reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>At least they did in the DVD infomercial they sent me. And, the Wagner back was scanned by Mastro in their catalog when Seigel bought the Wagner. The bottom SGC Piedmont 150 scan was made by a lowly eBay seller with no Mastro technology. Common - I have seen several on here tell a fake from a BLURRY eBay scan - these scans are NEITHER blurry. You can tell a lot by comparing the two if you do so with a non-mastro-biased eye!<br /><br />Edited to add that I can even see where Mastro "lightened up" their Wagner scan to make it look less dark - doesn't look like the eBay seller did that (guess he didn't want to make his Piedmont T206 look better than it actually was!?).

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>If we're looking to compare something like whether Piedmont is spelled the same way on each card, then on that one, sure, these scans will do. But when you talking about subtle spacing between the lines, then on that one you really do need to either compare original to original or know a bit more about how each scan was made and the source used.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Both scans are clear enough to show the colors and the lines. In Mastro's scan, using their state of the art scanning system, one can clearly see the fine detailed lines "bunched together". In the eBay scan, you can clearly see the detailed lines seperated. You can also see the colors plainly in each scan. The scans are good enough to compare the two cards' backs. I have seen comparisons on this board of cards with lesser quality scans and nobody chimed in about the scans not being the same. Or as Barry would say, yada, yada, yada..........

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Scott- this is a fascinating theory but when you get into areas that are this groundbreaking, presenting something that would unquestionably have a major hobby impact, you really need some kind of definitive proof to nail it down. You have certainly gotten my attention as well as many others, but too much is at stake for all this to be accepted without a smoking gun. At this point I would say this is potentially an amazing revelation, but still inconclusive.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>You (and Joe) have presented some forceful reasons why the PSA 8 Wagner is a 1950's reprint. In doing so you are asking that people view the matter with an open mind. And indeed, based on everything I've read in the past number of months on this issue, coupled with the yet-to-be refuted belief that there is only one known T206 Piedmont Plank and it is trimmed/hand-cut, I'm willing to say that unless and until the PSA 8 Wagner passes muster under microscopic scrutiny, I cannot say absolutely positively that it is not a reprint.<br /><br />So too now I'm respectfully asking that you keep an open mind on this back-comparison-based-on-scans issue. Based on a lot of experience on this issue, I can tell you point blank that scans of reproductions can be misleading pertaining to things such as comparing colors and spacing between lines. Different reproduction processes, not to mention how many generations of reproductions an image has been though, will tremendously impact resolution/clarity, making subtle judgements about how closely lines are spaced together next to impossible. For example, ever see what happens when you fax a fax of a fax of a fax? Eventually you can't read anything on it. How do we know what image Mastro used to make its high definition scan. For all we know it was a fourth generation copy, which by that time the resolution became so degregaded that the lines appeared closer together. How do we know that is not the case?! In regard to comparing colors, for any professonal photographer to get that one right he/she will need to insert as background in the image a color bar to use as a control mechanism. I doubt both these images that you posted did that. And even if it is the case that the depth of the blue on the backs differ, what does that prove? I always thought that real T206's of the same card can/do exhibit different depth of the same colors. Indeed, I recall reading a thread on this board some months ago discussing how original Sweet Caporal Wagners show different depth of the orange in the portrait background. Are you saying that all real T206 Piedmont cards have the exact same depth of blue on their backs? Admitedly my knowledge of T206's pales in comparsion to many others in this hobby and on this board, but am I wrong on this point?

