reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>he also brings up Heinie Wagner as well - sounds like he is wanting to make certain the person owning the Wagner knows it is Honus and NOT Heinie. Maybe Bray did know about the reprints and brought Heinie up b/c of that. We will NEVER know, as we are trying to guess one's thoughts.<br /><br />Damn Leon - you never told me the back of the SGC "Authentic" Piedmont looks different than other Piedmonts until your post above. You say this, and still swear it is real? That I don't get. Every Piedmont Wagner I have seen looks different from a period Piedmont on the reverse - wonder why? My best guess would be that they were printed later than 1909! However, as Leon and I both stated - we will never be able to prove 100% either way (if the Piedmonts are period or printed later). IF I was ever in the market for a Wagner or someone ever asked me what Wagner they should buy - again it would be a SC 150 example in a PSA or SGC holder - NOTHING ELSE PERIOD!<br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There is a precedent to this in the world of numismatics.<br /><br />Perhaps the most famous, and one of the most valuable American coins is the 1804 Silver Dollar. But all of the ones minted- roughly 14 in all, were made in the late 1830's and early 1840's. When the King of Siam visited America in 1837, he was given a presentation set of United States coins, and since silver dollars were discontinued in 1803, a special striking of new ones dated 1804 were made and one was given to the King.<br /><br />The point I am making is if in fact it is true that the Piedmont Wagner is a later issue, maybe it was done for a special occasion. Even in the 1950's the Wagner was nearly impossible to find, so could it be that a few were made to satisfy some important collectors? Just a shot in the dark here.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, the scan I posted was from the Mastro catalog itself and was a little more detailed. I can still see the fine lines "bunched together" in the scan you provide. Only the color looks more like a Piedmont Blue - I can tell Mastro did lighten up the scan in their catalog. I do that sometimes when scans come out dark - I have never had it change a color on the card - only makes the white show up a little more and is easy to spot.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>According to the Mastro description, it came from an original find of 500 T206s, though this was the only one with an irregular cut. Two points:<br /><br />1. This could lend credence to Scott's theory - a collector with 500 T206s wanted to fill a hole in his set and was in on the reprint idea.<br /><br />2. If this were so, why is this Wagner in such bad shape? One would think that somebody who bothered to make such a good reprint would have used a little care in cutting the sheet. And how did it get so soiled? If it went directly into an advanced T206 collection, how did it get so banged up. One would presume it would look more like the Gretzky Wagner.<br /><br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>That looks more like a dirty Wagner from the scan than a "wet sheet" Wagner. Also, wonder why the back scan is no longer available?<br /><br />Jim, I see what you are saying about the Wagner - maybe the fact it is NOT real is why it is in such bad shape. Maybe these weren't thought of as highly and the owner didn't take care of it? I remember trading cards with some local kids when I was young - man, their cards from a couple years before looked to be a century old!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>In the lot description that Zack posted above, the Mastro auctions states "What appears to be a light soiling on the obverse, upon very close examination, is actually an extremely light "shadow" of the image of another T206 card (this is not uncommon with T206s, and usually results from cards being put in stacks before an ink process has fully dried)". If this Wagner has a wet sheet transfer on the reverse, wouldn't this lend credence that the card is period 1909? I would tend to think that if it was reprinted in the 1950's, and assuming multiple sheets were printed, they certainly wouldn't have laid the sheets on top of each other and caused a wet sheet transfer - more care would have been taken as these cards were to fill holes in the sets. Furthermore, assuming a certain limited number of sheets were printed in the 1950's, have any other wet sheet transfers of these "reprints" surficed? Surely the Wagner would not have been the only card with a transfer.<br /><br />He also says in the discription that it was offered in a pack of Piedmont, and a slight wavy cut. <br />We know that it was notoffered by pack and if that's a slight wavy cut the Pacific is a slightly wavy Ocean. You are going to believe an auction description that it's a wet transfer. Crap, it's dirt off the floor of the Bowman printing room. " Hey guys that one didn't come out too good, let's make another." <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I was saying that because it is in such bad shape makes me question that it was a reprint because if an advanced T206 collector bothered to make a reprint Wagner, I would think they would have used a little more care in cutting it from the sheet and keeping it safe - at least in a shoebox, not in the mud.