The Cincinnati Wagner "Graded"

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

So do you actually believe there's any chance it's real?

Having seen the black and white pic of it slabbed I still don't buy it.

There's no or nearly no border to the image area, which is typical of a reprint.
Even the proof has a clear border.

The name and team are darker than the "Pittsburg" on the uniform. On all the pics I have of known real Wagners that lettering is either the same or lighter.

There's a serious loss of detail above TSB on the uniform. A lack of detail seen on no other Wagner. Loss of detail is typical of a rescreened printing (Read reprint)

The aging is very atypical of actual aging. The aging IS typical of a modern reprint dipped in tea or something similar. That highlights cracks in the glosscoat, which is what we see on the card in question.

It appears to have a slight diamond cut, not unusual for a T206 ....But on the sides which is unusual if not unique for a T206

Steve, you might be new to this discussion, but....

The legitimacy of this card is no longer questioned, and hasn't been for many, many years, by anyone who has any understanding of lithography and/or scammer behavior (either will do). It was a laughable fake then, and it still is. I was surprised when it first came out and anyone even bothered saying 'why' it's a fake - it's a fake because it's an obvious fake, even from photographs. All the things they did to it to try to make it look real are irrelevant. If they really wanted to pass it off as real, they could have picked a better reprint to start with.

Okay, so throw that card away, next thought: there are just not very many t206 Wagners existing. If we were to ever see a 'previously unreleased version' of ANY t206, do you really think it would be drastically different from all other t206's in every respect other than size, and do you really think it would be of a t206 as rare as the Wagner? I doubt the existence of any such card in a Wagner version, so much, that you would have a hard time showing me one with a blue or red background, with his name spelled wrong, with ANYTHING on it that's different fro a 'normal' Wagner, and convincing me that it was legit, MUCH less if you wouldn't even let a respectable grading company look at it.

[barrysloate]

I agree it is pointless to continue discussing whether or not the card is real. That is beyond discussion. The only reason this subject was resurrected was that the two owners found a grading service willing to slab it. That's the gist of it; the card's authenticity is not the issue here.

[Fred]

STOP - Here's something that wasn't considered:

What if the BACK of that card came from a "REAL/Authentic" T206 Honus Wagner card? Let's say someone had the real deal and the front was somehow destroyed. The person then takes the "REAL" back from a REAL T-206 Honus Wagner card and pastes a fake Wagner front to it. Wouldn't that make it half real?

Has this horse been beaten to death yet?

[barrysloate]

Here's what I find curious, and I'm a curious guy by nature. When I see something that makes absolutely no sense, I question it.

Here's this new grading company called ACA that really none of us has heard of. They're trying to get into grading and authenticating baseball cards, a very crowded field, and one in which it is not easy to grab a market share. And in a situation like that a company feels they need to do something to draw attention to themselves. So what do they do- they take a card that is arguably the best known counterfeit in the hobby, and authenticate it. Can somebody explain this business model?

I know someone is going to say it brought them publicity, but that's like a doctor building his medical practice by infecting all his patients with bubonic plague. Sure, it will get him in the newspapers, but it won't build his practice. Like I said, this is a mystery. You can't build a business this way.

[Kenny Cole]

I agree that slabbing fakes is a business model that most graders fear to venture into. Unfortunately, I fear that the demand may be higher for that service than I would like it to be. I suppose one could call it a niche market, although it is a niche market that I wish didn't exist.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Here's what I find curious, and I'm a curious guy by nature. When I see something that makes absolutely no sense, I question it.

Here's this new grading company called ACA that really none of us has heard of. They're trying to get into grading and authenticating baseball cards, a very crowded field, and one in which it is not easy to grab a market share. And in a situation like that a company feels they need to do something to draw attention to themselves. So what do they do- they take a card that is arguably the best known counterfeit in the hobby, and authenticate it. Can somebody explain this business model?

I know someone is going to say it brought them publicity, but that's like a doctor building his medical practice by infecting all his patients with bubonic plague. Sure, it will get him in the newspapers, but it won't build his practice. Like I said, this is a mystery. You can't build a business this way.

I actually responded to that in this thread, but it was ignored. I assumed that the readers felt my thoughts were irrelevant in that regard, but I still think they are legit.

[ls7plus]

First of all, read my posts. I have never taken a postion with regard to this card's authencity. What I have said is the following:

(1) I would like more information with regard to the actual printing characteristics of the card;

(2) That the more actual information one has, the better one's decisions tend to be;

(3) That there have been occasions during my multiple decade involvement with this hobby, probably too numerous to count, where many people have felt they could positively authenticate a card or not, concerning its allegedly original, unaltered condition, based on the appearance of the card to the naked eye, and that they, including myself on several unfortunate occasions, have been wrong (this card hardly stands alone in this regard); and

(4) magnification has been of invaluable assistance to both dealers and collectors alike, as well, I would hope, to graders, in this regard, when it is coupled with a little knowledge.