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If you had a stack of run-of-the-mill T206's with Piedmont backs, you would routinely encounter lighter and darker shades of blue.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I wish I had something to add. Since I don't I'll just keep absorbing all the good information in this thread and hope you guys keep going.<br /><br />Chad

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>I agree that scans can wreak havoc with the appearance and clarity/color of a card, especially if it is not a direct scan of the item.<br /><br />However, I will agree with Scott that if I saw the top Piedmont scan on ebay I wouldn't touch it. I guess it is all context senstive. If that top scan turned up on ebay in an auction for a PSA 8 common, I think people would give it a wide berth. And yet, it would surely sell for something as there would be some that would take a chance on it - we routinely do.<br /><br />That doesn't mean I think the Wagner is a reprint, or that I think that any scan is conclusive. I just don't know on the Wagner. But I do believe that in a different context most people here wouldn't have a second thought about saying that the top scan just "isn't right". Hard to describe, but it doesn't have the grace of the lower scan. <br /><br />I wish I knew definitively what exactly the scan was - which generation, direct, etc. Although we would draw one conclusion if it were on ebay, this isn't ebay and it isn't a common. It's such an important card that it now has it's own almost reverential name - The Card. Like Cher. heehee. But given that it's not ebay I think people here are probably looking for something more by way of info to draw conclusions.<br /><br />Joann<br /><br />Oh - and Barry you may feel free to make comments on my posts regarding use of commas! I used to think I had it all figured out and never gave them a second thought. Then I took Research and Writing and basically lost all of my comma-confidence! lol

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>People tend to overuse commas. I like to use them judiciously, more likely to leave one out than to have too many. You actually write very well, concisely and clearly, and with a little bit of panache.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I, think, I, wouldn't, touch, a, card, if, the, scan, looked, like, the, one, at, the, top.<br /><br />That said, I wouldn't be buying a Wagner with ANY back based on a scan. Most of the time when I drop six figures on a card, I need to see it in person first. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />And THAT said, if I had to purchase a card based on Rob Lifson's word, the only thing that would trump him would be my wife telling me "NO." And I believe the Charles Bray Wagner comes with Rob's word, does it not?<br /><br />Forgive me if I'm drawing a conclusion that doesn't exist, but I would feel extremely safe with that seal of approval, regardless of what the scan looked like. Scans can do wacky things to a card, as we all know.<br /><br />-Al<br /><br />PS: If I ever drop six figures on a card, you have my permission to beat me to death with a blunt instrument.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Glyn Parson</b><p>So they had the technology in the 1950s to reprint undetectable Wagners but somehow this technology has disappeared in a mere 50-60 years. I think not. If they could make these undetectable Wagners in the 50s they'd be making them today and they'd used shaved or erased sweet cap 150s so the cards would go through as real and would be less detectable.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>BTW - you can use commas - I like to use hyphens! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />In fact, the responses are not as bad as they use to be on the old Full Count board. Mike even talks in his book how I had to get out of the Hobby and was hated by a lot in the Hobby for my opinions on the Wagner. Like I stated on the other board, we will never be able to prove 100% if these Piedmont Wagners are from 1909 or 1950, unless the owners would let us take them to a lab for testing. This will never happen, so we can only speculate.<br /><br />The bottom line for me is that I would inform ANYONE in the market for a T206 Wagner to buy a Sweet Caporal 150 backed example that is slabbed by SGC or PSA (even though PSA was "forced" to slab the Piedmont PSA 8, they have pretty much gotten the SC 150 examples correct that are in PSA slabs).<br /><br />Oh, and just for Barry, one Seinfeld episode I have not seen mentioned and the one that definitely is my favorite (in fact there are even shirts on eBay of this one) is where Kramer fights "Little Jerry" in the basement at the Rooster Fights! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>the card wouldn't really fool somebody who knows what they are doing. The technology was already there in the 1930's and 1950's to make these cards that myself and Mr. Heitman have referred to - the technology is called the Goudey and Bowman presses and factories!<br /><br />Al, I don't even want to think what would happen if I spent six figures on a card. I hear enough when I spend four and five. Right now, I couldn't buy a four figure card, so I don't have to worry. