of the original product, would they only run a sheet or two of the product? Why haven't more of the dupes survived if they were produced in ostensibly larger numbers than the original Wagner.

For me, you've just gotten caught up in your own sense of cloak and dagger intrigue without a whole lot bones to back it up. To then go on and scoff at anyone who doesn't believe your hypothesis is childish.



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

You are knowledgeable and have a great eye to spot these fakes or questionable cards. Simply do what I do. I still even bid in Mastro auctions and win items from them (even though I shouldn't until they clean up their act and might change my mind about that one). I do however pass on a LOT of items in Mastro auctions and some other auctions - especially the ones that you can tell are setting there in a high grade holder and my daughter could spot that it is trimmed! I have simply become more focused in my collecting and collecting what I really love - even multiples of cards I really like. Maybe, if more and more people let these auction companies know that we are NOT going to let them get by with altering cards before having them graded and other things they are doing, we can band together and attempt to clean this mess up!

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Joe, when I start feeling that way, I always do the same thing:

I walk into my card room and look around. I grab a handful of cards and I stare at them. I read the stats and copy on the back, and I try and remember a story about each of the players. I grab a couple of cards I got from friends, and try and think of the circumstances under which I acquired them. I grab the 1977 Topps cards I pulled out of a pack as a kid and flip through them.

I love this hobby. Nobody will ever, ever change that. This is my hobby.

That being said, I do think it's weird that this thread is staying civil. I feel like I slipped into Bizarro World.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

You can even ask Al about that one, as he and I definitely don't see eye to eye on this. You have been mad at me ever since I would not sell you a Red Hindu Tannehill for a loss and put it on eBay and proved you wrong about what you swore it was ONLY worth! All I do is keep coming on here to explain to people like yourself who try and take what I say out of context. Don't worry - I won't do it again, as this is my last post here on the subject. Like Al and I agreed - we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one and it truly is something that we will probably never know 100% of the truth about unfortunately, so there is no point in typing over and over to try to explain ourselves.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

That is the last Piedmont Wagner sold by Mastro. Now, can anyone look at that scan and really say with a straight face it looks real!? If Joe Blow listed that on eBay instead of Mastro, there would be a 500 post thread here on it being a fake! Also, this is the one that Doug Allen sent me the "provenance proving" letter to my e-mail address regarding. Yep - the provenance according to the letter from Doug (which I believe was also posted in the Mastro catalog as well - cannot remember), proved this card's provenance ALL the way back to the 1950's!

Edited to add this link - the letter supposedly proving this card's provenance dates back to where Bray offered the owner $25 for the card. This REALLY proved the provenance as Doug suggested - ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1958!
http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_24.html

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Since it resides in an SGC Authentic holder, and with the exact provenance it does and DOESN'T have, I am going to go out on a limb and say it's real...just keeping it civil....

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

If that card isn't hand cut, I'll give away all my vintage.

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

It is absolutely hand cut and Authentic....From the little I have seen and heard (and to a lesser extent "know") I would theorize that the Piedmont Wagners are period and came on sheets.....and were never inserted in packages...each one I have seen has been hand cut....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

yup...looks real-ly hand cut!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

Leon, If that's the case how can the Card reside in a PSA 8 case?

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That's a rhetorical question right?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I believe the Piedmont Wagners were printed on sheets later, a lot of people, including Leon believes they are period and hancut. We are all entitled to our views and I don't disprespect anyone for theirs (and don't appreciate anyone disrespecting me for mine). I still say that if that exact card had been put on eBay by someone other than Mastro, a lot of the people who believe Piedmont Wagners are period would have questioned that card right away!

Back to the PSA 8 Wagner and Leon's thoughts - I probably should have posted this in the appropriate thread, but the card is very visibly "skinny" side to side on the Piedmont reverse - one can easily tell it is thin when compared to another Piedmont card side by side, as I did on the other forum. Also, the Piedmont print is a different color than a real Piedmont. Take a look for yourself! You cannot tell me that these two Piedmont backs' colors are not different. Also, anyone notice the dark spot above the 150 on the Wagner back???? The PSA 8 Piedmont Wagner's back is the first back shown.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Notice how on the PSA 8 Wagner that the little lines bunched together around "Base Ball Series 150 Subjects" and "The Cigarette of Quality" seem to run together??????? Doesn't this happen when you "copy" or "reprint" an image? In an original, the lines are distinct and seperate - though, they are very close together. On the PSA 8 Wagner, the lines are "blurred together". I KNOW this happens when something is copied, as I had to copy thousands of documents when I was in the insurance business and smaller details like these lines bunched together didn't come out as plain as on the original!!!!!! BTW - this is not just a freak coincidence on the PSA 8 Wagner's back - I have looked through several Piedmont backs and none of the originals have these little lines "blurred together" like this Wagner does!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I thought for certain someone would have posted a response trying to debunk what I said. Guess that is hard to do when you have the two above back scans - the Wagner clearly narrow and the fine lines bunching together just like a copy along with a real Piedmont back that is full size and the fine lines clearly seperate!?!? Still waiting on someone to call me an idiot or tell me I am wrong (even though a picture is worth a thousand words)............................................ .................................................. ............

Edited to add - I didn't even mention the slant cut on the Wagner that is clearly visible on the bottom of the card from the back scan - sorry about that.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

Joe May 30 2007, 11:24 PM


That's a rhetorical question right?


Of course.

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Scott,

In my experience the cardinal rule about comparing images to ascertain whether one is a reprint is to compare original to original. You've posted copies of the backs of each card, and unless it can be said that these copies are both of the same generation and were made from identical processes, then we are not comparing apples to apples, making comparison useless.