<br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>This is especially fascinating as this is the only card in the entire original collection of 500+ T206? which has a slightly irregular cut. The provenance of this card, examination of the collection from which it originates, and examination of the card itself allow us to know with virtual certainty that this card was issued and packaged in exactly this form in a pack of Piedmont Cigarettes in 1909."<br /><br /><br />Yea those guys in 1909 had no pride in their work. The hap hazardly would delibrately put in a piece in this condition like this into a pack fresh from the press. Remember it had no value. I doubt any self repecting printer would pass this as more than scrap. <br /><br /><br /><br />In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />You say "we will never be able to prove 100% either way (if the Piedmonts are period or printed later)". Based on what I've learned on this thread, it would seem that microscopic analysis of the dot matrix pattern would conclusively determine whether the card is period. If it matches up against other known period Piedmonts, than for all practical purposes the card is real. To quote David Cycleback, who makes the point real well, "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". Now all we have to do is get the new owner of the card to submit it for microscopic analysis and we can resolve this case! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>someone might have made it look "older" to hide the fact that it was a reprint from this collector - they might have gotten five bucks or something big like that from this guy in the 50's - they could have had fun all weekend on five bucks back then! Or, he could have obtained it from another collector who tried to make it look older to obtain some cards he needed from this guy. A card that looks that much "different" and dirtier than the other cards in this guys collection should call attention and question to it right away. <br /><br />I might not know everything and don't claim to, but I have collected T206 back variations for years (though, I no longer do, b/c it doesn't excite me any longer). I even collected T206's by back variations before it was popular. I have seen/owned several rare T206 backs and of course common ones as well over the years. I can tell you first hand that these Piedmont Wagners simply do not look right - BOTH on the fronts and backs. Also, that "Authentic" Ty Cobb back we discussed doesn't look right either for a period card IMHO. I know we disagreed on that one. However, I will never change my opinion on that card nor these Piedmont Wagners - never!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>scott you say "I have actually seen two Piedmont Wagners (one in person) where the owners BOTH told me they were 1950's reprints. The cards look identical to the ones considered period! Also, I have heard from several collectors over the years about these "1950's Piedmont Wagners".<br />if this were the case why don't these collectors come forward and prove to all that "the card" is a 1950's reprint? or why don't other owners of these reprints try to get them slabbed?, and then tell the "experts" it is in fact a reprint? if a good conditioned piedmont wagner sold for 86 K 7 years ago why wouldn't owners of these reprints come out and expose these as reprints? why is that collectors such as bray,gelman,carter et al did not know and report these reprints? if there were fakes in the hobby, shouldn't these leading collectors own one of these? i would think if these were reprints and old time collectors had access you would see alot more of them filtering into the hobby as there is a lot of $$$ to be had from their sale. but to add to this mystery, i do find it kind of strange that the piedmont wagner sold in 2001 by mastronet was not slabbed!seems hard to believe doesn't it?

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>I believe the old time collectors new about them and there was no need to announce to the world about these reprints. The tight little circle of collectors was the world. everyone else just had them in their attic. They knew all the hardcore collectors. Who were they going to announce it to? Better yet, why make anything public about a Wagner? You think they wanted non collectors to know their secrets of the hobby, that the Wagner was valuable? <br />I suppose Larry Fritch shoulda told everyone why he was paying so much for Doyles in the 70's? <br />This was common knowledge that no one bothered to write about it. Just like the printing of Goudeys or T206's in 1909 for that matter. Who woulda known that a group of collectors would care about all that stuff as much as we do. Why didn't the printers of Tango Eggs keep records? Who cared at the time.<br><br>In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Scott E, when I said "different back" on the Bray- Wagner I didn't mean it didn't look real. It was just a tad bit lighter from what I remember. The owner verifies the wet sheet overprint of another player from another sheet as previously mentioned. I believe he has matched it up to another common in the set too. It still looks 100 years old to SGC, myself, and almost everyone else. I am sticking with that until someone proves it wrong. The fact SGC graded the Bray Wagner as Authentic, to me, outweighs the fact that you have never heard of anyone with provenance for these 2-3 cards before the 1950's. That, in and of itself, isn't convincing enough. The fact they are handcut isn't either, at least for me. I will restate my thoughts on these Piedmont Wagners, as well as many leading experts....handcut from a sheet in the 1909 era.....Obviously you, and a few others, will believe what you want to...and we can agree to disagree....no harm in that....take care