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />BTW - Rob Lifson's word is great. However, I trust nobody but my 20/10 vision any longer. The only fake that ever got by me was bought from an eBayer with 100% feedback. I didn't even look at the card - it was taped with about 7 or 8 top loaders front and back of it for protection and I was stupid and threw it in the safe without even looking at it! Well, now I look at all the cards that come in - even the slabbed ones - that way, if a fake gets by me now, it is my fault.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Facinating topic. I have three considerations to throw into the mix:<br /><br />1. If the Piedmont Wagners were from a 1950's reprint sheet made by hobbyists to fill a hole in their collection, then why were there presumably many different fronts? According to the story, Mastro bought about 75 other high grade T206s along with the Wagner, all presumably from the same sheet. So did they create a diverse sheet with many different T206s?<br /><br />2. According to the letter indicating provenance on the Piedmont Wagner offered to Charles Bray in 1958, he looked at the card alongside many other T206s and considered it to be real and offered a substantial amount of money for it at the time. Since the letter of offer was still with the card a few years ago when Mastro auctioned it off, it is safe to say that the owner turned down Bray's offer. This raises a couple of curious questions. Since it was 1958, it could not have been long after the presumed sheet was created. One would think that the person who offered it to Bray either was part of the group that created it since he had it so early and thus, if honest, would not try to pass it off to a fellow hobbyist. Or if dishonest, would have accepted Bray's offer and sold it. SInce neither is the case, one other possibility is that the person simply inherited a group of T206s from an elder relative or friend (an attic find, if you will) and wanted to inquire to an expert as to their value, if any. It would seem quite strange that there would be such an attic find of recently produced reprints. Of course this is complete speculation, but nevertheless....<br /><br />3. Scott, on the one hand you argue that the Piedmont Wagners are virtually indistinguishable from a real Wagner, other than the Piedmont back which was used to make it clear to anyone in the know that it was a reprint. And yet for the two known Piedmont Wagners, for various reasons you claim both are obvious fakes - the PSA 8 because of the print lines on the back, and the Bray just on sight. So which is it? <br /><br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Question for David Rudd:<br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Goudeys and Bowmans use a different printing technique than T206s? If so, wouldn't that require a different kind of press?<br /><br />-Al

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>My post will be re-posted

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>The letter of "provenance" surrounding the Bray Wagner is from 1958. According to the letter, it seems as though the Wagner was never inspected. In the letter, it is even brought up to the owner that there are Heinie Wagner cards. It seems Heinie is brought up to insure that the person being written to understands the difference. Also, the Piedmont Wagner from this "find" is hand cut. So, I doubt it came in packs along with other T206's from this collection.<br /><br />What I am referring to when I state these are "good reproductions" AND I state they can easily be seen different from real Sweet Caporal Wagners is this: They are good enough that they have fooled many. Also, they are NOT good enough in that they have not fooled myself and a handful of others.<br /><br />As for the printing of these sheets with other cards on them, I really don't know what the other cards were on the sheet that the PSA 8 Wagner came from except for a Piedmont Plank, that I have see pics of and is cut badly - like the Bray Wagner. I really don't know what the "other" 60 or so cards were/are. The only people who can answer that are the people involved before Mastro and Bill Mastro. However, I doubt any would say or remember, except Bill Mastro and good luck trying to get an answer from him! <br /><br />Also, regarding these 1950's reproductions: I do believe these Piedmont Wagners are "1950's reproductions" - again, b/c I have seen a couple other than these and the owners were both honest and told me they were 1950's reprints. Also, I have heard others early on mention Wagners with Piedmont backs that were printed in the 1950's. Nobody has ever said they DEFINITELY came from Goudey or Bowman. It is a possiblity these Piedmont Wagners were printed by the Goudey or Bowman printers (that is why I sometimes use the dates of 1930's - 1950's to date these Piedmont Wagners. However, I mostly use the 1950's, as that is what several have told me over the years.). Again, nobody can say for certain if these were printed in 1909, the 1930's or 1950's without conducting some type of an age test on the paper and ink. I doubt this will ever be done, short of me winning the Powerball Lotto and buying the PSA 8 at an outrageous price just to have this type of a test done. However, one with an eye for vintage material can take a look at the differences in these cards and tell. I have posted the back scans so everyone can do just that. As most have replied and I totally agree, if the top scan was NOT the PSA 8 Wagner's back, everyone here would STAY AWAY from that card, and rightfully so!