did the t206 strip sell? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

05-20-2007, 10:19 AM

Posted By: JimBIt states on the site that it did not meet the seller's confidential reserve. Being that it never sold for over 90k before and that it was close to 300k with the juice this time and still did not meet the reserve, I am thinking the seller either did not really want to sell it, was being a bit greedy, or was just convinced by the hype in his head. JimB

Archive

05-20-2007, 10:52 AM

Posted By: boxingcardmanDid he sell it before or is he still the owner?

Archive

05-20-2007, 11:07 AM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedI think I was the 1st one to have said it....and, at the risk of being a kiljoy....these 5 cards are not a regular production "continuous" strip. Enlargen the scan and you will observe that these are five individual proofs that have been very carefully pasted together on a blank-back strip of cardboard. Nevertheless, it certainly is a neat item....but, if I owned it, since these are individual cards, I would separate them and either keep them or sell them individually. They are worth more as individual cards. Conversely, if this was an authentic (original production) uncut piece....it would be the "real gem" of the hobby.

Archive

05-20-2007, 11:12 AM

Posted By: AaronTed, Curious if you also think that each card has a blank back pasted to the blank back cardboard?

Archive

05-20-2007, 11:13 AM

Posted By: MVSNYCTed- i previously also said that i think it would be worth more seperated...a wagner proof on its own? that would be worth a fortune.

Archive

05-20-2007, 12:12 PM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedThe Wagner card, paradoxically, has its full coloring......while the Brown, Bowerman, and Kling are missing blue ink on their collars. And, CYoung's uniform is missing several colors. Red "B" is missing on Bowerman. It's really strange....Wagner is a complete card....the other four are the "proof" cards.

Archive

05-20-2007, 12:14 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI don't know the financial relevance of the high losing bid on a reserve auction and I don't know where the owner purchased the card. However, this price is about 2x the highest previous auction price. I've always thought the piece was undervalued, so am of the opinion that this high bid and reserve are fair valuations. If Ted is correct, I don't think that ruins the value. After all, what would the single proofs sell for after being slabbed by SGC and PSA? What would a Cy Young proof alone sell for? I bet the PSA graded Wagner alone would sell for significantly more than the strip ever has. There can be complications if things are stuck together, but a strip or sheet or group of cards shouldn't be valued less than the most expensive single card.

Archive

05-20-2007, 12:38 PM

Posted By: mr. mosesI could have seen the strip close up when I had the chance. Pretty sure I was at that auction. Steve won the card @ around 80,000.00 including buyer's penalty. After congratulating him I told him he should never sell it for less than 1/2 million dollars. No joke! Hearing that the strip is reconstructed alters that view for me a good deal and now I think I know why it sold for under 100,000. in the first place. 1/4 million seems pretty sweet but then again that's only as much as 4 or 5 four base hits cards <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Just to note that "proofs" can occur at many points in the printing and manufacturing process and for more than one purpose. There are different stages of the color aplication process, allignment issues, samples for printer, etc.. Unless they were mock-ups they couldn't be attached AND be in different stages of inking....JMO.

Archive

05-20-2007, 02:50 PM

Posted By: barrysloate5 Four Base Hits Cards...that's twenty total bases! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-20-2007, 03:09 PM

Posted By: Rich KleinFrom a note in the official Press Release about the conclusion of this auction: Two Honus Wagner items of note: his home in Carnegie, PA went unsold, and the 5-card strip which included his T-206 card failed to meet the seller’s reserve. Regards Rich

Archive

05-20-2007, 03:47 PM

Posted By: barrysloateIt is kind of unusual that Leland's accepted the strip under the condition of so high a reserve. There were bidders willing to pay multiples of the highest price it had ever sold for, and if that final bid was not sufficient the owner should just have kept it. I know having a high profile item is good publicity for the auction house, but when your feature lot doesn't sell some of the luster of that publicity is lost.

Archive

05-20-2007, 03:55 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackDon't know about the neighborhood, but the min bid seemed like a good price for the house whether or not Wagner lived in it. Of course, if an off auction deal was ever to be made, it would be made on a house.

Archive

05-20-2007, 04:24 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI liked the lot with Wagner's stained glass windows. I actually thought about that one.