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I believe Al and I were debating this last week. Neither of us would budge. This is one argument that is hard to sway people to your side, no matter which side that might be. Like I told Al, this one is just too hard to prove 100% either way, and that is what it will take to get stubborn people like you (Leon) and myself to change our minds when we believe we are correct. We simply have too much passion for this Great Hobby.................Nah! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, none of us are perfect - I still remember that Red Hindu Matty Portrait that was rebacked and in a PSA 7 holder then an SGC 50 holder! Of course, that one would have been easy for a "backman" like myself, b/c that is one of the "impossible" front/back combos from the T206 set (since the Matty portrait was issued in the 150/350 Series, it can only be found with a Brown Hindu back). <br /><br />Again, I am not saying this to bash SGC, as I really like their service and only use them myself. I am only bringing this up to show that SGC, just like myself and everyone else, makes mistakes (although certainly not as many as PSA).<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>I have held and examined the card. It is 100% legit and is in fact printers scrap. It has another player with a press run printed on the front, I do not recall at this time who it is, but when I initially examined the card I matched the overprint with a player from the owners T206 set. <br /><br />As it is printers scrap this explains the hand cut as well, as most T206 collectors know that the vast majority of printers scrap are handcut, as they never made final production. In fact if I were to reexamine it, I would check to make sure that the Wagner had all of the color runs as well, that may be what gives it a slightly different look.<br /><br />As Jim B. stated above, IF someone was going to REPRODUCE, reprint is techically the wrong word in my eyes, a T206 Wagner in 1950 for his personal collection, WHY would they not have cut it straight and further protected it so that it remained in nice condition.<br /><br />Again my feeling is that ALL of the Piedmont Wagners are printers scrap, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps after the Wagner was pulled from production they had Piedmont Wagners left over and used them for press run tests on other cards for inking and such.<br /><br />Scott

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>so there must be many other t206 printer scrap of other cards laying around too, right? if so, when submitted to grading companies, do they get "authentic" labels? must be tough to figure out if printers scrap was handcut 90 years ago or yesterday.<br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Scott, what you're saying makes perfect sense to me. As much as I find it hard to believe that these cards have fooled so many experts (I simply don't think it's possible to make a faithful duplication of a card in 1950 that's impossible to distinguish from the original), I also agree that it's a weird anomaly that the cards would have Piedmont backs. Not being a T206 expert, I'll also defer to Scott and Ted on the "Piedmont First" issue.<br /><br />Given that there are only two or three of them, I'd think that they probably never made it into circulation. As someone who does a significant amount of printing in his career, I don't find anything strange about that - there are tons of proofs and actual prints that never see the light of day, and there could be a million reasons for that. When you go on press and the printer runs that first sheet, you evaluate it for everything - color, registration, stray marks, errors, etc. Often you'll go through the process of running one sheet half a dozen times before you're ready to mass produce. Sometimes the sheets go in the trash, and sometimes they don't. I have plenty of sheets in my files from jobs that were changed before the final sheets were run.<br /><br />There could be dozens of different reasons why that card had a Piedmont back, and one of them could simply be that it was an error. Since there's no markings on the back of a T206 that would identify the player, one might not even notice it on another card that's less scarce than the Wagner. For example, if a Rube Waddell portrait was printed with a Piedmont back but the sheet was supposed to have a Sweet Cap back, you'd never know it was an error. Certainly, nobody gives it a second thought when they see a 1977 Topps Elliott Maddox with Greg Luzinski's stats on the back - happens all the time.<br /><br />In my mind (and we've already established that Scott and I have respectfully agreed to disagree), there are many plausible reasons why the Wagners would be authentic, and only one theory as to whytheyt wouldn't. And that theory is, in my opinion, nearly impossible to have happened.<br /><br />-Al