Now, these truths should be self-evident, rather than a stimulus for vitriol and venom, and I wasn't the one who initiated any posts that were meant or intended to be insulting in the course of this discussion. I'm well aware of the history of this card, and have even read Michael O'Keeffe's discussion of it in his book, "The Card" (highly recommended reading on this as well as other subjects, by the way). To the above 4 points, I would add a 5th:

(5) What did this "newbie" grading service actually do in the way of examining the card to reach the conclusion they did?

I've always wanted to have as much information regarding this cherished hobby as I could lay my hands on, and this occasion is simply no different!

Best regards to all those other dedicated collectors out there, who know we hold the very history of the game itself in our hands as guardians/custodians for future generations,

Larry

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

First of all, read my posts. I have never taken a postion with regard to this card's authenticity. What I have said is the following:

(1) I would like more information with regard to the actual printing characteristics of the card;

(2) That the more actual information one has, the better one's decisions tend to be;

Larry, I understand your sentiments. BUT there is no discussions or decisions to be made by "anyone" about the validity of this card, or positions to be taken. Maybe the other counterfeits you had previously referred to. There is one thing we know about this particular card in question, and this is a POWER FACT, so take note... IT IS FAKE!!!! No questions asked or needed. I understand skepticism, but c'mon. It's glaringly obvious to the naked eye. And no matter how many times these clowns try to pull on people's heart-strings by crying racism, this card was not, nor ever will be a REAL t206 Honus Wagner, an unreleased version, or anything even remotely related to the American Tobacco Company.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Larry, I understand your sentiments. BUT there is no discussions or decisions to be made by "anyone" about the validity of this card, or positions to be taken. Maybe the other counterfeits you had previously referred to. There is one thing we know about this particular card in question, and this is a POWER FACT, so take note... IT IS FAKE!!!! No questions asked or needed. I understand skepticism, but c'mon. It's glaringly obvious to the naked eye. And no matter how many times these clowns try to pull on people's heart-strings by crying racism, this card was not, nor ever will be a REAL t206 Honus Wagner, an unreleased version, or anything even remotely related to the American Tobacco Company.

Yes, but what about the uncatalogued versions that actually say 'reprint' on them? Couldn't they have been released later in 1909, and the word 'reprint' used to differentiate them from the earlier releases? Don't you need to know more about their characteristics before deciding they are modern?

And please - what better way to scam people than by posing as nuns? I'm from the south, so I completely understand how I am automatically guilty of racism, any time it fits the needs of someone who I disagree with, due to the acts of my g-g-g-g-grandfather. Plus, I have always trusted nuns - sue me.

As far as the new Canadian slabbing company goes, I think it's great that the Cincinnati guys finally found a company they could trust to handle their prized card. I think this goes along with all of their other acts of altruism - how could you not trust two guys who are willing to give a start-up company their first big break?

[howard38]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

First of all, read my posts. I have never taken a postion with regard to this card's authencity. What I have said is the following:

(1) I would like more information with regard to the actual printing characteristics of the card;

(2) That the more actual information one has, the better one's decisions tend to be;

(3) That there have been occasions during my multiple decade involvement with this hobby, probably too numerous to count, where many people have felt they could positively authenticate a card or not, concerning its allegedly original, unaltered condition, based on the appearance of the card to the naked eye, and that they, including myself on several unfortunate occasions, have been wrong (this card hardly stands alone in this regard); and

(4) magnification has been of invaluable assistance to both dealers and collectors alike, as well, I would hope, to graders, in this regard, when it is coupled with a little knowledge.

Now, these truths should be self-evident, rather than a stimulus for vitriol and venom, and I wasn't the one who initiated any posts that were meant or intended to be insulting in the course of this discussion. I'm well aware of the history of this card, and have even read Michael O'Keeffe's discussion of it in his book, "The Card" (highly recommended reading on this as well as other subjects, by the way). To the above 4 points, I would add a 5th:

(5) What did this "newbie" grading service actually do in the way of examining the card to reach the conclusion they did?

I've always wanted to have as much information regarding this cherished hobby as I could lay my hands on, and this occasion is simply no different!

Best regards to all those other dedicated collectors out there, who know we hold the very history of the game itself in our hands as guardians/custodians for future generations,

Larry

You left out the part where you cited racism (prejudice). You ought not be surprised at any reaction when you bring up such a subject.

[steve B]

That was pretty much what I was getting at. Any T206 showing such drastic differences from normal would have to pass some serious examination before it could be accepted as real.

