The Cincinnati Wagner "Graded"

[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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 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.

??? That's what we were talking about (duplicating the litho process).

Hey, it's only 1:15!!! coffee?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by drc

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.

David,

Glad to see your post. As I recall you were the source of most of the expert information in the earlier thread. Do you think it would ever be possible to so well create a new card that it could pass forensic dating?

[barrysloate]

Given the technology we have today, with smart phones, I Pads, satellites headed deep into outer space...you're telling me it would be impossible to reproduce a T206? I can't imagine that couldn't be tackled even today. It's just paper and ink.

[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

[ls7plus]

Thanks, Steve--very interesting!

Best always,

Larry

[joeadcock]

Barry

I would guess the 2 owners of the card will wait awhile(?who knows how long), and this story will die down.

Then the Wager ACA card will likely pop up on ebay for a very large amt of money as a BUY IT NOW. If no takers, they may auction it off as a legitimately graded card. Legitimate that is to ACA. And no doubt someone will pay hundreds to perhaps thousand(s) for it(though none of the board members)

This card on ebay will fuel hope in someone that they may actually have a Wagner for a lot less money than they could every afford. That person will have bought a fake.

When (not if) this happens, I doubt the owners would fade. They may try it again(since it worked the first time), with another card of value(i.e. Plank T206, or Lajoie Goudey). Probably use ACA again if it is still around and if the Wagner does not expose them by that time. This time, they will likely do it privately(without much fanfare)