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>If someone has the combination of sophisticated technical ability to "accurately" reproduce T206's and a <br />fair knowledge of the this set.....they would reprint....<br /><br />MAGIE with a PIEDMONT 150 back<br /><br />Joe DOYLE (Nat'l) with a PIEDMONT 350 back<br /><br />PLANK with a SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 25....or, SWEET CAPORAL 350, Factory 30<br /><br /><br />BUT, they would be smart enough NOT to reprint a WAGNER with a PIEDMONT 150 back....<br /><br />They would reprint this card with it's prevailing back....namely, the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 25 back.<br /><br />Sorry guy, we may agree on certain aspects of T206's.....but, I cannot accept that all PIEDMONT Wagner's<br /> were printed circa 1950....instead of 1909. Show us your proof of this ?<br /><br />If you wanted to produce a Wagner that would pass as a "real" T206, would you reprint this Wagner with a<br /> PIEDMONT back ?<br /><br />NO....you know better....you would reprint this card with the SWEET CAPORAL back. <br /><br />TED Z <br /><br /><br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Good point, Ted. You'd reprint the card to look exactly like another copy of the same card. Hadn't thought of that.<br /><br />-Al

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>but if they were true collectors...or old employees who collected cards...maybe they wanted to print them with impossible backs so they couldn't be confused as c.1909...just a thought. <br /><br />Weren't there some goudey employees who fabricated fantasy cards or maybe it was some serious early collectors that reproduced cards that literally were authentic but changed certain elements slightly so they couldn't be mistaken as authentic/vintage?<br /><br />pete in mn

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>My opinion is you couldn't make a perfect T206 reprint. Duplicating the<br />original printing process and ink would be prohibitive enough in and of <br />itself, as the process is no longer used. And you couldn't replicate<br />perfectly the card both at the naked eye and microscopic level. Somewhat <br />like Heisenbrg's Uncertainty Principle in Nuclear Physics, the more <br />accurately one duplicates the printing at the naked eye level, the less <br />accurate the printing becomes at the microscopic level-- and visa versa.<br />One way to look at it the T206 printing process is primitive by today's <br />standards-- even your home computer printer can make a more realistic<br />looking reprint of your family picnic photo. You'd make a far better<br />naked eye reprint of a T206 Wagner with your computer printer than with<br />the original lithography process. In other words, if you used the original 1909<br />process to make a reprint of a T206, it would look bad at the naked eye<br />level. And if you used your computer printer to make a realistic reprint<br />at the naked eye level, it wouldn't resemble 1909 printing under the microscope.<br /><br />And, even if you could duplicate the printing and card stock in the 1950s, <br />the production & research costs would be so high you'd make more than <br />two Wagners.<br /><br />I haven't read all the posts so may repeat what has already been said, <br />but the low grade Piedmont Wagner appears to be a scrap card. <br /><br />I also agree with Ted's point that if you could make a perfect copy of the <br />Wagner, you'd make one with a Sweet Caporal back. Especially in the 1950s, a<br />unique back would merely draw attention to the fact that the card is different<br />than all other known Wagners. Whether it's a 1963 Topps Pete Rose or a $5 bill,<br />the point of making a perfect copy is to have it slip in with all the others.<br /><br />Even today, someone trying to make the best fake Wagner ever wouldn't chose a <br />Tolstoi or American Beauty back, as the initial collector reaction would be<br />"No way."

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, according to everything I have heard about these 1950's Piedmont Wagners, they were printed NOT to fool anybody (I think I have stated this multiple times, but will once more). They were printed to simply fill "holes" in collections. I also agree that there could have been some printer's scrap Wagners at the Piedmont factory as well that made it out and were never issued. However, I could agree with this more if there were some Piedmont Wagners that were actually issued in Piedmont Cig. packs. Again, if that was the case, there should be about twice as many Piedmont Wagners as there are SC's. Then, maybe the guys printing Piedmont cards caught wind of Wagner's willingness NOT to be included before the SC factory guys and never issued the card in a pack - thus, leaving a few examples of printer's scrap - that would also be plausible. If Scott B. has looked at the one Wagner he mentions and believes the card is printer's scrap, I have no reason to not believe him, as this is plausible. However, there still were Piedmont 150 Wagners printed in the 1950's - again NOT to deceive anyone. <br /><br />Whether it is printer's scrap from 1909 or not, I wouldn't touch a Piedmont Wagner with a ten foot pole! I will go back to provenance for this one. While none of the Piedmont Wagners can be traced back past the 1950's, several of the Sweet Caporal Wagners certainly can be.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>I may have missed it, it's a very long thread now, but what is your theory as to the PROCESS/TECHNOLOGY used to make Piedmont Wagners in the 1950's? And if as you hypothesize these were collectors doing it just for kicks and not to fool anyone, wouldn't they have made a lot of other fun stuff too, not just Piedmont Wagners? Why not, for example, Polar Bear Wagners? Mattys with Ty Cobb backs? etc.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>again, I don't really know the technology used to make these reprints in the 1950's. There were other cards printed as well - just take the Piedmont Plank Mastro picked up along with around 60 other cards (when he purchased the Wagner in NY).

