T206 Wagner partial back. Really Huggins & Scott?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (I may well be), but I thought all of the Piedmont Wagners are hand-cut. Since this particular Bowerman is factory-cut, wouldn't that preclude the card next to it from being Wagner?

Edited to add: (Or at least strongly argue against it.)

Yes correct hence my statement above Scott. We have no factory cut Wagners with Piedmont backs.

[bobbyw8469]

The bottom line is - is anyone here going to bid $5,000 for this $30 card!?!?!?!?!?! I can't wait to see the outcome of this auction!

[wonkaticket]

Brock, I haven’t typed why its way off as I figured it would be a waste of time as you seem to be way into the fantasy world of belief with the Huggins Team on this. The only argument that Huggins is hanging their hat on is that this card must have been next to the Wagner because of the strip that once belonged to Wagner.

That proof strip is very cool but in no way is a final production sheet clearly that can be seen from the graphic elements missing from the strip.

Using this to assume this is how the sheets were laid out. Let alone make the claim that a factory cut production card has remnants of Wagner’s back is an absolute leap of blind faith at best if you’re a collector. If you’re an auction house with any shred of integrity its downright glorified unfounded bull.

Brock reputable auction companies don’t do stuff like this. You will never see an 18th dynasty Egyptian artifact that looks high-end and might have come from a royal court. Try and tie the item to most likely but not for sure belonging to King Tutankhamun. With some drawn out story about how they have pictures of Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter in the tomb with a similar item so this one could be Tut’s.

There are countless other little nuances and bits of info taken over the years from collectors who share knowledge much is right here on the board to read. All of these also put further death nails in this cocked up story spun by Huggins & Scott.

Hope this helps….

What a surprise this has ties to Patrick Chan even more reason to run for the hills on this epic yarn.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

What a surprise this has ties to Patrick Chan even more reason to run for the hills on this epic yarn.

Did I miss something? How does this tie to Chan?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Josh Wolf

It should also be noted that this card was recently purchased from T206 Museum.

http://t206museum.com/page/store_bkmiscut.html

Josh

Originally Posted by Leon

Did I miss something? How does this tie to Chan?

Use the search feature you newbie. (Kidding)

[markf31]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Using this to assume this is how the sheets were laid out. Let alone make the claim that a factory cut production card has remnants of Wagner’s back is an absolute leap of blind faith at best if you’re a collector. If you’re an auction house with any shred of integrity its downright glorified unfounded bull.

Brock reputable auction companies don’t do stuff like this.

I agree for the most part with your points here John, however, as I was reading through the thread and forming my own opinion a thought came to mind.

Some of you may venture from time to time over to the memorabilia side, more specifically the game used memorabilia side of not only the board here but of the hobby as well, but some of you may not. My observations are that in general vintage equipment, uniforms and to a degree pre-model bats all (baring rock solid personal provenience) are determined to be "game used" by nothing more than conjecture based on a set of at times very lose criteria.

Outside of personal provenience, its an educated guess at best based on a set of limited available information if a pre war jersey or piece of equipment is in fact game used. Yet, that doesn't prevent auction houses and other companies from authenticating the pieces and labeling them as being genuine game used equipment when they're consigned. They are in fact making a very similar leap of faith with a lot of the vintage pre war "game used" equipment that gets consigned and auctioned. The information available to authenticate these pieces is sparse and pretty limited if not non existent in some cases. Just because a glove matches the type/style used by Ty Cobb, or a pre-model bat matches the kind of bat used by Lou Gehrig does not grantee that Cobb or Gehrig every touched that piece of equipment let alone use it in a game. Yet they can be authenticated as such because they meet a set of limited and sparse qualities and attributes.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just stating that the same type of assumptions and leaps of faith are made all the time by auction houses when they auction vintage game used equipment.