Archive

05-20-2007, 09:02 PM

Posted By: DylanWhether the strip was reconstructed or not i cannot say, but its too bad the Wagner wasn't placed one spot over so it could be in the condition of the Bowerman. Besides the Kling, the Wagner card is in the worst shape out of them all. Imagine even if it was in "good" condition!

Archive

05-21-2007, 05:20 AM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusAt this point I'm not sure anybody can say how high the bidding actually went. As I understand the law in New York State, an auction house may place ficticious bids up to the item's reserve. This actually is quite a common and accepted practice (though in my view repugnant because its sole purpose is to mislead perspective bidders into believing that there is an actual bidder at those ficticious bids) among the major auction houses (e.g., Sothebys, Christies). So with that said, unless we know for a fact that the last bid was not a ficticious house bid (which I'm not saying was but legally could have been), we wouldn't really know how high a real bidder would be willing to pay for the item. And even if that last bid was from a real bidder, in the event he/she was bid up to that point through ficticious house bids, the market around that final bid could conceivably be so thin as to be only one person.

Archive

05-21-2007, 06:56 AM

Posted By: PeckCorey . . Your thoughts about the true value of the strip are correct. Unless we hear from some actual bidders with their bid levels the final auction price means nothing. It is standard practice for the auction house to bid the reserve to protect the seller. A reserve auction only takes one bidder to reach the reserve or sale price. Another bidder that may factor in getting close to the reserve price is "friend of the reserve". The owner of the item with a reserve knows how far a bidder can go without winning the item. The auction house would have no part in this. With this said, it is possible to reach a price just below a reserve without a single real bidder. Again, the auction house would be completely legal and honest on their part. It's my guess that owners of items get caught trying to bid their reserve at times because auction houses will hammer an item sold below the set reserve. The strip for example. If the reserve was set at $275,000, it could have been hammered at the $252,723.54 because the juice carried it to $296,950.16 and that doesn't include profit from seller fees. A sale and a profit for the auction house and consigner. They would pay the consigner based on the $275,000 reserve price. It's 99% certain to me that the last advance on the strip was the auction house bidding the reserve. If it were a real bidder then the house would have to come back again to protect the reserve. Did anyone place a bid on this strip? Can the auction house clarify why the "$50,000 Reserve" was used in the description in place of "Opening Bid"? Leon . . I am: Clarence T. (Peck) Dean III

Archive

05-21-2007, 08:28 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI think their use of the term "$50K reserve" was a misnomer. Once it was stated there was a hidden reserve higher than that number, all the 50K meant was "opening bid." I think we are making too much of that number. The only ones that really matter are the last bid, and to an almost equal extent, the one directly before it. This is an example of why bidders should set a ceiling and work toward that goal- and then stop and say "I'm done." Once you start using the previous bid as a guide, especially on a lot where there is a stated reserve, you can never be sure if there is someone else who values the lot as high as you, or you are bidding against the book. What Leland's did is legal by auction law, just not something that bidders favor. But they could not have gotten the strip without entering an agreement with the seller, and I presume they weighed the pros and cons and decided it was worth taking it.

Archive

05-22-2007, 09:54 PM

Posted By: Solomon CramerThe Wagner strip was bought out of Halper/Sotheby's by Steve Verkman somewhere in the low $80s. I bought it out of his subsequent auction for about $91k. I gave it away in a promotion on Shop @ Home in 2000 or 2001 I believe, over the XMas season. I may still have some of the promo pieces we used, I think the drawing was the end of January or February 1. If I remember correctly, some woman in the south won it. It was then consigned (though I have no idea if it exchanged hands in between) to Mastro, which sold it for about $70-80k if I remember - I know the buyer, was actually talking to him when he bought it, so can confirm it definately sold there. Whether it's changed hands since that night, I can't say, but I doubt it. I do remember noting that Verkman's auction brough the most of the three sales (in other words, I was the king sucker!) I took it out of the holder, and looked at it pretty closely. I wasn't looking for anything out of the ordinary, but I certainly didn't have any questions about it being pasted together at the time.