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Hey Scott, you said<br /><br /> "However, there still were Piedmont 150 Wagners printed in the 1950's - again NOT to deceive anyone." <br /><br /><br />If that were the case, and it could have been who knows, then the PSA8 Wagner must not be what you are speaking of as it's fooled a few folks for at least being real (myself included but that doesn't mean much <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>)....no? <br /> <br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Leon, hypothetically, if a reprint was so good that it DID fool people does not really speak to the original intent at a time when cards had almost no value.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>the people who ORIGINALLY printed the Piedmont Wagners in the 1950's did NOT want to deceive anyone. What happened in the 1980's was out of their control! They could have even been deceased by then.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I didn't have the patience to read this entire thread, so if this question has already been asked, please forgive me.<br /><br />As I understand it, the theory is that Woody Gelman and other true hobby pioneers decided to start printing their own Goudey and T206 cards in the 1950s, mostly to obtain cards they didn't own. To do this, they acquired the original Goudey printing plates (which were then 20 years old) and the original T206 printing plates (which were then about 45 years old), including the printing plate(s) for the T206 Wagner. <br /><br />My question is this: where are the printing plates now? Surely Woody Gelman, Charles Bray, Buck Barker, Jefferson Burdick and the rest of the hobby pioneers would have appreciated the extraordinary collectability of the original printing plate of the T206 Wagner. It's my understanding that Burdick did not even acquire a Wagner until a few years before donating his collection, and some of the other pioneers never found one. Surely any one of them would have thought that it would be a real hoot to include the printing plate of this impossible card in their collections. But I'm not aware of a single T206 or Goudey printing plate ever being uncovered, either in the collections of the pioneers or anywhere else. Where did they go?<br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>Paul brings up an interesting point. When I was in HS Print shop back in the mid-1950's,<br /> our teacher took us for a tour to a local printing plant. They had 40-year old printing plates<br /> there. These plates were from the same era that the T206 printing occured. Printing plates<br /> just don't get trashed....they are kept for many years.<br /><br />In 1985, I was fortunate enough, thru an old Bowman employee, to have seen the actual 30<br />year old, 32-image printing plates (seven of them) that comprised a complete 1954 Bowman<br /> set. And yes, the famous Ted Williams #66 image was on the 3rd 32-image printing plate.<br /> Sooner or later printing plates of all kinds will surface.<br /><br />So, Scott......show us these mysterious Wagner/Piedmont printing plates ?<br /><br />Perhaps, we will also find the Sweet Caporal 350 (Fac #30) plates of the Eddie Plank card.<br /> As this 2nd Series card of Plank has always mystified T206 collectors. Maybe it, too, was<br /> actually printed in the 1950's ? ?<br /><br />I'm not trying to be being a "wise-ass" here, but my experience tells me that printing plates<br />have a long shelf life. <br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>T206s are lithographs, and lithograph plates rarely lasted over the years, typically having the surfaces being wiped clean for other use. I doubt a lithography plate would be usable 40 years after. I've never seen printing plates for early lithography issues, like Allen & Ginters, T206s and Goudeys. I've never even seen a 1950s-80s Topps lithography printing plate-- and you see Topps proofs, original art, uncut card sheets, player contracts and other productions items all the time. If no one here has seen a printing plate for 1989 Upper Deck, 1992 Bowman or 1980 Topps, the T206 Wagner plate floating around sounds like a fairy tale. You do see single player litho plate pieces for late 1990s/2000s cards, but that's because Donruss/Topps et al used/use them as inerts in packs. Not a bad idea-- instead of destroying the plates, cut them up, slab on a sticker call them 1-of-1 inserts. <br /><br />Old commercial printing plates exist, but they are almost always for non-lithographic cards like Exhibit Supply, Sporting News and newspaper pictures. These are the 'embossed' printing plates where you can feel the image with your finger. If you found an undamaged Exhibit Supply or Sporting News printing plate, you could make more cards from it.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Bruce Perry</b><p>how about getting Mastro's take on all this (maybe I missed it...I do not have time to read every comment)....what does he think...also, I still think PSA had enough expertise when the wagner 8 was initially graded to get it right....being such an important card for them when they started....such publicity....to wrongly authenticate it (never mind the grade) when they knew otherwise makes no sense as it would have seriously ruined what they wanted to establish...integrity and trust in their newly formed grading company...I may be naive but I believe this to be true....Mike Baker told me once that the Wagner is 100% legit...and he is the most respected grader PSA has ever had (now with GAI as director of grading)

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>I have no say in this matter because I have only held one T206 Wagner in my hands in my lifetime and that was for only a short period of time, so I am not an expert.<br /><br />But Bruce, I have two points to make about your questions.<br /><br />1) If there were something wrong with the Piedmont Wagner card and Mastro knew about it, why would he come on here (or anywhere else for that matter) and say anything?? He bought the card and then turned around and sold it. Since he profited from it, it seems he would/should keep quiet if there is something "not right" about the card. Why? Because if he says anything now, his credibility will be questioned. Once that happens, don't you think more questions will start to come up about other cards and/or items in his auctions?? We have seen what happens to auction companies (Verkman) when their credibility comes into question.<br /><br />2) If PSA graded a card that was "not right" and it is the King of all cards, why would they say anything about it?? Getting that card and grading it was HUGE as far as advertising and credibility is concerned. Again, if the company's credibility comes into question do you think people will still shell out money for grading?? Especially those who are putting high grade sets together for the Registry??<br /><br />Also, why would the owner of the card EVER crack it out of it's slab for any type of testing?? He has everything to lose and very little, if anything, to gain. If the card is found to be real, so what?? If the card has "problems" or is found to be a reproduction from the 1950's, then that $2 million plus he/she spent is mostly down the drain.<br /><br />Just my thoughts,<br /><br />David<br /><br />PS, if the card is a printers scrap, is it still worth $2 million plus??