I could see ones with some differences being out there. There's at least one uncataloged major difference, plus what I think is a new major variety that hasn't really caught on. And a huge number of smaller differences.

I've actually read the whole thread a few times, but only commented in detail since Larry seemed to be saying that any opinion without a close examination was biased because of the owners.

Steve B

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve, you might be new to this discussion, but....


Okay, so throw that card away, next thought: there are just not very many t206 Wagners existing. If we were to ever see a 'previously unreleased version' of ANY t206, do you really think it would be drastically different from all other t206's in every respect other than size, and do you really think it would be of a t206 as rare as the Wagner? I doubt the existence of any such card in a Wagner version, so much, that you would have a hard time showing me one with a blue or red background, with his name spelled wrong, with ANYTHING on it that's different fro a 'normal' Wagner, and convincing me that it was legit, MUCH less if you wouldn't even let a respectable grading company look at it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

There's at least one uncataloged major difference, plus what I think is a new major variety that hasn't really caught on. ...
Steve B

Examples please. If you are talking about the oddities that we have known about for decades, I refer you back to the rarity of the Wagner and the infinitesimally small odds of such a thing popping up for that particular card.

Personally, I think it would be hilarious (and sad at the same time), if this idea caught on. Within a couple of years we might see as many (or more) of these 'uncatalogued' versions of the T206 Wagner as we currently have actual examples of the real thing.

At some point, someone will figure out a computerized way of applying ink to cardboard to simulate t206-type lithography; e.g - you insert the card in a 'scanner' of some sort, it is analyzed by a computer and proper ink jets are activated to create an exact dot pattern. Seriously, it will happen.

[barrysloate]

Scott- I went back and saw that you did indeed comment about this on post #34. But that was two weeks ago. My short term memory doesn't go that far back. Too much you know what.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Scott- I went back and saw that you did indeed comment about this on post #34. But that was two weeks ago. My short term memory doesn't go that far back. Too much you know what.

It's okay Barry. I should have just laughed when I initially opened this thread, and moved on.

[steve B]

The known uncataloged variety is Wilson with a yellow or orange sky and a very different red sunset. Fairly major and once you have them both in hand it's easy to see it's not fading or a print problem. Both are common.
The major one was discussed here within the last year or so very sceptically, and has since been graded by PSA. I'm deliberately avoiding that one because it's a bit under the radar and I'm hoping to find one before it gets expensive.

The Wagners I have pictures of show probably 3 distinct very minor differences that I can see from the small pictures I have. I know I'll never own even one, but the differences are there.

Steve B

Originally Posted by Runscott

Examples please. If you are talking about the oddities that we have known about for decades, I refer you back to the rarity of the Wagner and the infinitesimally small odds of such a thing popping up for that particular card.

Personally, I think it would be hilarious (and sad at the same time), if this idea caught on. Within a couple of years we might see as many (or more) of these 'uncatalogued' versions of the T206 Wagner as we currently have actual examples of the real thing.

At some point, someone will figure out a computerized way of applying ink to cardboard to simulate t206-type lithography; e.g - you insert the card in a 'scanner' of some sort, it is analyzed by a computer and proper ink jets are activated to create an exact dot pattern. Seriously, it will happen.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

The known uncataloged variety is Wilson with a yellow or orange sky and a very different red sunset. Fairly major and once you have them both in hand it's easy to see it's not fading or a print problem. Both are common.
The major one was discussed here within the last year or so very sceptically, and has since been graded by PSA. I'm deliberately avoiding that one because it's a bit under the radar and I'm hoping to find one before it gets expensive.

The Wagners I have pictures of show probably 3 distinct very minor differences that I can see from the small pictures I have. I know I'll never own even one, but the differences are there.

Steve B

Steve, you have me a bit baffled. So, in the few photo examples of real t206 Wagners that you have seen, you have spotted at least 3 distinct differences, yet you can't tell the Cincinnati one is a fake?

I'll leave others to discuss this with you, as I have nothing further to add that could help you with this.

[steve B]

Woah! My earlier post listed about 5 things that made me certain it IS a fake!

Maybe the section I had about how those things logically made the chances of it being real in any way incredibly small was confusing?

I do not think it's real.
I will admit a very tiny chance that I'm wrong.
I'm just as positive that If I were holding it that chance would become 0%

Steve B

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve, you have me a bit baffled. So, in the few photo examples of real t206 Wagners that you have seen, you have spotted at least 3 distinct differences, yet you can't tell the Cincinnati one is a fake?

I'll leave others to discuss this with you, as I have nothing further to add that could help you with this.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

The known uncataloged variety is Wilson with a yellow or orange sky and a very different red sunset. Fairly major and once you have them both in hand it's easy to see it's not fading or a print problem. Both are common.