Archive

05-22-2007, 11:22 PM

Posted By: WesleyThat makes it three prior owners that I know of who looked at the strip up close and did not think the strip consisted of cards pasted together. Ted, Have you ever held the strip up close to inspect it?

Archive

05-23-2007, 06:08 AM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedI have not examined this strip in person. I have enlargened a picture of it and examined closely. That said, I don't think that most will disagree with my contention that this strip is NOT the result of a standard T206 production piece......for the following reasons: (1)....The Wagner is in full color, while the other 4 cards are not (a printing impossibility on such an intact 5-card strip) (2)....There is a "gloss-like" appearance to the Wagner, that is not evident on the normal production Wagner cards (and yes, I have seen several Wagner cards in person). (3)....T206's are "WHITE BORDER" cards, why are the borders of the 5 cards on this strip "tan-like" in color ? This really raises the question when was this strip actually printed. Recall, the T207 cards have very similar "tan-like" colored borders.

Archive

05-23-2007, 06:15 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI agree completely with Ted that the Wagner that is on the strip looks different than a regular issue Wagner. There is some kind of surface sheen or higher resolution that distinguishes it. And while I saw it in person several times in the 90's I have no recollection of the cards being detached, but they might be.

Archive

05-23-2007, 07:29 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldThis strip reminds me of that phony Goudey calendar card from a few months ago.... For anyone who even remotely thinks the strip is real, look at it again. Click it up in the auction site. Now open another window beside it and go to eBay, or somewhere that has real cards. Forget about the colors that are missing, (Bowerman's red B, Young's gray jersey).... Look at the buttons on Bowerman and Brown on their real cards. The buttons are white. Same as the border. American Litho wasn't using white ink, that is a lack of ink that shows white. And that is the color those borders should be. If the buttons on that strip are white, so should the borders, too. But they're not. At the beginning I said I'd not pay $5 for that Goudey thing. I would pay $5 for this strip, not because it is authentic, but because it is kinda neat looking. But it isn't from 1909. Folks look at it and get excited and want it to be real... but it isn't.

Archive

05-23-2007, 08:33 AM

Posted By: JimBVery interesting. I greatly appreciate Ted and Frank's astute observations. They raise some very serious questions. The academic in me however wants to examine every possibility and be as thorough as possible before making a "definative" determination. The lack of red and blue on the Bowerman card, etc when it is present on others leads one to think that this would be impossible for a legitimate five card strip. But isn't it possible that since this is presumably a proof that such changes were ultimately made to the Bowerman and Young by the time they got to the the regular press run? I'll admit that the Wagner does seem to have a particularly sharp resolution, but I think it could just be an example with particularly good focus. As for gloss, that could only be determined in person. The tan borders are definately strange in comparison with regular production T206s, but again, this was presumably a proof run. The issue that bothers me the most is the one Frank raises about the color variation between the borders and the "white" areas inside the borders. That one is particularly tough to explain away. I am not trying to debunk these theories. I think both Ted and Frank have made very sharp observations. I would be curious to know what others think about these potential replies. Before the community writes off a card like this, I think we should be as thorough as possible. Carbon dating would be nice. JimB

Archive

05-23-2007, 08:51 AM

Posted By: MVSNYCi agree with everything Jim is saying here...i saw the strip in person at the Halper Sale, i don't think anyone was questioning it's authenticity back then, everyone was just blown away by its existence... Jim has pointed out correctly that this is a proof (or supposed to be), so it makes sense and is understandable that a few of the players uniforms might look different then their final production cards, because it is after all, a proof or prototype... it is interesting that the borders are off white, maybe this was a test or an experiment. looks like at the point of the cross-hatches, it is worn down to the original white borders or white card stock (Joe D jump in please, sir). it is also interesting to note that the "seperation" lines that Ted speaks of, has some creasing/wrinkling at that line, maybe it was slightly scored? well, not sure about any of this i guess, i just imagine that such a high-profile Halper piece would be authentic, or at least i would hope so...

Archive

05-23-2007, 08:59 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI believe the piece is period, but it is still a few steps away from a finished T206. It's certainly a prototype of some kind, based on the different paper stock used and the different appearance of the five cards in question. It might have been one of the earliest runs off the press. For Ted and others, were the four cards other than Wagner known only in a very early series?