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>In 1981 I had the priviledge of visiting with George Moll at his home in Pennsy. He was in his mid-80's at <br />the time and was still very lucid in his recollections of his Adv. Agency in Abington, PA....that did all the<br /> artwork, photographic work, and the contracting out of the printing of the Play Balls, Horrors of War, War<br /> Gum cards, etc. from 1939 - 1942 for the Bowman Gum Co. (during those years it was known as GUM, Inc.).<br /><br />I was doing research on an article on the 1949 Bowman cards and that's why I interviewed George Moll<br />regarding this (and other Bowman) sets. He was very enthusiastic about this and what I thought would be <br />a short interview, surprisingly was several hours of him showing me original Play Ball, Horrors of War, and <br />Bowman artwork and uncut sheets. I had a tremendous day with him as he talked about how he loved the<br /> 1933 Goudey cards. And, all the great stuff from his collection that he showed me; I recall his #106 Lajoie<br /> (at least ExMt....1st time I has held one). Then to my surprise, he showed me a #106 Durocher. I recall<br /> saying to him that my Durocher had a different #; and, he replied that this #106 card was reprinted to fill<br /> a slot in the Goudey set for collectors of that time. Now, whether he meant the 1930's, or '40s, or '50s....I<br />do not know. But, what I do know is that his employees could "crank" out any almost perfect copies of any<br /> Sportscards.<br /><br />So, I relate this story to you in order to give you some insight into what was possible back in the 1940's or<br /> early 1950's. Does this mean I think the Copeland-Gretzky-Gidwitz Wagner was printed in the 1950's....I say<br />a resounding NO. <br />However, we are talking about only 30 - 40 years after the T206's were produced and anything is possible.<br /><br />Most of you are aware of my "PIEDMONT-first" theory, and I am convinced that ATC favored this T-brand<br /> (the sheer volume of T206's with these backs confirm this). Furthermore, the Magie and Joe Doyle errors<br /> reinforce this theory. Therefore, I have to strongly disagree with anyone who says that Piedmont Wagner's<br /> are not an original 1909 T206 card.<br /><br />Finally, if the Wagner card had been reproduced by the Bowman Co., I am sure Mr. Moll would have shown<br /> it to me. It was unbelievable all the stuff he showed me and he certainly would not have held back on the<br /> Wagner card (in 1981).<br /><br />TED Z

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I posted about the #106 Durocher Mastro sold (with scans) on the other forum. According to the Mastro description, the card came from Woody Gelman. Mastro theorizes in the description that the card came from one of Gelman's contacts at Goudey. If so, it was printed to fill a hole in 1933 before the Lajoie was printed in 1934 - this is my theory. The card does look period. However it looks like there weren't many printed and the printers did a little better job on these Duochers, as there is no "bleed-through" on the example in the Mastro auction. These were probably printed for their collections and/or their friends, so they made sure to have some nicely printed card evidently.<br /><br />Back to your "Piedmont First" theory. I totall agree with this theory, as I have had the same exact theory for years. We all also know that Piedmont is even MORE PLENTIFUL than any other back, including Sweet Caporal. So, here are some points (along with the back photos above) as to why to reason the Piedmont Wagners were actually printed at a later date than 1909:<br /><br />1) There should be about twice as many Piedmont Wagners than Sweet Caporal, due to the populations of the two.<br /><br />2) All Piedmont Wagners are handcut from a sheet.<br /><br />3) NONE of the Piedmont Wagners' provenance can be traced back before the 1950's!<br /><br />4) The fronts and backs of the Piedmont Wagners are different (the fronts different from other Wagners with Sweet Caporal backs and the backs different from other Piedmont backs). Again, above is a great example. Also, on the other forum, I even posted the front scan of the PSA 8 Wagner beside a PSA 2 Sweet Caporal Wagner, so members can tell the difference.<br /><br />5) I have actually seen two Piedmont Wagners (one in person) where the owners BOTH told me they were 1950's reprints. The cards look identical to the ones considered period! Also, I have heard from several collectors over the years about these "1950's Piedmont Wagners".<br /><br />6) None of these Piedmont Wagners were ever offered as real until the time Mastro bought the PSA 8 in NY. In fact, MANY Hobby publications early on (including Lipset's Encyclopedia) state the Wagner T206 can ONLY be found with a Sweet Caporal 150 back. This was common knowledge early in the Hobby and why the people who printed these used a Piedmont back - so nobody would confuse them with a real one!<br /><br />People can draw their own conclusions. My opinion will not change. I also know that others' opinions opposite of mine will not change. On this issue, we will have to "agree to disagree" for now, as I don't see any of the Piedmont Wagners owners having the cards tested and aged!