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>I think Scott B. (hi Scott) has hit the nail on the nose: "It is 100% legit and is in fact printers scrap." One thing we know printers did was take useless sheets and run them through the press to clear the press before starting a different run. We also know that these cards sometimes escaped the factory, either inadvertently in packs or purposefully taken by workers in sheets or cut up cards. Once the order came down to get rid of Wagner do you think the printer was going to throw away the sheets on hand? No. He would use them just like any other discarded sheet. A few made it out, it seems, is the most likely explanation of the Piedmont Wagner. <br /><br />For the conspiracy theorists out there, think in practical terms about what you are suggesting w/r/t reprinting: find the printer who did the T206 cards, get the printer to give you the plates for the cards (how do you explain that one--bribery, threats, lies?), get stocks and inks that match the period, find a press that matched the period, do a print run, get it cut to specs, and for what? At a time when people were giving away cards? It does not make sense. Think about it: no internet to research, no modern travel to move about easily on this hunt, and no funds to pursue a quest like that (the men in question were not wealthy--far from it). And think about the men accused of this: the collectors who are accused of fomenting the greatest fraud in the history of the hobby are also the people who organized it and established it. Why would they do that? <br /><br />I strongly believe that the simplest explanation is generally the right one. The simplest explanation here is that when the word came down to pull Wagner, the Piedmont cards had been run and those sheets were kept around and used for various scrap tasks. A few cards survived, including the two Wagners. One was on a sheet or partial sheet and cut up and so forth, the other was cut early on and survived in a vintage collection.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>boxingcardman,<br />Your version of things seems the most reasonable to me.<br />Thanks,<br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Like I have stated SEVERAL times - I don't know how these Piedmont Wagners were printed. I do know they exist, as I have seen two - years ago. I don't even know where they are today. I have also heard (from others and the owners of the two I saw), that these were Piedmont Wagners printed in the 1950's. After you look real close at one you will notice differences between these (and the ones now being sold as legit) and the Sweet Caporal Wagners. Some say this is because these cards were printer's scrap - others (myself included) say it is b/c they are not period. Again, I don't know anything about how these were printed (the 50's Piedmont Wagners). I don't know anything about the printing plates. I do know they exist. I do know that these Piedmont Wagners being sold as period look different than SC 150 Wagners - Leon even saw one in person and noted the back looked "lighter". Some think they are scrap and some think they are not period - to each his own. <br /><br />BTW - I think a lot of you coming in at the end of this argument are getting things mixed up. It sounds to me like a few of you are referring to Scott's remarks as if he was talking about the PSA 8 Piedmont Wagner - he was NOT - he was rerring to a low grade ungraded example Mastro sold that Mastro stated had some "Wet Sheet Transfer" on the card - but looked like a dirty card to me from the poor scan.<br /><br />One thing I have learned arguing the PSA 8 Wagner or any Piedmont Wagner being sold as real over the years - I haven't seen many people at all stray from their original impressions. Until one side can provide 100% proof to support their theory, we are all just wasting our breath, b/c the other side will not give. I thought posting back scans of a real Piedmont and the back of the PSA 8 Piedmont Wagner would show some terrific proof for my statement (especially where the small detailed lines on the PSA 8 Wagner are "bunched together" like it was copied from something). The scans might have made some people think - might have even put a question mark in some people's minds. However, it didn't sway people to change their opinion of the Wagner. I would say that if the Wagner was proven 100% to have come from the 1950's, some would still believe it is real. Again, we will simply have to agree to disagree at present on this issue it seems.