Steve, I've never been quite sure what to make of this particular type of variation - you will find the multi-colored 'indistinct' separation differences in many, many litho cards. Wilson does kind of stand out in that there are two that are fairly distinct, but I have seen a few 'tweeners'. I think it's likely that on this type of 'variety', it's a case of having two areas on the 'red-orange' part of the plate that were easier to separate (not enough ink on one portion) than in most backgrounds like this. So basically, if it wasn't intentional, I don't consider it an uncatalogued 'variety' - it's related to a problem with the printing process and while interesting, not an error or variety.

Obviously, we have seen examples in other cards where the background colors are stunning, whereas other examples of the same card are less exciting. Some of the printers must have realized that even though they had a formulaic approach to producing these, sometimes the colors didn't come out right. If it was obvious, and the run didn't look good, it ended up in the scrap pile. If it looked good, it was probably kept. Obviously, the Wilson cards with various amounts of red below the orange all looked 'right', so no need to scrap.

Certainly the differences between a real card and a reprint are something else altogether. If it was easy (or even possible) to make a 'reprint' that could slip by the eyes of not only the doufusses who played the race card in their article, but ALSO by the eyes of real t206 collectors on this board, we'd have slabbed forgeries all over the place.

Okay, now I really have said all I have to say about this

[steve B]

The Wilson is a real puzzler. There are 2 basic types that seem very different, with lots of variance between them.

Even in the late 1970's Litho ink colors were mixed by hand. So a simple color difference is usually just a matter of who did the mixing that day.

Producing an exact copy fake would be nearly impossible. In theory It could be done, but the expense and technical skills required would be prohibitive.

I have some defenite ideas about some of the small differences, I'd been planning on posting about it anyway.

But in a different thread that doesn't involve reprints

Steve B

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Runscott

At some point, someone will figure out a computerized way of applying ink to cardboard to simulate t206-type lithography; e.g - you insert the card in a 'scanner' of some sort, it is analyzed by a computer and proper ink jets are activated to create an exact dot pattern. Seriously, it will happen.

Actually I agree with that, and have felt that way for years. A year or two ago there was a detailed thread that discussed this very issue. What I have been told by people with expertise in that sort of thing is that at the moment, if it could be done, the cost to duplicate a lithographic card so well such as to pass scrutiny in all respects would at minimum be multiples of 5 figures, very possibly going well into 6 figures. But I fear that day may be coming, or at least a day where only the most sophisticated equipment and testing, coupled with the most sophisticated knowledge, will be able to detect it.

[barrysloate]

Even if the cost went into six figures, a single high grade Wagner would foot the whole bill. Everything after that would be profit. What would happen to the hobby if such a scenario were realized?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Even if the cost went into six figures, a single high grade Wagner would foot the whole bill. Everything after that would be profit. What would happen to the hobby if such a scenario were realized?

Clearly the concern you express is correct, and it is scary. The implication, which we are already starting to see with respect to alterations, is that without provenance, "new find" Wagners may hold little value. For example, cards with a strong pedigree (e.g., Lionel Carter collection) will sell for premiums, which in time may become greater and greater.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Clearly the concern you express is correct, and it is scary. The implication, which we are already starting to see with respect to alterations, is that without provenance, "new find" Wagners may hold little value. For example, cards with a strong pedigree (e.g., Lionel Carter collection) will sell for premiums, which in time may become greater and greater.

The price could go down just by printing entire sheets

Since legit graders like SGC can spot trims, they should be able to spot the sheet cuts in the future - PSA could also, but would they? (shut up Scott). Also, in the far future the paper fiber may still be very difficult to 'disguise' as old. I don't know about dating ink.

One thing forgers have going for them is that no one's going to want to give up ink or fiber samples for testing.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[drc]

I don't believe that. Modern printing definitely does make a better and better representation of a T206 at the eye level, but more and more different at the microscopic level. Under the microscope, a laser printer looks nothing like 1909 lithography, and it is at the microscopic level that you identify and date the printing.

Now the way one could fool would be to make a fantasy item (totally made up, not a copy) using the old lithography techniques. In art schools, you can learn how to make stone lithographs. This is where provenance would be important.

[steve B]

The thing is that the technology to detect it is already getting cheaper.

On TV I saw a show by the twins from antiques roadshow. One item they needed to know if it was ancient chineese bronze or new stuff. So they got out the portable spectrograph! Results in about as much time as it takes to scan a card and no tiny sample to destroy.

A friend of mine worked building spectrographs years ago, and I knew they were expensive. So I did some looking, and a setup like they used on TV was only $30,000 instead of the mid 6 figure and up prices I recall.

If a high grade Wagner was found having the spectrograph results would be cheap considering the price.

Steve B