A possible solution for the PSA 8 T206 Wagner?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Leon,

The implications of this line of reasoning IMO is that it will set a new standard of how final-production-run uncut sheets from ALL issues are to be graded. Given the technology available to precisely cut sheets combined with uncut sheets known to exist, we could in theory create, for example, "PSA 10 Hand-Laser-Machine-Etc. Cut" examples of N172 Kelly, Ward, Brouthers and Comisky, E93 Cobb, Wagner, and Mathewson, M101-5 Ruth and Thorpe, '33 Goudey Ruth, '34 Goudey Gehrig, Sport Kings Ruth and Cobb. The likelihood of that happening will depend how the market would value such creations. Currently uncut sheets are valued at a fraction of their break value based the individual cards receiving numerical grades. If however a new grading standard emerged and materially changed the value of such sheet-cut cards, either the prices of the sheets would increase markedly or there would be significant economic incentive to cut them up.

Corey, it's not a new standard. It's already being done with the cards posted in this thread. Uncut strips are valued at less than some of the very high grade, hand cut, strip cards today. It drives me crazy but it's already here. If there are other T206s found on a sheet, and then cut, I don't have a problem with them grading numerically with the qualifier of HAND CUT. I always thought it was the best way to do it (for the strip cards). I doubt I will convince the other 75% of this situation but it's a fun debate. I do stand by my original thoughts and was curious if I would change them as I saw all of the other responses. I am open to changing my mind the other way but haven't yet.

[HRBAKER]

Shouldn't a distinction be made for cards that were marketed in strips, intended to be cut into cards, like strip cards? I can see these numerically graded as #/Hand Cut because they were used as intended. I don't think I have ever seen evidence that T206s were ever marketed as strips with the intention that the user cut them into separate cards.

This is a card with two faces. One, the best surviving example condition-wise of the most famous card in the hobby. IOW, it is and always will be the most famous copy of the most famous card in the hobby. The second face as Corey referenced above is that it will also always seemingly be linked with the fraudulent underbelly of the hobby.

To me to make this card continue to be an "8" going forward regardless of qualifier says that we are determined to find a way to "number" this card based on the card it is, not any standardized system of grading.