Ted,
First, to identify myself, benjulmag is your buddy Corey. I'm still adjusting to this new forum which doesn't have a separate place to post your name (Leon, are you listening?
)
Second, I hear what you're saying and, as is always the case with your points, there is much merit to them. I'm just still having issues with Piedmont Wagners and Piedmont Planks. To my knowledge, none are known with original factory cuts. I recognize I'm in the extreme minority with what I'm about to say, but I for one cannot entirely discount what Bill Heitman said on this board some time ago--that in the early 1950's professional printers who had access to original t206 plates made repro cards, including Wagner. Was Heitman hallucinating when he said that? Perhaps. But what if he wasn't? It seems to me that IF someone were to do that, and did so with the intent not to deceive, he/she would intentionally use a different back than the cards were known to be issued in. I for one when I look at the Conlon Piedmont Plank just sold by REA, or the Gretzky Wagner, can't help but notice that they look different (sharper/more colorful) than the Sweet Caporal Planks/Wagners. Yes, that could be because different factories had different printing methodolgies. But maybe it goes beyond that.
But putting that aside, what Barry says is dead on correct. IMO the OVERWHELMING sentiment is that neither the Gretzky Wagner nor the Conlon Plank was issued in a cigarette pack, but were instead cut from a sheet. REGARDLESS what might or might not have been done to the Wagner after that point, the fact that they were cut from a sheet means that both should be graded the SAME way, either both 8's or both A's. I simply don't see how that point can be reasonably disputed. The fact that one is an 8 (and therefore has a purported market value substantially more than the next highest example) while the other is an A (with a market value substantially less than the highest known example) makes no sense and is as good an example as any of how form rules over substance. To go further, does anybody really think that if the Gretzky Wagner was submitted today to PSA (in the same manner as REA recently submitted to them the Conlon Plank), the card would come back anything other than an "A"? Yet because the submission was done years ago at the time of PSA's founding, somehow that 8 has become etched in stone, regardless of the blatant inconsistencies/contradictions that creates.
One of the items in my collection is a final-production-run E93 sheet. The Cobb is in the middle of sheet and (to the naked eye at least) is perfect front and back. Yet if I were to have that card professionally cut with perfect centering/dimensions, it would grade an "A". How can that be while at the same time the most valuable/publicized card in our hobby grades an 8?