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

[Lorewalker]

The Wagner is obviously an important card but as has been alluded to by a few, at least, who back then paid attention to this stuff like we do now? I doubt many thought it was going to be important.

This example only became a NM-MT example in recent years, due to the trimming that Mastro did. Prior to that it was simply a Wagner that was in better shape than most but had an irregular cut which was apparent to everyone who owned or saw it, if I have followed this correctly. Not sure back in the day that makes it any more remarkable than one that was mangled.

If what Greg wrote is correct, that only a few Wagner's have their complete chain of ownership traced, then it is really not a big deal that this Wagner cannot be traced? In my opinion it does not make it any less suspect of being legit.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If what Greg wrote is correct, that only a few Wagner's have their complete chain of ownership traced, then it is really not a big deal that this Wagner cannot be traced? In my opinion it does not make it any less suspect of being legit.

We should be able too settle this, using a logical evidentiary basis.

Here's 47 known Wagners: https://t206resource.com/Wagner-Gallery.html

Which of these can anyone trace their history all the way back to where they were in 1909? What is our provenance documentation for these, if any, that we can?

Are all the others, or all 47 if none can be actually traced, fakes?

[RCMcKenzie]

The reason people are asking where the guy found it is because of the high grade. See the Black Swamp Find. There should be a quaint story behind the card's discovery. Flea market in the 1980's does not sound reasonable to me.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

The reason people are asking where the guy found it is because of the high grade. See the Black Swamp Find. There should be a quaint story behind the card's discovery. Flea market in the 1980's does not sound reasonable to me.

I think the logical assumption is that the card did not exist as a single card much before Ray possessed it. It likely was cut off of a printer's scrap or a salesman sample. That could explain why Ray was vague. Not that he was vague because there was someone printing these. If they had printed them in the 1950s why have we not seen more of them? Seems like a lot of effort to do a one off.

And by the way, there are far too many collectors who think the BS find consists of counterfeit cards or at least that was their belief once the find was made public.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

And by the way, there are far too many collectors who think the BS find consists of counterfeit cards or at least that was their belief once the find was made public.

Even if the BSF is genuine and I'm not saying they aren't, 100+ year old cards just don't look right in pristine condition.

[G1911]

I cannot see any logic in this card having to be traced back to 1909, when no other Wagner is held to that standard (because then all or almost all would be fake). Treating it different because that is the only way to justify the outcome people evidently want is not reason. If the highest grade Wagner must be held to a different standard (which is of course, not reasonable in the first place; one of any group of surviving items will be the nicest), then that standard is still not even applicable to this card, an altered card (for which the evidence led to a conviction in criminal court). Even if we just call it the best anyways, if we toss it out as a fake the current #2 becomes the nicest. Can it's provenance be traced back to 1909? Is it fake if it cannot? What will be the justification this time for why this card and this card alone is to be held to a different standard, uniquely made up because there is no actual evidence?

I do not know where this was found; Sevchuk's testimony is evidence, he was the dealer and deeply involved. It ain't a lot of evidence. It was not so long ago that it is necessarily lost to time. This was a good and reasoned question, to see if we can produce any evidence here for any outcome. Thus far we've got 1) a conspiracy theory that appears to reject evidence at a conceptual level and 2) an untruth. If the answer is "we got nothing else", then that's the answer. Juicy BS being invented hurts, not helps.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are a number of people still among us, including some with great expertise, who have seen it unslabbed. Has any one of them suggested it didn't look like an authentic T206? This is aside from the issue of being sheet cut trimmed blah blah.

Unsubstantiated rumors of 1950s reprints do not for me shift the burden of proof here. But Corey, how in your estimation would one forensic test it without damaging it?

[G1911]

Didn't the blatantly fake Cobb/Edwards Wagner pass 'forensic testing'?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are a number of people still among us, including some with great expertise, who have seen it unslabbed. Has any one of them suggested it didn't look like an authentic T206? This is aside from the issue of being sheet cut trimmed blah blah.

Unsubstantiated rumors of 1950s reprints do not for me shift the burden of proof here. But Corey, how in your estimation would one forensic test it without damaging it?

well, I'll have a go at how I'd examine a potential Wagner.

Paper thickness- Is it within the range of known good T206s. (From my small sample I checked, it's a very small range, very consistent thickness. )

Other paper aspects -
The stock is often coated, is it coated stock or not, and is that consistent with the specific back it has? (and preferably with another known Wagner with the same back.

Does the fiber length/type match other T206s. (a bit tougher, but looking at one closely enough the cardstock is distinctive, It's clearly different from a similar modern cardstock (Both craft store acid free cardstock, and comic book backing boards which are similar. ) The actual scientific test would destroy some of the cardstock, but a simple look with a microscope will actually get you most of the way there.

UV light - Does the cardstock react or not. Not a certain thing, as many modern acid free cardstocks also don't react. But if it does, it can almost 100% be eliminated as genuine.

Inks and printing-
Lots that can be seen with just a good magnifier. If I had a known Wagner to compare to. even the exact halftone pattern could be compared. For that matter a very high res scan would allow the same comparison, but I haven't seen one of a Wagner. (LOC has them available for most of the set)

Again, UV. I haven't done this yet, but how the different inks react should match a good T206.

The better tests

X-ray refraction spectroscopy would identify the exact composition of the paper, paper coating if any and the inks.
Even if someone did spectacular work and worked off a real Wagner, this is where it would all come undone.
There's been some work on Stamps only in the last 10 years or so. Some of the discoveries have been very interesting. Like for well over 100 years we all "knew" that the inks used on the first US stamp used rust as a colorant making a nice red brown, but also being abrasive and leading to premature plate wear. Checked, and the XRF says..... No Iron whatsoever!


I think the reasons this sort of stuff hasn't had a good track record with sports collectibles is that the people doing the examining, even if they have a machine like the VSC machines PSA and SGC have is that the data they give needs to be interpreted properly.

Like.... I'd guess your office has a lot of law books. I could come in and read a bunch of them, and I would probably know more than when I started. But that wouldn't get me anywhere near being as good as a genuine lawyer. And I'd put money on being just plain wrong a LOT.

It doesn't help that so many incompetent or dishonest autograph "authenticators" have claimed to be "forensic document examiners".