Archive

05-23-2007, 09:03 AM

Posted By: MVSNYC<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1179846216.JPG">

Archive

05-23-2007, 09:06 AM

Posted By: WesleyThose are very interesting observations. The Lelands link above has a very detailed scan of the strip so everyone can go on there to see if they see the same things Ted and Frank see. I cannot tell from the scan whether Wagner has gloss while the other four players on the strip do not have gloss. Particularlly interesting is the observation thatthe other four cards are not full color while the Wagner appears to be. Until Frank pointed it out, I have never noticed that Bowerman and Brown have buttons that are missing colors that are there on the regular card. Can we really compare this card to the fake Goudey Ruth calendar that was the topic of discussion here a few weeks ago? That card appeared to be a modern day creation. Is Ted and Frank saying that the strip is as well and no part of the strip is real? Or are they saying that real cards were pasted onto a blank blank and cross hatches and brown toning were added afterwards?

Archive

05-23-2007, 09:07 AM

Posted By: JimBFor Ted and others, were the four cards other than Wagner known only in a very early series? Great question Barry.

Archive

05-23-2007, 09:09 AM

Posted By: JimBOne other thought: Regular T206s are not printed on white cardboard. There is a white base that is printed first on the whole card, right? If that is the case, I can imagine that in an early proof run they may have tried or considered only putting the white base on the inside-the-border portion. This would explain Frank's qualms. JimB P.S. I am not trying to be an apologist, just trying to think through all possibilities.

Archive

05-23-2007, 09:21 AM

Posted By: PeckM Brown . . 150 only Bowerman . . 150/350 Young . . . 150/350 Kling . . . 150/350

Archive

05-23-2007, 09:37 AM

Posted By: barrysloateAccording to legend, it was Wagner's granddaughter who brought this strip to light, and claimed that her grandfather had it for a very long time. My take is this was a very early test run given to Wagner for his approval, and for whatever reason, which we can debate forever, he decided not to allow his card to be distributed. Again, I believe it is period.

Archive

05-23-2007, 09:51 AM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsThe Mordecai Brown Portrait is also found in the 150 AND 350 Series. It is the Brown Pitching Cubs on Chest that is the Mordecai card ONLY found in the 150 Series. So, the Wagner is the only card on the strip that is ONLY found in the 150 Series.

Archive

05-23-2007, 10:18 AM

Posted By: JimBHad Wagner agreed, his card would probably have been included in the 350 series too. JimB

Archive

05-23-2007, 11:47 AM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedThe Wagner card is indeed a "misfit" on this "strip". It is a 150-only card and I would be more confident in this strip's legitimacy, if it's companion cards were any of the following T206's. <img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/ab150only12.jpg"> Frank makes a great point; and, my concerns regarding the "glossiness" (or better described by Barry, as a "sheen") to the Wagner....and the light brown borders (instead of T206 "white") really raises questions that astute hobbyist's should have raised years ago when this item first came out of the woodwork.

Archive

05-23-2007, 12:10 PM

Posted By: JimBTed, Why would the Wagner have to be only with other 150 only cards. It seems to me that as long as the others were also in the 150 series, it is fine in that respect. If the other cards were 460 only, then there would be a serious problem. But the fact that the other 150s on the sheet happened to be reissued in the 350 series does not seem problematic. We presumably know why Wagner was not issued in the 350 series. JimB P.S. Why do you include Plank in your list, since Plank was also issued in the 350 series? Or am I misreading your list of cards here? edited for grammar and clarity. Edited to add: All 150/350s started as 150 only's.

Archive

05-23-2007, 12:15 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackProofs are test prints, typically with different graphics than the final product and often on different stock. It is known that the American Tobacco Company sent single cards to players trying to get their rights, as the letters with cards (single card not strip) have been auctioned. The story that they sent a card, or something, to Wagner to get his approval is not strange. Jim is correct the at the original unprinted sheets of cardboard were front coated in white (this was done by the cardboard manufacturers not the printers). This was because the printers had no white ink, and white on a T206 is lack of ink. Almost no printer has white ink, not even your computer printer. That cards here are white in the picture and tan borders is unusual. If it's theorized these cards were singles put together, it's also plausible that the strip was scored to show to Wagner what the individual cards would look like. Beyond the theory that these are pieced together singles, I don't see anything that suggest to me that the cards are fake. They are different in ways than final cards, but proofs are often different.

