Some of the mysteries and myths surrounding the most famous card in the hobby.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Let me flip it on you. What is the evidence the card(s) are real? Yes, they pass the visual test, and that does mean something. But, to me, not enough. So that leads to the next inquiry -- credible provenance -- which in this instance IMO is lacking. Let's take off the table the allegation of T206 reprints made in the 1950's from the original printing plates, an allegation I was not even aware of when I was first offered the card by Sevchuk. I felt then, as I continue to feel now, that a NrMt-Mt T206 Wagner popping up out of nowhere with no documented provenance -- and, yes, allegedly first turning up in a flea market far from the point of original manufacture is something I would characterize as popping up out of nowhere with no documented provenance -- creates legitimate concerns about authenticity. I recognize it is not easy to make replica T206s that passes visual inspection, and for that reason I feel it is entirely possible the card is real. But in this instance, to satisfy my comfort level, I would require forensic examination.

Most cards have popped up this way. 90%+ of T cards we cannot trace the history of back to 1909-1911. I have over 15,000 T cards; only one batch of 50 of them can I trace the custody chain of to before 1940. None can I fully go back to 1909. Other early run uncut ATC material has appeared; with cards much rarer than the Wagner on them. Every single person with any real experience with this card in hand has concluded it is real. Is it possible all of these very experienced hobbyists have been fooled? Yes. Is it reasonable to just assume that this is so? No. Of course it is not. I am happy to believe they have been fooled, if there was any reasonable evidence to support that. But there is not; not one single tiny little bit. It is illogical and absurd to jump to extreme conclusions when there is not one single, tiny iota of evidence to support that leap.

The eye and testimonial evidence say it is an actual Wagner. On the other hand, there is.... well, absolutely nada. The 'original equipment in the 50's' conspiracy theory is especially over the top, but if one is to believe there is some other conspiracy here, either of master counterfeiters from decades ago (who apparently just stopped after a single Wagner and Plank that netted $25,000 in total?) or decades long and widespread hobby cover ups with dozens of participants, then a reasonable person should require some proof, some actual reason to believe it. To believe whatever thought occurs and strikes my fancy, even when other options are the ones supported by evidence, would be foolish.

It's a good question, I'm glad you brought it up, but if the result of that question is that we have some evidence that it is real and no evidence that it is not, well, that writs the answer of what it is reasonable to think. A rational person cannot reject actual evidence in favor of no evidence. When the question is one of actual fact, of history (the card either is or is not real; it's not an opinion like 'what is your favorite card?'), then I cannot fathom why we should abandon the principles of reason and logic that have guided western knowledge for the last 2,400 years in favor of gossip.

I would, truly and not sarcastically, love to see any evidence for this conspiracy theory. I know that you did not posit this as the truth when you brought it up, and said you were just relaying the story and that it was others who then stated as fact that it was a reprint, while being unable to provide any evidence.





More generally, I think Pat asked a great question; there are a lot of mysteries about this and those mysteries, if they could be resolved, would greatly aid genuine research into T card printing, distribution, and series and/or wave composition. I am not surprised the answers have mostly been evidence-free conspiracy theories and claims of 'research' that does not appear to actually exist and cannot be provided. It is disappointing though. Hobby knowledge would be a lot further along if people would step back from their narratives, apply some basic logic, and follow the evidence rather than just advocating for what they want to find as if it is the truth and using gossip, appeals to authority or expertise or their age, and tradition as a defense against having no evidence whatsoever for what they are insisting is the truth. That using an evidentiary basis is generally unpopular and controversial in a group of successful, intelligent people, well it's interesting.