NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-21-2016, 06:45 PM
xplainer's Avatar
xplainer xplainer is offline
Jimmy Knowle$
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 1,000
Default T206 Wagner vs. Cobb/Cobb

Got this through email from PSA today.
Interesting commentary.
Thought I'd share, if you haven't read it.
http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...OTQzMTA5NDk1S0
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-21-2016, 07:37 PM
nsaddict's Avatar
nsaddict nsaddict is offline
Richard L.
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 337
Default

Interesting indeed, but Joe forgot to mention the Wagner has been graded higher than the Cobb
__________________
Rich@rd Lap@int
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-21-2016, 08:20 PM
xplainer's Avatar
xplainer xplainer is offline
Jimmy Knowle$
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 1,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsaddict View Post
Interesting indeed, but Joe forgot to mention the Wagner has been graded higher than the Cobb
And, reportedly, was trimmed ...and they knew it. 0000001.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:17 AM
BBB BBB is offline
B
Bryan Bossa.rd
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: California
Posts: 164
Default

The Cobb is the more risky but has a higher ceiling on return potential. The Wagner has history behind if ....safer bet, lower return potential


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-24-2016, 12:09 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 25,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB View Post
The Cobb is the more risky but has a higher ceiling on return potential. The Wagner has history behind if ....safer bet, lower return potential


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeap. Cobb/Cobb hasn't been in the stratosphere very long. Wags has...
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 06-24-2016 at 12:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-24-2016, 03:02 PM
darwinbulldog's Avatar
darwinbulldog darwinbulldog is offline
Glenn
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,651
Default

1. 60-75 is not "truly scarce." Scarce does not mean expensive, and money aside, the Wagner is a pretty easy card to find. The Tinker and Doyle variations are truly scarce.

2. "While those differences are real, in my opinion, they don't disconnect the card from the set." Yes they are real, but that isn't a matter of opinion, and they clearly disconnect the card from the set. Would he be making the same argument if it was die-cut instead of glossy? What if Cobb's name was printed in red? Allowing one card to be so distinctly different and still say it was intended to be part of the same set because the guy on the card was famous is a pretty weak argument. Burdick is the only reason to call it a T206, which is to say it's T206 by definition or by fiat but not by any other criterion we would apply if a new alleged T206 subject suddenly turned up.

3. In retrospect, yes, Cobb was the marquee player of 1909-1911, but as Wagner had been the marquee player of 1905-1908 he would be more likely to be chosen as the special player who gets a glossy coat in 1909 or 1910; this of course should be moot because of point 2.

4. "Would anyone in their right mind say that the 1933 Goudey Napoleon Lajoie shouldn't be part of that set because of the different way you had to obtain it? Of course not." Try it this way instead. "Would anyone in their [sic] right mind say that a card produced in 1934 must be regarded as part of a 1933 set? Of course not."
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More fake T206's?? Wagner, Cobb with Cobb back Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 13 09-30-2004 02:44 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.


ebay GSB