Archive

05-23-2007, 01:20 PM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedMy feeling is that the 150-only cards are very unique in the T206 issue. In all likelihood, these 12 (or so) cards were the very 1st cards printed when T206 production was started up in 1909. Therefore, Mr. Wagner would have been on a strip (or panel) adjoined with some of these other 11 cards that I have displayed here (that is if this 5-card strip was an actual production, or even prototype piece). Others may disagree with my opinion, and that's certainly fine. But, they qualify their differing opinion by simply passing it off as "proof strip". But, as one who was in Research and Development, I have a pretty darn good in- sight into what it takes to put something into production. So, whether it be an electronics system or just printing a sheet of BB cards, I do not see this strip as an original prototype (it does not fit the "template"). And Jim, regarding Plank....if you recall, some months ago I theorized that the discontinuance of the T206 Plank card was possibly the result of the American Caramel Company's "exclusive right" to portray Eddie Plank; and, most of Connie Mack's Phila. A's players (ca. 1908-09). In the 1st Series of T206's, Plank and Wagner are only found with Piedmont 150 or Sweet Cap 150 Fac. 25 backs, and that's proof enough for me that they were both printed on the same sheets. Subsequently, Plank was printed (in very limited quantities) with a Sweet Cap 350 Fac. 30 back. And, as was discussed in the aforementioned Plank thread, was possibly met again with legal contention by Am. Caramel Co. Finally, I am not suggesting that this strip is a "phony"....it just isn't an original 1909 prototype, typical of the original T206 white border cards

Archive

05-23-2007, 02:22 PM

Posted By: JoeIt goes without saying that the corollary to the posts which point out "problems" with the strip is that the story of it being found amongst Wagner's effects is bunk. In fact, I'd say that most players in this game consider that story to be crap BECAUSE IF IT WERE TRUE (OR GENERALLY BELIEVED TO TRUE) THE CARD IS MONUMENTALLY UNDERVALUED.

Archive

05-23-2007, 02:25 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaDavid, I have seen the letter sent to Neal Ball, but I have never seen any others. What are the other letters that have been found regarding participation in the T206 set?

Archive

05-23-2007, 03:19 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackMaybe I just saw the Neal Ball twice.

Archive

05-23-2007, 03:34 PM

Posted By: scgaynorI didn't read the entire thread above but did want to mention a couple of things. I have not seen the piece in person, but Josh tells me that it is one continuous strip and not several cards pieced together. I don't know what the reserve was, or how close it got to the reserve, but even though Verkman bought the piece for $80,000, it has traded hands privately for more at least twice in the last couple of years. I think that this card suffers from the fact that it is unique. If there were several around, it would proabably sell for more money. The reason that the auction had "reserve $50,000" is because "reserve" is the defaut phrase in the Lelands internal system. When entering an item into Lelands system, it is sort of like putting an item on ebay. There is a template with areas like "Title", "Description" and "Reserve". When the item goes live, the system uses those defaut terms. It was obviously not meant to deceive as there was full disclosure in the description about the consignors hidden reserve. Let me know about any other questions and I will see if I can get them answered. Scott

Archive

05-23-2007, 03:43 PM

Posted By: joe brennanMaybe the Sweet 350 back Plank was printed in the 50's. In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