<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Edited to add my theory on Wagners from the T206 set. <br /><br />As Ted and I both agree - we believe the Piedmont first (and evidently is was the most popular brand as well). What I believe happened is that, since Piedmont was so popular, their printers were the first to "pull" the Wagner, thus resulting in NO T206 Wagners being issued with a Piedmont back into packs (again, this theory holds no matter when you believe the Piedmont Wagners were printed as all are hand cut and never went into packs, whether they were printed in 1909 or 1950). HOWEVER, evidently the SC factories and printers caught wind of Wagner's request not to be included in the set later and some cards were inserted into packs early on - escaping the factories so to speak.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>If these 1950's reprint Wagners were known to some extent (by Heitman and others) in the hobby, one would presume that Bill Mastro would have known of them and probably seen at least one before his 1985 purchase of THE Wagner. And by that time he had already owned and handled a number of real Wagners. If the Piedmont Wagners are reprints, THE Wagner was presumably good enough to fool Bill Mastro since he plunked down 25k for it. Unless one wants to presume extremely nefarious motives right from the start - that he knew it was fake and could nevertheless pass it off as the Holy Grail of the Hobby for huge profits without anybody ever knowing - Mastro made an enormous mistake. Given that even at that time he was one of the most knowledgable people in the hobby, that is hard to believe. That it was a real, oversized, cut-from-a legitimate-period-sheet, ex card that could become mint with a little trimming seems more reasonable. Mike Wentz seems to even suggest that might be a stretch. One really wonders if the mystery surrounding this card will ever be definatively solved.<br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I do have a response for your statement about Mastro buying the Wagner. Fact is there was something wrong with it - he would only show it to Rob Lifson at a quick glance to where Rob could not get a good look - even though he used Rob's $$$ to buy it! So, that goes to show he knew something was wrong with it. Also, the Copeland guy was buying up everything, so Mastro probably figured, since other dealers were selling Copeland trimmed cards at outrageous prices, he could sell Copeland just about any Wagner (especially coming from Mastro)!<br /><br />Another theory would be that Mastro simply thought these guys ran into a "Proof Sheet" and the cards would look a little different. As you stated, Mastro knew about cards at the time and even owned at least one other Wagner (which he gave Rob Lifson instead of giving him the $25k he used of Rob's to buy THE Wagner and 60 or so other cards including the Piedmont Plank).<br /><br />Personally, I believe Bill saw $$$ and a future sale to Copeland in the Wagner and that is all that was on his mind that day. Of course Jim, we are on dangerous ground here in our theories, as we are trying to figure out what Mastro was thinking that day - something that CANNOT be done!<br /><br />OK - now I have answered all the questions regarding the Wagner from my point of view. I have one question for all of you who think these Piedmont Wagners were printed in 1909 - WHERE IS THE PROVENANCE OF ONE PIEDMONT WAGNER THAT GOES BACK BEFORE THE 1950'S? THE Wagner can only be traced back to the early 80's and a FL flea market. The Bray Wagner can only be traced back to 1958 - doesn't that raise a red flag to anyone? If not, simply go back to the above back scans and that should definitely raise a red flag to anyone who has owned T206's in the past!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>I agree that people can look at the top scan and have reasonable questions whether the card is real, which questions in the end may be satisfactorily answered upon comparing the scan to the original card back and seeing that the resolution/contrast and color depicted in the scan is materially misleading. However, Scott, what you're trying to do here is use the scan to prove the negative, namely that the card is not real. And, for the reasons mentioned (i.e., legitimate questions how well the scan portrays the actual card back, right down to the smallest nuances), I'm simply saying that that top scan in and of itself is inadequate to prove the card is not real.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have been a little busy at work so couldn't chime in yet. A lot of your theories actually "could" hold water though we don't know and may never know. I don't believe the fact we can't trace 2-3 cards back before 1950 is enough to be conclusive. I have a ton of cards that probably weren't seen by almost anyone, in the hobby, before 1950. I know we are talking Wagners but still....Also, I know this is only one piece of the puzzle (the time line issue). Regardless of anything you have made a good argument. I still don't buy the fact that the card I saw a few months ago, The Bray Wagner, in an SGC Authentic holder.....is not from the 1909 era.....I will say it does seem to have a "brighter" back than other Piedmonts I have seen but I am an extreme novice at T206's......regards

