Revisiting the T206 Wagner "strip"

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do we know who owns it?

Isn't it owned by the same guy that owns the PSA 8 Wagner, the Diamondbacks owner?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

Isn't it owned by the same guy that owns the PSA 8 Wagner, the Diamondbacks owner?

Oh man if so I hope he is not 0/2.

[iggyman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh man if so I hope he is not 0/2.

Peter,

Both the T206 "Gretzky" Wagner and the T206 Wagner strip card are part of the hobby industry folklore. Thus, without definite proof (which we will never get), the debate over whether "the" Wagner card was/is trimmed or whether the strip is not really a strip, only serves to enhance the value. So we can debate this until we are blue in the face, meanwhile the current owner will laugh all the way to the bank.

Lovely Day...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am still puzzled how Jim's view was so different from Ted's (and others). The issues at least some don't really seem to be subjective ones.

[tedzan]

JimB

Hey ole buddy....we had several interesting conversations at the National in Baltimore during that week. You asked me
my opinion of the 1949 LEAF Joe DiMaggio you acquired, regarding its color variation. I pointed out to you the quality
aspects of this card, which made you quite happy about it. And, you got a "kick" from the TyCobb/Ty Cobb card some
one showed me at the show, who thought it was a real one.

But, now there are at least 7 guys who have personally examined this Wagner strip at the National that differ with you
on it.

I'll respond to your 3 comments......

Jim...."1. I do not understand why ALC could not have printed a sheet that looked like that."

The 6-color process used by lithographers back then applied the individual ink passes simultaneously on all cards on a
given sheet (or strip). Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this strip to have been printed with the CYoung and Bowerman
cards to have certain colors missing, while the other 3 cards' colors are virtually complete.


Jim...."2. The back did not look pieced together to me. It looked like one piece. And under a loupe it looked just like any
other T206 cardboard (without the ad printed on it)."

We discussed the "backing" on this strip. In no way, is it a normal blank-backed T206 card's cardboard. It's a bright white
piece of carboard, that does not jive with the cardboard used in 1909 to produce the T206's.


Jim...."3. I think they simply printed lines between cards on this particular pre-production test run."

These so-called lines are not printed, but are actually separations between the cards. Examining this strip under high magni-
fication revealed this. Furthermore, this observation is reinforced by the separation between the CYoung card and the Kling
card at the upper right end of the strip. If the strip was not in its plastic encapsulation, you would be able to tactilely feel
the separations.

Two final points......

Jaime Hull noted here (in post #15)....
"a close look also shows that the ink color used for the name and team info and used to frame the image portion of the cards
is quite clearly black, and not the dark brown that was used for all series of regular production"

And, since you mentioned Mark Macrae (in post #16)....you'll recall that he was even more convinced than me, that these 5
cards were individually placed together on this "strip".


Regards,

TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

Is an image available?

[canjond]

Ted - one question regarding the color and the differences in "completeness" you observe....

You stated above "it is IMPOSSIBLE for this strip to have been printed with the CYoung and Bowerman
cards to have certain colors missing, while the other 3 cards' colors are virtually complete."

But, wouldn't this be possible if the ALC had intended the CYoung and Bowerman to have been complete as they appear on the strip, and then later, after examining what they considered to be the final product, decided to add more color and improve those cards to make those cards look better? I think you are assuming that the CYoung and Bowerman cards were intended, from day 1, to appear in the final form that we are all used to seeing today. But, what if that wasn't the original intention?

To illustrate with another example - what if the ALC had originally intended the Wagner background to be white... A "final" preproduction example was created of Wagner with a white background. They looked at the white background and said this looks awful - lets make the background orange. So, the production example were made with orange. Years later, both cards exist. Someone claims the white background Wagner is missing color. Well, that is not accurate. The white background example is missing no color - that was the "original" intention. However, subsequent intention was to give it an orange background.

So, isn't it entirely possible that the strip can have cards that look complete to what we know is the final product (ala Wagner), and cards that looks incomplete (ala CYoung) because those "incomplete" cards may have been the original intention?

[M's_Fan]

The 6-color process used by lithographers back then applied the individual ink passes simultaneously on all cards on a
given sheet (or strip). Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this strip to have been printed with the CYoung and Bowerman
cards to have certain colors missing, while the other 3 cards' colors are virtually complete.

The normal printing processes of lithography could easily have been discarded for a test/experimental run of this strip. So it is very possible that this test or experimental strip had all sorts oddities that do not occur in the normal process of printing T206s. Applying color to an entire sheet was done to save time and print fast. When you are experimenting, time is not an issue and so color could have been applied to one card and not the other.

We discussed the "backing" on this strip. In no way, is it a normal blank-backed T206 card's cardboard. It's a bright white
piece of carboard, that does not jive with the cardboard used in 1909 to produce the T206's.

Again, they could have easily used test paper that was not used in the actual production of T206s, because this was a test/experimental piece. However, the fact that it is bright doesn't mean much, it could be just well preserved.

These so-called lines are not printed, but are actually separations between the cards. Examining this strip under high magni-
fication revealed this.

This is so far the best (and perhaps only) evidence that the cards were pasted together. However the only person on this board that actually touched this card, a previous owner, disagreed with your idea that you could feel the separation, and thought that it was one card. I haven't examined or handled this card so I don't know one way or another, but its interesting that people can disagree on something that you can either see or can't.

Furthermore, this observation is reinforced by the separation between the CYoung card and the Kling
card at the upper right end of the strip. If the strip was not in its plastic encapsulation, you would be able to tactilely feel
the separations.

The separation between the Young and Kling appears to be a heavy crease, where it was folded. But I haven't seen it so I can't say for sure. Just a thought.

I do think it is interesting that you couldn't see the separation without a high degree of magnification. If it was pasted together, someone certainly did an expert job.

In my opinion whether these cards were printed together on one piece of paper, or printed on separate pieces of paper and then pasted together, makes little difference to the strip's value or legitimacy. If they were pasted together, it appears to have been done by original person at the printing factory, not by some modern collector trying to increase the value. That is the crucial distinction.

[barrysloate]

So if this piece consists of five cards glued onto a cardboard strip, which at minimum seems to be the majority opinion, under what circumstances did SGC authenticate it? Wouldn't it seem like the kind of piece that could not be authenticated, given the circumstances of how it was constructed? Part of the criteria of authentication is knowing what a piece is, and being able to identify it as such. What exactly is this?