Archive

05-23-2007, 04:13 PM

Posted By: JimBTed said, "My feeling is that the 150-only cards are very unique in the T206 issue. In all likelihood, these 12 (or so) cards were the very 1st cards printed when T206 production was started up in 1909. Therefore, Mr. Wagner would have been on a strip (or panel) adjoined with some of these other 11 cards that I have displayed here (that is if this 5-card strip was an actual production, or even prototype piece)." Ted, I don't think there is any compelling evidence to support your feeling. It is just as likely that those were simply the 12 that were discontinued in the second run (350 series) for some currently unknown reason, such as potentially needing to drop 12 due to space limitations on the sheets of the 350 series. Ted said, "And Jim, regarding Plank....if you recall, some months ago I theorized that the discontinuance of the T206 Plank card was possibly the result of the American Caramel Company's "exclusive right" to portray Eddie Plank; and, most of Connie Mack's Phila. A's players (ca. 1908-09)." I don't want to debate the appearance of the Plank in the 350 series again. It is really peripheral to the discussion at hand anyway. "In the 1st Series of T206's, Plank and Wagner are only found with Piedmont 150 or Sweet Cap 150 Fac. 25 backs, and that's proof enough for me that they were both printed on the same sheets. " No argument here. I am not convinced, but I see no compelling reason to presume otherwise. I would even say it is likely the case given the similar quanties of each, etc. Interesting discussion. JimB Edited to spell peripheral correctly per Barry's correction. Thanks Barry. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Spelling has never been my thing.

Archive

05-23-2007, 04:27 PM

Posted By: barrysloate"Peripheral", professor! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-23-2007, 04:48 PM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsJust like I have argued for years about the Piedmont 150 Wagners being printed at a later date. Also, Mr. Bill Heitman even came on this website and told about Goudey and Bowman printers printing cards like the Plank and Wagner with "different" backs. OR, backs they were NOT found with! I also remember seeing a 1933 Goudey - the same number as Lajoie, with another player on the front in a Mastro auction a few years ago (I will have to look for that catalog when I get time). Anyway, I feel that was printed later on as well - probably by one of the Goudey or Bowman guys to "fill the Lajoie hole" in their 1933 Goudey set. Again, I know people have doubted what I have said about the Piedmont Wagners NOT being period for years. However, I will state this with confidence - NOBODY ON THIS BOARD HAS HANDLED MORE RAW T206'S AND DONE MORE RESEARCH ON THE SET THAN MR. HEITMAN - NOBODY! If you still want more proof, just get an enlarged scan of the PSA 8 Wagner and compare it to some nice 1's or 2's of Wagner with a Sweet Caporal Fact. 25 back - compare the fronts. THEY ARE DIFFERENT - I HAVE DONE THIS - I KNOW (I even remember speaking with Brian Weisner about the differences of the fronts a few years back)!

Archive

05-23-2007, 04:56 PM

Posted By: barrysloateScott -when do you think the Piedmont Wagners were made, and what do you base it on?

Archive

05-23-2007, 07:58 PM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsI base it on the fact that I ran across some around a dozen or so years ago - looked VERY REAL, but the person who had them was honest and had had the cards since the 1950's and told me they were reprints!

Archive

05-23-2007, 08:02 PM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsBill Heitman stated the SAME THING on here several weeks ago. Needless to say, Bill has handled more raw T206's than you and I put together and has been around the Hobby long enough to know of these reprints that look real with different backs!

Archive

05-23-2007, 08:16 PM

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H.)Am I imagining things (or confusing them) ....but wasn't there some other stip or something that included an Eddie Collins T206 that was never really issued where he is shown batting?

Archive

05-23-2007, 08:41 PM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsStory goes that Rob Lifson bought it from the find. Bill Mastro realized it was a card that was never issued and got it from Lifson cheap. Then, I believe Lifson finally obtained it back and the rest is history. Maybe Mr. Lifson could chime in with the facts on this one?

Archive

05-23-2007, 08:42 PM

Posted By: Scott Elkinssimply e-mail me at tycobb@adelphia.net or joejackson1919@comcast.net. Edited to add the scans are too large to post here - sorry! Cut the scan down in order to fit it on here. Mastro even states in the description that this one came from a Goudey employee - probably making a joke card to fill in for the missing #106 (which would later be printed in 1934 as Lajoie). Notice there is no "Bleed Through" on the back like a lot of REAL 33 Goudeys have. Also, Mastro goes on to state this is probably some "Proof". It seems they call a lot of cards "Proofs" that don't look like they should - a PRIME example is how Mastro referred to the T206 Ty Cobb with Ty Cobb back that is graded "Authentic" as a proof, and it is definitely handcut and looks VERY DIFFERENT from a REAL T206 Ty Cobb with Ty Cobb back! As well as all the Piedmont Wagners appearing handcut - Mastro's explanation - they were cut from a sheet by one of the printers! <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1179894022.JPG">

Archive

05-24-2007, 07:12 AM

Posted By: T206Collector"It is just as likely that those were simply the 12 that were discontinued in the second run (350 series) for some currently unknown reason, such as potentially needing to drop 12 due to space limitations on the sheets of the 350 series." ...or Mr. Powers' death on Opening Day 1909.