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>what about the piedmont wagner that sold in the 2001 mastro auction? is this a "reprint" also? it seems to have a history unless one is to believe that there is a mastro conspiracy going on. here is the info from the t206 museum site.<br /> <a href="http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_26.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_26.html</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_26.html</a</a>>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Interestingly, the Charles Bray letter refers to the Wagner as from the Piedmont series. It sounds like he had not yet seen the actual card since he said that it would be worth $25 in "good, clean conditions". He also told the guy that he would make an offer on the whole lot if he would send the cards for inspection.<br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>no doubt site unseen but not dismissed as a period reprint by bray who certainly would have known if piedmont reprints of honus wagner existed. so he was covering to make sure if it was honus and not the commom heine,in case he would not pay the $25.00 for a heine as at the time it was probably worth less than a nickle.<br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>The above link regarding the 2001 mastronet Wagner no longer works. Below is a link to the card's original description when it sold.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=17656&CurrentRow=1#photograph s" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=17656&CurrentRow=1#photograph s</a>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Dave G</b><p><br /><br /><br /><br />"Exceptional eye appeal. Very sharp clean image, with perfect registration. There are a few fine creases, but none break the surface of the card. What appears to be a light soiling on the obverse, upon very close examination, is actually an extremely light "shadow" of the image of another T206 card (this is not uncommon with T206s, and usually results from cards being put in stacks before an ink process has fully dried). The corners are worn and well rounded. The "Piedmont 150 Subjects" reverse exhibits light overall general wear but is reasonably clean and problem free. Upon first glance there does not appear to be anything unusual about the cut of the card, but upon closer examination it is clear that the card has an unusual and slightly irregular wave to the cut, most notably on the left and lower borders. This is especially fascinating as this is the only card in the entire original collection of 500+ T206? which has a slightly irregular cut. The provenance of this card, examination of the collection from which it originates, and examination of the card itself allow us to know with virtual certainty that this card was issued and packaged in exactly this form in a pack of Piedmont Cigarettes in 1909."<br /><br />I followed the link mentioned in a previous post and read the description of the Mastro Wagner (copied above) - I have to say, despite me not being a T206 collector, the written description taken separate from the picture would lead one to believe that they were selling a totally different card in MUCH better condition than that pictured, and I would be expecting a VG at the very least based on the description.<br /><br />Similarly, the description of the Bray note..<br /><br />"There are some small areas of the paper loss to the envelope and the flyers (apparently the result of long ago insect damage), but the letter has only a small tear in the upper left corner (most likely from when opened)."<br /><br />has me almost rolling on the floor when I looked at the picture - "..some small areas of paper loss........insect damage"!!!! It looks like a colony of termites had a banquet on the damn thing!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>In the lot description that Zack posted above, the Mastro auctions states "What appears to be a light soiling on the obverse, upon very close examination, is actually an extremely light "shadow" of the image of another T206 card (this is not uncommon with T206s, and usually results from cards being put in stacks before an ink process has fully dried)". If this Wagner has a wet sheet transfer on the reverse, wouldn't this lend credence that the card is period 1909? I would tend to think that if it was reprinted in the 1950's, and assuming multiple sheets were printed, they certainly wouldn't have laid the sheets on top of each other and caused a wet sheet transfer - more care would have been taken as these cards were to fill holes in the sets. Furthermore, assuming a certain limited number of sheets were printed in the 1950's, have any other wet sheet transfers of these "reprints" surficed? Surely the Wagner would not have been the only card with a transfer.<br /><br />Edited to add: I also find it interesting that bray's exact words in his letetr were "In the same series (Piedmont) there is also a Wagner Boston American." The way this is written makes it sound like Bray is not surprised of a Piedmont backed Wagner. I know it has been stated above that even Lew only had documented the SC Wagner, but Bray specifically said "In the same series (Piedmont)...". Had Bray felt that Wagner could only have been issued with SC, shouldn't his letter been more like "Are you sure this card isn't Henie as Wagner, Pitts is unknown with a Piedmont back."?

