BRB.....gonna go check my safety deposit box for cards I left there when I was ....... 14?

There is a little dark spot in the background to the right of his head, closer to border and about the same level as his hair's highest spot, that appears on both card images. Definitely points to it being a good possibility that this is same card as the PSA8.

Brian

Ha

+1

I was at a PSA registry luncheon at the National around the time that Mastro was on trial. David Hall spoke and said that he viewed the Gretzky Wagner under magnification and that in his opinion it was not trimmed.

Well it sure sounded good, to him, as he was posting it. There ya go again wrecking things for these good folks. Everything with you is about facts and truth. You are so unreasonable.

A "new to the hobby" Wagner T206 graded 5 by
SGC....

And everyone is all in a wad because they think it's over-graded, that is, the card's numerical grade is higher than it should be.

I think the number may be high, I'm not particularly torn up about that. It's like the slab heads telling slab haters to buy the card, not the slab... while they're continuing to buy the number. But THAT isn't what I deem noteworthy. What IS NOTEWORTHY is that out from someone's collection we, the "hobby," have a previously unknown "to the hobby" T206 Wagner to contemplate. Do I remember saying, in one or two Net54 threads, that there are other T206 Wagner's in the hands of collectors who haven't bothered to get theirs graded, or who don't care about grading. And I suggest that you "hobby" folks consider that there are more out there. THAT is the news.

Congrats to the owner of that SGC 5 card. I'm not a hater because of that numerical grade.

As for me, I've just about outgrown breaking out graded cards. it annoys me to leave the little cards in that plastic, I don't like collecting the slabs, but I'm now more willing to leave them graded.

This card is also factually not new to the hobby at all. It was slabbed years ago which is why we have links to a previous thread about this card. It’s just getting hyped again as an advertisement for Goldin’s show. It is not a new discovery.

I can’t wait to see what other demonstrably false things will continue to be posted ad nauseum until the thread dies, so we can move on to a series of repeated falsehoods in a new thread about something else.

I mean hell, if it was in John Wagner's collection then it has been a known example for decades. A card isn't only "known" after it's been slabbed! The nun Wagner was a good example of an unknown copy. We need to put "to the hobby" after "known" or "unknown" not "to a TPG"

Cool card
I wonder if the Wagner is the one card you can “shop” around to TPG’s for the best grade Before submitting (?)
“ hello PSA I have a Wagner do you mind having someone look at it and give me an opinion ? “

I believe it’s been said that SGC is historically more lenient on corners and tougher on centering while PSA is the opposite.

False


Sgc never cared about centering until a few years back. It was the "go to" for.psa 8 oc and 9 oc cards. Then they shot themselves in the foot and ultimately will go the way of Pwcc

Michałowicz Wagners
 

Many years ago, it was well known that one of the Michałowicz brothers of Petersburg, VA, both long-time collectors, owned two Wagners. Anyone know what happened to those? Are the brothers still active?

It is true.

https://t206museum.com/periodical_79.html

The book quotes Bill Hughes, a member of the grading service team that issued the card's high grade - Professional Sports Authenticator gave it a 8 on a scale of 1-10 - as admitting he knew the card had been cut from a sheet when he graded it.

Bill Hughes was a well known national dealer who I had done plenty of business with. David Hall is someone who I knew nothing about until much later, as he was unknown to the hobby at the time. This was well known within the hobby. Since I had no idea who David Hall was, I have no idea if he knew this.

I was set up in a show in 1999 where SGC and PSA were grading cards on site. I had a card that I wanted graded so I took it to SCG. They refused to grade the card, saying it was sheet cut. They told me to take the card to PSA, that PSA graded sheet cut cards. PSA gave the card a numbered grade.

In the 80s and 90s, there wasn't a stigma attached to sheet cut cards that there is today.

Hughes said, allegedly, the card was so outstanding it would have been sacrilegious not to grade it. You left out that part. Implying he knew it otherwise should not have been graded. That hardly means PSA generally graded sheet cut cards. And I have heard multiple in person accounts of Hall claiming the card was not sheet cut/trimmed. Hall -- who was obviously present when it was graded and the decision maker -- has never justified it on the ground that PSA graded sheet cut cards.

Have sheet cut cards got by PSA's graders? No doubt. Were they considered acceptable and worthy of a number grade? I highly, highly doubt it.