Archive

05-24-2007, 10:23 AM

Posted By: boxingcardmanToday they'd probably cut up a funeral program and include it in a numbered edition card. I hate shiney crap...

Archive

05-24-2007, 10:38 AM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusHow are the fronts of the Piedmont Wagners different than the fronts on Sweet Caporal Wagners? Also, do you have any opinion whether the Piedmont Wagners were made from period plates or plates made at a later date?

Archive

05-24-2007, 10:54 AM

Posted By: T206Collector"That would be a good explanation for one of them" Actually, I think since one of them has a very simple explanation for why it was discontinued after 1909, there probably are other simple explanations for why the others were discontinued -- none of which point to these cards being printed first, or differently, from 150/350 subjects cards.

Archive

05-24-2007, 12:27 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCwagner- we know why plank- we know (sort of) powers- we know donlin- sat out 1910 to act? and then all of the Cubs players: didn't the CUBS change their uniforms? Ted, Scot, Brian?

Archive

05-24-2007, 01:37 PM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedPLANK....we don't really know....I offered a theory in a Thread I posted several months ago; and, other than Frank Wakefield....it wasn't received too well by the others. Despite the fact that I did some in-depth research at the Philadelphia library to add credence to my theory. POWERS....Yes, he died, so they stopped printing him. But, not before they also printed him with a tough Sweet Cap 150 Fac. 649. DONLIN....his new bride got him interested in acting so he dropped out of BB to go into vaudville. CUBS players....yes. the uniforms were changed to Chicago and these guys and other Cubbies were not printed as "350's". Although, some Cubs players exist with Piedmont & Sweet Cap 150/350 cards, they are 150-ONLY with the Sovereign brand (if you are interested....I'll provide a list of them). TED Z

Archive

05-24-2007, 02:36 PM

Posted By: MVSNYC<<<"POWERS....Yes, he died, so they stopped printing him. But, not before they also printed him with a tough Sweet Cap 150 Fac. 649.">>> Ted- i just acquired a PSA 6 Powers, i think it might actually have the SC 649 overprint back...i'll check and let you know...

Archive

05-24-2007, 07:35 PM

Posted By: Scott ElkinsOn that one - I simply stated my opinion - I have no evidence to support the card I referred to as not being real. Again, I was simply going by the card looking different from the others - not having the glossy front as the others do mainly.

Archive

05-24-2007, 09:53 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCted- my psa 6 powers IS a factory 649 overprint back!

Archive

05-25-2007, 12:34 AM

Posted By: Kevin SaucierI'm siding with Ted on this one. Looks mighty suspicious and odd. The cardboard backing only adds to the potential problem. It would take about 10 minutes with simple loupe and a halogen to know for sure. There are specific things to look for when examining potentially pasted cards. I'm always leery of anything that's a one-of-kind & hand cut. I'd also like to see just one hand-cut Pirate back T215...that should take less than 5 minutes to identify one way or the other. Kevin Saucier

Archive

05-25-2007, 07:08 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldKling didn't play with the Cubs in 1909. He was a holdout. After the 1908 season, that winter, he won the world pocket billiard championship. He did not retain his title at the end of the year, and rejoined the Cubs for 1910. So I can see how Kling was initially put in the cards because of the Cubs and what all happened in 1908... then when he's not playing as 1909 winds along they pull his card, an don't ever give him a second card (most Cubs stars have multiple cards, M Brown 3, Chance 3, Evers 3, Overall 3, Pfeister 2, Reulbach 2, Schulte 2, Sheckard 2, Steinfeldt 2, and Tinker 4). Yet it has always seemed to me that his card is seen a bit less often than other Cubs. That might be because some folks just want one each of the main Cubs, so the demand for Evers is spread out among his various cards, but for Kling the demand all focuses on his one card. Or it could be because American Litho pulled his card a bit early in the printing process... or both.