I agree with what many have said already it's a great card that is at least a full grade higher than it should be.

I think the Ireland Wagner is one of the nicer examples but also possibly higher than it should be based off the corners.

https://postalmuseum.si.edu/t206-hon...-baseball-card

Card is definitely not an EX 5...Looks more like a VG 3 to VG+ 3.5

But then again it is still a T206 Wagner

Regardless of the grade I like the corners. They look real.

Unlike many graded T206's.

Spectacular card and sounds like a world class collector. That said the card looks like a 3.5-- 4 maybe. SGC who I revere as the best graders, IMO have been slipping recently with the cards graded 2-5 range. I have received 5's when I thought they were 3s/3.5s and 2.5s when I thought they were 3.5, 4s.

overgraded by SGC
 

Its so ironic that SGC has been grading so conservatively low last year its insane but because of this high profile train wreck is a 3 or 3.5 at best and thats the old standard which was accurate, hypocrisy should not be the norm with this company

The answer is simple technical
Grade isn’t eye appeal. Every flaw isn’t weighted equally come on Corey you know this. You just seem to want to argue on this thread. You almost sound like me. Lol.that said I think this card is a 3.5 but a pretty 3.5

Solid 3 any day. Looks like they gave it to the same kid that graded the NM-Mt '52 Mantle in Heritage.

No one sounds like you, trust me.
.

Do you think this card would sell for more or less if it was in a PSA 3.5 slab as opposed to the SGC 5?

I think it would go very strong no matter what but the 5 would bring in wallets who know less about eye appeal and cards and more about the measuring contest. SGC knew what they were doing when they pulled this stunt. Let's hear it for another fine moment in hobby history.

Though it probably isn't, this should be embarrassing for SGC. They have been seemingly grading everything shockingly low, and now this? Pathetic.

Just a couple:

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/hdcAA...bb/s-l1600.jpg
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xA4AA...Jn/s-l1600.png

+1 Agree it will sell more in the 5 Slab because non collectors but investors or people just want to have the "it item" are willing to pay and they pay based on the Slab and not the card.

Was this card in an old SGC 60/5 holder previously? There were some very soft 60's graded way back, maybe they knew it didn't really make a difference so they left the grade (sort of like a legacy grade). I've seen a few PSA graded 2 and 3 Wagners that are obvious 1's today rholdered the same grade. Its probably just a legacy grade for Wagners so they don't have to change pop reports or registries.
GB

It was graded in July 2021

And graded completely abandoning their own written grade definitions and all the while implementing more harsh standards to the average collector's submissions.

Makes zero sense to me.

I think it makes cents :D

Now who do you suppose made SGC overgrade such a high profile card?

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...rch%20lady.png

another example that grading sucks

I think it also makes scents, no?

Again THOSE 4.5 and 5.5s 50/50 t/b


The Wagner isnt even close

The beautiful sweet scent of manure, wafting through the SGC grading facilities.

That card is at best a 3.5. That used to be what a VGEX card looked like but not anymore. I would expect a 3 if I submitted that card. Overgraded by at least 1.5 grades. Unforgivable.

SGC what happened to them?
 

well at least they are consistent in not having customer phone service, probably
saved me some $$$ this last 18 months not submitting anymore

Piled high and deep.

Wagner's Wagner??
 

Whew, a firestorm of controversy! My observations:

1) I have not seen every PSA/SGC slabbed T206 Wagner. However, this is
the sharpest non trimmed (ahem, ahem PSA 8 example) Wagner I have
seen. The centering, image, and reverse are wonderful- the card is
great.

2) If SGC's reasoning is that factors other than the corners justify the
5, I would actually be okay with that; however, this same reasoning
should then apply to any other T206 graded by SGC. For that matter, it
should apply to any card graded by SGC.

3) I wonder how thoroughly this grade was vetted? How many folks looked
at the 5 grade and gave it a thumbs up, is what I mean?

4) I am awaiting a much, much smaller T206 result as I type. I submitted
a McIntyre Brooklyn that is minimally the equal of this Wagner (much
better corners, centering not as good). I am intensely curious to see
the grade now.