Virtually every card we collect was at one time sheet cut...at the factory or manufacturer's place of business. I always thought the term sheet cut referred to cards cut off of sheets by hand when it was obvious they were done crudely, like in the 1948 Bowman sets, where it was not done to deceive but to liberate the card and make it into a single. For a very long time that was 100% acceptable by collectors because collecting cards was an innocent hobby and the value of the cards paled in comparison to what they sell for today.

Even if that description above is not what they hobby refers to as sheet cut, isn't any grading company who accepts and grades sheet cut cards with numerical grades actually just giving numerical grades to trimmed cards? How would a grading service know or be able to distinguish a card that Mr. Smith cut off a full sheet 70 years after the card was printed or a card that Mr. Smith bought in a 3 holder and trimmed to make it a 9?

That's the reason for not grading sheet cut cards (as you define it). Either it's a factory cut, or it isn't.

I thought it was a really sleazy move to dump $10 million on Steve’s desk to try to get him to consign the Wagner. Was the thought that it provided a possible way to avoid capital gains tax? Also, if I was the owner of the card and I wanted to take a $10 million advance I would want a check. Having $10 million in cash is undoubtedly a pain. Investment accounts like Fidelity don’t accept cash so you are pretty much forced to deposit it in a bank. I could see the look on the tellers face when you walked up to the window with your deposit slip and 100,000 $100 bills. To me that looked more like an attempted drug buy than a baseball card deal. It made me think of Mr Mint with a zero or two added on.

Well the concept is clear to me. Sheet cut from a TPG point of view is the same as trimmed. It is silliness to think there is a distinction. When those terms are not used synonymous it is to the convenience of the user.

[QUOTE=oldjudge;2441632] Having $10 million in cash is undoubtedly a pain. QUOTE]

I could endure it.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;2441641]Way to take one for the team!

I would similarly do my best to cope with such an imposition.

Obviously we would all happily take the $10 million but most people's preference would be for a check over cash.

I was thinking the same thing.. No way in hell is that a '5'. Not with corners like that.

Folks -- stop thinking this is worth more than the PSA 8 Wagner. While we now know the whole story behind said card it *IS* the most famous card in the hobby and as such should be the most expensive card. Period end of sentence.

Remember there is a book written about that PSA 8 Wagner. No tome has been written I suspect won't be written about the SGC 5 Wagner.

Regards
Rich

No it is not. PSA has never said they had a policy int he 1990's of grading hand cut and trimmed cards as if they were not trimmed. Hughes' actual statements are further proof of it. His 'it was too nice to treat like other cards' sentiment, which you left out of corse, can only possibly be the case if this was NOT the normal policy. Nowhere has PSA ever claimed to have a policy that trimmed cards were fine to get numbers in the 90's. Who you knew in the 90's has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever :rolleyes:

Just stop making crap up and cutting up statements to try to defend the bullshit lol. It is embarrassing how many fictions people post here that they just made up and then pretend are true to the end.

I certainly agree, but I cannot prove with documentation how long it was 'known' to more people than the owner and when an image was first made public, as there are many points one could argue is the point a card is 'known' (essentially every card is known to someone). I can prove the slab and media coverage from a few years ago though. Thus I focus with what I can prove with receipts.

This is from the Lemke files accessible via t206resource.com
Not sure if this helps or not…but there was a story in the 1944 Philadelphia Record

Burn Notice Season 1 Episode 6 covers this very topic when moving $10MM in cash…’nobody thinks to put handles on it.’

How are these two examples even remotely different?

John Wagner was pals with Jefferson Burdick and a number of other early titans of the hobby. They all knew he had the Wagner (he actually had two and gave one to Burdick) this story is fairly well-known in the hobby. That's why I feel calling this a previously unknown example is just ludicrous. If anything it's got more provenance and is better known than most other examples!

Who you know in life changes ALL the rules. It also gets you access to info others will never have.:)

As someone who has cut up a lot of sheets. PSA has never graded obvious hand cut cards. I have never tried grading a single one but I have seen a lot of cards I personaly cut in Beckett slabs.

My thinking is that if the Wagner was already sheet cut, it's only AUTH to begin with, so cutting it a second time doesn't really change anything. Whereas microtrimming a Jordan is altering a factory cut.

Who you know changes the rules - but it does not change the truth regardless of how much one wants to think one is special.