[sreader3]

Hi John,
Sorry, I didn't mean to be redundant. Must have missed your earlier statement to the same effect.
Scot

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Hi John,
Sorry, I didn't mean to be redundant. Must have missed your earlier statement to the same effect.
Scot

Scot, you have forgotten more about these cards than I know...the day you need to say sorry to me on T206 stuff...that's the day I pony up my opening bid of 5k on a "partial" Wagner Piedmont back.

No worries brother.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Yes correct hence my statement above Scott. We have no factory cut Wagners with Piedmont backs.

But there could be one in a closet somewhere, or in a parallel universe, so it's still POSSIBLE this is a sliver of a Wagner back.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But there could be one in a closet somewhere, or in a parallel universe, so it's still POSSIBLE this is a sliver of a Wagner back.

Peter, you're right what about an attic?

[ullmandds]

i think brock and steve are looking for jobs as auction puffers...I'd send resume's directly to huggins and scott!

[tschock]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i think brock and steve are looking for jobs as auction puffers...I'd send resume's directly to huggins and scott!

Better a puffer than a fluffer. At least with the former, you're only trying to get ahead....

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i think brock and steve are looking for jobs as auction puffers...I'd send resume's directly to huggins and scott!

I'm not saying the card is what they it might be. There's so much against it that it really shouldn't have been written up like that without a lot more than a maybe preproduction maybe uncut strip to back it up.

I am saying that someday having something far more solid might be possible.

But probably not for a Wagner/Piedmont.

Just the compiling pics of the plate scratches has shown some subjects that can't be from the same sheet. Eventually we'll know more.

Steve B

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by steve B

Eventually we'll know more.

But you'll never know that the front of this card has a Wagner on it. Whether a card was cut from a sheet that had another card on it is fun to talk about, but doesn't make a Bowerman a Wagner, partial or otherwise.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

But you'll never know that the front of this card has a Wagner on it. Whether a card was cut from a sheet that had another card on it is fun to talk about, but doesn't make a Bowerman a Wagner, partial or otherwise.

I don't think never is necessarily correct.

Once the sheet size and layout is known then individual positions on each plate will probably be identifiable. At the moment it looks like common players were on more than one sheet, and that more than one back plate was used. the 150's were probably done in at least three press runs with changes made between each one.

For instance Magie comes with backs that only match with certain details on the front. And at least some Magees share an identifiable back with Magie. There are at least six different Magies.

So each instance of a Wagner on a sheet will probably have a particular and identifiable back that may or may not be shared with another card. If it's not shared then identifying one from the back should be possible.
Whether the differences will be near enough to the edge to tell from a slight miscut isn't likely, but possible.

Of course, as of right now it's not possible. And I don't expect it to be for a long time.

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

"But it cannot be reasonably said that this is not possibly a partial Honus Wagner."

That is unequivocally the worst equivocal description I have ever read.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"But it cannot be reasonably said that this is not possibly a partial Honus Wagner."

That is unequivocally the worst equivocal description I have ever read.

Totally agree. It uses double negatives to try to make a positive, without ever saying the positive, which would be:

"But it CAN be reasonably said that this IS possibly a partial Honus Wagner."

Again, just not true.

[D. Bergin]

Maybe Panini or Topps will bid on it, chop it up into 100 pieces and make a special commemorative insert card out of it.

1/100 Gold Refractor Diamond Inlaid rare Bowerman/Wagner remnant card. Maybe they can even throw a half signature of Ted Williams on the same card for good measure.........or better yet, just one letter of his handwriting and include a JSA Basic Cert..................but you have to send it in along with $75 to get the Full Certificate.

Oh, the endless possibilities.

[T206Collector]

This is nothing short of another enterprising seller trying to exploit T206 collectors' desire to own a piece of the famed Wagner card without delivering an actual piece of an actual Wagner card.

"But it cannot be reasonably said that this is not possibly a partial Honus Wagner." Wrong. This is not possibly a partial Honus Wagner card because there is no evidence that Wagner's front ever appeared on it. A Wagner is made by the front, not the back.