5) Someone above said PSA is criticized for being too harsh on grades. This
is not my experience. My criticism of PSA is that they are routinely
inconsistent or out -and- out wrong in their grading, and that said
grading is nothing short of glacial in terms of wait time. I don't think PSA
are harsh, I think they are clueless.

Trent King

The new cert numbers on SGC are a different number structure than the old. I have reholdered many cards and they do not re-use the older format certs, they create a new one and it gets entered as being graded the day it was reholdered. There is a 60/5 listed in the old SGC pop and a new 5 listed in the new report. I'm guessing this is just a legacy reholder.

Does the card appear to have any creases? Any paper loss front or back? Any stains?

I used to have a Dockmans Mathewson SGC 60 that had quite soft corners, but no other flaws.

I am not sure I follow. What do you mean by the old SGC pop?
You can view the Pop grades in either the old format or the new format.
Either way, they have graded 18 Honus Wagners (1 Piedmont, and 17 Sweet Cap) and only one is a 5.

What Greg is saying is this card was graded before and is in the old pop report as a 60/5 but it was put in a new holder and now shows up in the new pop report as a 5 but they changed the cert number and it shows as being graded recently. PSA on the other hand keeps the same cert number when they re-holder a card which I think is the better way to do it.

Here's another SGC Wagner that changed holders and cert numbers.

Attachment 529358

Attachment 529359

Where can one view the old pop report?

At the top of the page it says show it says show old grading yes or no and the default is no so you have to change that to yes.

As previously mentioned, doesn't changing it to old grading, just change the way the grade is displayed? It doesn't seem to matter if you are viewing the old or the new grade. The pop report remains the same--they have graded 18 Honus Wagners.

I understand what you're saying now Charles and you're right, when I check the cert on SGC 2 Wagner with the new slab it shows that it was graded in August 2007 so even though they changed the cert the date of grading didn't change and the SGC 5 Wagner was graded in 2021 and wasn't in an old slab as Greg B. stated.

It would have been super-weird for them to hype a card as though they had never seen one this nice before if all it was was a reslab.

SGC's pop is a train wreck that will never be fixed.

PSA's T206 pop is a wreck too. The choice to implement brand and factory data after grading so many cards just makes it impossible to get a comprehensive picture. I get the change but it does not help.

+1 Agree it is a big opportunity and the Population reports are especially important on older items(especially with being Regraded and slabbed etc) and rare items (that could falsely increase the population and thus the value)

As soon as I saw the card, I thought, "how the heck is that a 5?!" Have to say, I'm glad to see that most of you feel the same way. This is a disingenuous business decision by SGC if I had to guess. Probably assuming the 5 grade will make it become the highest selling card of all time at auction, where a proper grade of 3/3.5 would likely get less publicity. That's my assumption anyway.

All of that said, it's a beautiful card and one of the best examples of the Wagner that are out there. But SGC looks bad here.

I guess at the time this was graded in July 2021, SGC had been mostly shut out of the top sports card sales, and had some blockbuster sales envy.

The highest card sales had all been either PSA (PSA 3 Honus Wagner for $3.7M, PSA 10 Gretsky O-Pee-Chee and a PSA 2 Wagner both for $3.75M, PSA 10 '52 Topps Mantle for $5.2M, or BGS (Trout 2009 Superfractor Autograph for $3.9M, 2017 Patrick Mahomes for $4.3M, 2003-04 Rookie Patch Autograph Lebron James).

PSA also had the highest graded T206 Honus Wagners with the trimmed 8, a 5 and 4. So maybe there was some Wagner envy as well.

But now, with SGC having the 3 highest sales ever with the SGC 3 Wagner selling for $6.6M through REA, the recent sale of the SGC 2 Wagner for over $7M through Goldin, and the soon-to-be record with the SGC 9.5 Mantle through Heritage, they really don't need any more publicity.

But when this was graded, maybe the high profile sales and Wagner envy got the best of them.

“Eye Appeal.”

