|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|  |  |  | 
 | 
|  | 
| 
			 
			#1  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   
			
			Peter,  Both the T206 "Gretzky" Wagner and the T206 Wagner strip card are part of the Lovely Day... Last edited by iggyman; 08-19-2010 at 09:02 PM. | 
| 
			 
			#2  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   
			
			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.
		 
				__________________ Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions.  My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ | 
| 
			 
			#3  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | |||
| 
 | |||
|   
			
			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 | 
| 
			 
			#4  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   
			
			Is an image available?
		 
				__________________ Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions.  My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ | 
| 
			 
			#5  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   
			
			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? 
				__________________ For information on baseball-related cigarette and tobacco packs, visit www.baseballandtobacco.com. Instagram: @vintage_cigarette_packs | 
| 
			 
			#6  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   Quote: 
 JimB | 
| 
			 
			#7  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   
			
			Ted my friend, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I looked at the card very closely under a loupe, specifically looking for evidence that it was multiple cards pasted together. What I saw was printed lines between the card, except for the Young/Kling where the crease was so heavy it was impossible to discern. I know there are not length-of-card printed lines on other extant T206 proofs, only the hash marks that are also on this piece. I believe I am reporting what I saw accurately. It would be nice if the SGC grader who examined it outside of the holder would chime in here. Best, Jim | 
| 
			 
			#8  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   Quote: 
 Quote: 
 Quote: 
 Quote: 
 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. | 
| 
			 
			#9  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | |||
| 
 | |||
|   
			
			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?
		 | 
| 
			 
			#10  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|  Just Noticed the 
			
			Kling and Mordecai Brown cards are also missing the color in the collars.  Additionally, the Bowerman appears to have Rosy Cheeks so the Red was applied to the card....just not the B for Boston. So 4 of the 5 have some color variance.....
		 | 
| 
			 
			#11  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|   
			
			This strip is 100 years old, perhaps a bit more.  If I remember the lore behind it, it was found folded, in a pocket. The creasing and overall wear that it exhibits is something that nobody can deny - it appears to have taken a beating over the years. That being the case, I would guess that if it had been five separate cards pasted together on a strip, at least one of these cards would have, by now, begun peeling away from its backing, or from the other cards. I'm unaware of any glue that could have been used in 1909 to paste these cards together that would have held up for 100 years while being subject to the abuse that this strip has taken over the years. Coupled with the fact that two different people who have seen and held the actual strip outside of a holder and verified that it is one continuous strip seems to be fairly strong evidence. This is, of course, not to denigrate the knowledge of some of the experts who have chimed in on this, but it seems that most of those who feel it's not a continuous strip have evaluated the item either from pictures, or from holding it while encased in a slab. As for why colors are not consistent with the final issue, or why lines appear in places where we're not accustomed to seeing them, as someone who buys various printed materials every single day, there are dozens of reasons why a test, a proof, or a press sheet might look different than the final product. That's a detail that I don't find particularly odd at all, especially using 1909 printing technology. -Al | 
| 
			 
			#12  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | ||||
| 
 | ||||
|  Wagner Strip Card 
			
			Will this help in your discussion   | 
| 
			 
			#13  
			
			
			
			
			
		 | |||
| 
 | |||
|   
			
			If it's not a continuous strip but is in fact six individual pieces- the five cards plus the backing- how do we know when it was glued together? I think it's safe to say the printing is period and it was sent to Wagner right before the mass printing of the cards was to take place. But how do we know the cards weren't sent loose to Wagner and the family later glued them to a backing? That's my point about it being authenticated- has the glue been tested? Do we know how and when the strip was constructed? I just feel if it consists of five separate cards then authenticating it is a bit of a slippery slope. If on the other hand it's a single contiguous strip then I have no issues with the authentication. But as has been stated earlier in this thread, can't somebody from SGC come on here and solve this mystery for us? Whichever is correct, it certainly shouldn't be a secret and no confidences should be compromised by answering that question. | 
|  | 
| 
 | 
 | 
|  Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post | 
| T206 Honus Wagner Backs | swschultz | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 10-04-2009 06:09 PM | 
| T206 Wagner reprint on ebay...Blah Blah Blah... | iggyman | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 21 | 08-10-2009 02:43 PM | 
| FS: T206 Heine Wagner ("the other T206 Wagner") PSA 4 - $79 | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 12-19-2007 08:46 PM | 
| Yet another T206 Wagner Ques.?? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 11-13-2007 04:23 PM | 
| T206 Wagner | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 09-26-2002 02:12 PM |