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff D.</b><p>I've been searching for a few months for a high quality scan of the BACK of the PSA 8 Piedmont Wagner and the best I've come up with is the following. Just thought I would add it to the discussion. While it doesn't show very good detail, I do think the color and contrast are somewhat more accurate than the picture above:<br /><br /><img src="http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e109/JeffD27177/WagPiedBck2.jpg"><br /><br />I'm not at all trying to legitimize "The Card" nor the possibility of it being a reprint, but imo the suggestion that scans can vary dramatically proves quite true. While I would think twice about a card that looked like the scan provided by Scott, I wouldn't find the one here in my post nearly as questionable.<br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>he also brings up Heinie Wagner as well - sounds like he is wanting to make certain the person owning the Wagner knows it is Honus and NOT Heinie. Maybe Bray did know about the reprints and brought Heinie up b/c of that. We will NEVER know, as we are trying to guess one's thoughts.<br /><br />Damn Leon - you never told me the back of the SGC "Authentic" Piedmont looks different than other Piedmonts until your post above. You say this, and still swear it is real? That I don't get. Every Piedmont Wagner I have seen looks different from a period Piedmont on the reverse - wonder why? My best guess would be that they were printed later than 1909! However, as Leon and I both stated - we will never be able to prove 100% either way (if the Piedmonts are period or printed later). IF I was ever in the market for a Wagner or someone ever asked me what Wagner they should buy - again it would be a SC 150 example in a PSA or SGC holder - NOTHING ELSE PERIOD!<br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There is a precedent to this in the world of numismatics.<br /><br />Perhaps the most famous, and one of the most valuable American coins is the 1804 Silver Dollar. But all of the ones minted- roughly 14 in all, were made in the late 1830's and early 1840's. When the King of Siam visited America in 1837, he was given a presentation set of United States coins, and since silver dollars were discontinued in 1803, a special striking of new ones dated 1804 were made and one was given to the King.<br /><br />The point I am making is if in fact it is true that the Piedmont Wagner is a later issue, maybe it was done for a special occasion. Even in the 1950's the Wagner was nearly impossible to find, so could it be that a few were made to satisfy some important collectors? Just a shot in the dark here.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, the scan I posted was from the Mastro catalog itself and was a little more detailed. I can still see the fine lines "bunched together" in the scan you provide. Only the color looks more like a Piedmont Blue - I can tell Mastro did lighten up the scan in their catalog. I do that sometimes when scans come out dark - I have never had it change a color on the card - only makes the white show up a little more and is easy to spot.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>According to the Mastro description, it came from an original find of 500 T206s, though this was the only one with an irregular cut. Two points:<br /><br />1. This could lend credence to Scott's theory - a collector with 500 T206s wanted to fill a hole in his set and was in on the reprint idea.<br /><br />2. If this were so, why is this Wagner in such bad shape? One would think that somebody who bothered to make such a good reprint would have used a little care in cutting the sheet. And how did it get so soiled? If it went directly into an advanced T206 collection, how did it get so banged up. One would presume it would look more like the Gretzky Wagner.<br /><br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>That looks more like a dirty Wagner from the scan than a "wet sheet" Wagner. Also, wonder why the back scan is no longer available?<br /><br />Jim, I see what you are saying about the Wagner - maybe the fact it is NOT real is why it is in such bad shape. Maybe these weren't thought of as highly and the owner didn't take care of it? I remember trading cards with some local kids when I was young - man, their cards from a couple years before looked to be a century old!