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

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Reminder that we are still awaiting the research and evidence that this card was not discovered in Florida, but in New York.

If it did come from a sheet, I think it almost certain it is not a complete sheet, and we are being too literal, what is meant is surely a strip or sheet fragment.

I don't think you're going to get a response on the New York evidence Greg.

I'm not claiming it as proof of how the sheet or partial could have been discovered in Florida but I think it could certainly be a possibility.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wonder if Alan Ray is still living.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't think you're going to get a response on the New York evidence Greg.

I know, unfortunately. It’s a shame people will post fictions they have made up and try to pass off as evidenced fact. Nothing wrong with speculation, but speculation is very different from claiming there is evidence and research leading to X conclusion when there clearly is absolutely nothing.


Ray said he was saving the juicy bits for his book that never came to be. Wonder if there’s a manuscript or something that will eventually come out. Mastro is a lying fraudster with a long history of both that makes whatever he says difficult to give much reasonable credence too, as his stories change with the winds of the moment. Sevchuk is a relevant, deeply involved participant and eyewitness but his testimony alone is not a whole lot, and Ray was not necessarily honest to him about the origin in the first place.


Do we know what the other cards were in the find? I recall there were 50 or so from O’Keefe’s interviews (AKA - Lifson told him, who seems to be his only source for this part). I assume a number of the long slabbed high grade cards are these, but which ones I have never seen beyond the Wagner and Plank. A single Wagner and Plank could be present on a partial sheet, a panel, but there should be much duplication between the other cards from it. If there isn’t, these cards cannot be from an actual panel, they might be from small strips (probably not even from the same sheet) at best.

I still see no reason to think Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The evidence leans against it.

[lowpopper]

maybe they were all made in the 80s with the square corner bond bread jackie

[G1911]

Maybe we will see even one tiny shred of evidence the card(s) from this find are fake.

Maybe. I expect that evidence is about as real as the alleged research showing the sheet was secretly found in NY.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by G1911

Maybe we will see even one tiny shred of evidence the card(s) from this find are fake.

Maybe. I expect that evidence is about as real as the alleged research showing the sheet was secretly found in NY.

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, for items of sufficient value to create incentive for counterfeiting, 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 pass 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.

[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.

[Snowman]

The burden of proof for the Wagner's authenticity absolutely lies on the side that claims it is indeed authentic.

I find its provenance, and its condition, the fact that Mastro was involved, and the fact that it has a Piedmont back to be highly suspect. I also don't lend much in the way of respect for PSA's opinions, particularly in the early stages where mountains of altered cards made their way into slabs.

It very well might be authentic. I'm not saying it isn't. But I probably would have passed on it if it were offered to me back in the 80s and I had the funds to purchase it.

Note - I actually find the fact that the only other Piedmont back Wagner to exist has a ghost on it to be more suspicious than not. I don't think it's far fetched to wonder if whoever might have been making reprints only had access to Piedmont plates and had a limited supply of the original paper stock. Again, I'm not saying it happened, but it's not exactly far fetched either. Perhaps both Wagners came from the same operation? Who knows. But it sure smells fishy to me.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Greg,

With all due respect, I think you might underestimate the ability of skilled counterfeiters to manufacture fakes that can pass THE MOST STRINGENT VISUAL TESTS, a lesson I learned the hard way. This card is not like any other T206 that has ever surfaced. It is a NrMt-Mt Wagner with NO PROVENANCE. Maybe to you the burden is on the prospective buyer to prove it is fake. But to me, the burden is on the seller to prove it is real, and with no provenance, the way to do it is with forensic testing. Or, to say it another way, you keep saying there is no evidence the card is not real. To my way of looking at it, the evidence that it is not real is not materially weaker than the evidence it is real. We really don't know for sure either way.

[steve B]

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, for items of sufficient value to create incentive for counterfeiting, 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 pass 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.

I wouldn't give much if any credence to cards being reprinted from original plates decades after the original production.

The evidence we have for sure is that many if not all* T206s were printed on flatbed offset lithography presses, and the "plates" for those were large sheets of limestone, sometimes 3-4 inches thick.
Once the job was done or the plate was too badly worn, they were typically resurfaced and new images laid down. The only exceptions would be the smaller master stones used to produce the transfers.
The only ones that survived of sports cards that I know of would be one or two hockey cards. And those are backs, not complete sets of 6-8 colors for the fronts.

*There's some very slight evidence that a two color rotary press using sort of modern plates may have been used. But if it was I don't think that early press survived the progress that happened. The technology wasn't much different, even into the 1980's, but the earliest examples of a technology usually have problems that get worked out and they get replaced pretty quickly.
Plates made for a semi-experimental press around 1910 almost certainly wouldn't work in a press from the 20's or 30's.