Below is a photo of John D. Wagner as a distinguished older collector (I believe he lived into the 1980's), and a link to a great thread started by Leon with 1930's correspondence sent to him in response to ads in collector magazines.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=207944&page=3

I assume the T206 Wagner in the Burdick collection at the Met museum was John D. Wagner's second copy of the card that he sent to Burdick.

Enough talk about whether the SGC Wagner card is over-graded. The real question is...did John D. keep the best T206 Wagner, or did he give the better one to Burdick?


Brian

With such a high profile card, even if it got stolen it would be to hot to sell or show in public.

Grading scale
 

What many of you understandably don’t realize is that cards at this level are graded against each other rather than graded on the normal scale your typical Hunky Shaw would be.

These high profile cards have all been overgraded since the beginning of time or since card 00000001 rolled off the assembly line. Have any of you held the PSA 5 Wagner in your hand? While it looks nice in pictures if you saw it in person you would see there is a crease running down the middle that has been rubbed out but is still noticeable. Would it grade a 5 if it was Danny Murphy? Of course not but it’s still nicer than the lone copy of PSA 4 so that’s how the grade is justified.

Would your Orval Overall that looks exactly like this SGC 5 Wagner grade a 5? No, but is it the cards fault that these Wagner’s have all been overgraded since card 00000001? These cards get slotted into the grade they deserve AGAINST EACH OTHER and not against your typical common. Would it be fair to the card if this one gets graded on a regular scale while the rest of the Wagner’s haven’t been? Thus if you look at the Wagner’s in totality this one falls where it belongs, better than the 4 and equal to the 5. I’m not sure if it’s reasonable for it to be anyway else and certainly not the card’s fault that every other Wagner before it has been graded on a different scale than commons. So if you compare apples with apples and not Wagner’s with commons it presumably makes more sense as to why these cards are graded as they are. And if you google images of Wagner 3’s, 4’s and 5 you will see it better. Not sure it’s fair but remember it all began with card 00000001 and proceeded from there so that’s really where the blame, if any, belongs and not on a specific card that’s just being slotted where it belongs in the universe of all the Wagner’s preceding it. While I understand the frustration, don't blame the player, blame the game.

We are very much blaming the people running the game, because they claim it works differently and that big cards are not graded on a separate scale designed to juice those cards. No grading company is admitting there are separate 1-10 scales for the peons and for the marquees. I don't think anyone is unaware or does not understand that they do this in reality; the problem is the dishonesty absurdity.

I totally understand and agree but simply by looking at all of the PSA and SGC Wagner's it is clear that is not the case. All of them are overgraded on the typical scale and I suspect it will have no choice but to continue. Its just not fair to the next card to be graded any differently than all of it's predecessors.

I think we can all agree that, whether it is a 3 or 5 of an unaltered, authentic T206 Wagner and a nice copy to boot, winning it will be the equivalent of the winning Power Ball ticket. There are so many ultra wealthy collectors, who have been on the sidelines licking their chops for the next Wagner to hit the auction block, final price will almost be, or should be in this case, determined by the card and not the slab.

It’s not fair to tell people it’s an orange when it’s obviously an apple. If they want to adopt a new scale for investors that grades 1-10 they can do that, but they are pretending that a 5 EX is a 5 EX quality card whether it is Wagner or Billy Purtell. The people doing this dishonest absurdity will receive some judgement for that because it’s a lie. “We lied in the past so we have to keep lying” is absurdist. Makes good business, got to juice for the big boys, but it’s absurdism.

I get it and share your frustration but the reality is that it is what it is and at this point short of regrading all of them it would seem to be far more of a disservice to the next one to grade it accurately when nearly all before it haven't been. Slotting them where they belong in the hierarchy seems a much fairer solution as new ones come down the pike.

Here's one of 6 PSA 9 1952 Mantle's. Think PSA might want to grade this one again?

That must be a misprint on the label. No way that is a 5, not even close.

Edited to add - Well, at least it's closer in grade than the PSA 00000001 card which is graded an 8 and should be AUTH/ALT.