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>In the lot description that Zack posted above, the Mastro auctions states "What appears to be a light soiling on the obverse, upon very close examination, is actually an extremely light "shadow" of the image of another T206 card (this is not uncommon with T206s, and usually results from cards being put in stacks before an ink process has fully dried)". If this Wagner has a wet sheet transfer on the reverse, wouldn't this lend credence that the card is period 1909? I would tend to think that if it was reprinted in the 1950's, and assuming multiple sheets were printed, they certainly wouldn't have laid the sheets on top of each other and caused a wet sheet transfer - more care would have been taken as these cards were to fill holes in the sets. Furthermore, assuming a certain limited number of sheets were printed in the 1950's, have any other wet sheet transfers of these "reprints" surficed? Surely the Wagner would not have been the only card with a transfer.<br /><br />He also says in the discription that it was offered in a pack of Piedmont, and a slight wavy cut. <br />We know that it was notoffered by pack and if that's a slight wavy cut the Pacific is a slightly wavy Ocean. You are going to believe an auction description that it's a wet transfer. Crap, it's dirt off the floor of the Bowman printing room. " Hey guys that one didn't come out too good, let's make another." <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I was saying that because it is in such bad shape makes me question that it was a reprint because if an advanced T206 collector bothered to make a reprint Wagner, I would think they would have used a little more care in cutting it from the sheet and keeping it safe - at least in a shoebox, not in the mud.<br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>This is especially fascinating as this is the only card in the entire original collection of 500+ T206? which has a slightly irregular cut. The provenance of this card, examination of the collection from which it originates, and examination of the card itself allow us to know with virtual certainty that this card was issued and packaged in exactly this form in a pack of Piedmont Cigarettes in 1909."<br /><br /><br />Yea those guys in 1909 had no pride in their work. The hap hazardly would delibrately put in a piece in this condition like this into a pack fresh from the press. Remember it had no value. I doubt any self repecting printer would pass this as more than scrap. <br /><br /><br /><br />In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />You say "we will never be able to prove 100% either way (if the Piedmonts are period or printed later)". Based on what I've learned on this thread, it would seem that microscopic analysis of the dot matrix pattern would conclusively determine whether the card is period. If it matches up against other known period Piedmonts, than for all practical purposes the card is real. To quote David Cycleback, who makes the point real well, "at a time when a T206 Eddie Plank was worth $3 and Allen & Ginter Cap Anson 30 cents, setting up a chemistry lab to recreate 1909 paper and ink seems far fetched". Now all we have to do is get the new owner of the card to submit it for microscopic analysis and we can resolve this case! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>someone might have made it look "older" to hide the fact that it was a reprint from this collector - they might have gotten five bucks or something big like that from this guy in the 50's - they could have had fun all weekend on five bucks back then! Or, he could have obtained it from another collector who tried to make it look older to obtain some cards he needed from this guy. A card that looks that much "different" and dirtier than the other cards in this guys collection should call attention and question to it right away. <br /><br />I might not know everything and don't claim to, but I have collected T206 back variations for years (though, I no longer do, b/c it doesn't excite me any longer). I even collected T206's by back variations before it was popular. I have seen/owned several rare T206 backs and of course common ones as well over the years. I can tell you first hand that these Piedmont Wagners simply do not look right - BOTH on the fronts and backs. Also, that "Authentic" Ty Cobb back we discussed doesn't look right either for a period card IMHO. I know we disagreed on that one. However, I will never change my opinion on that card nor these Piedmont Wagners - never!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>scott you say "I have actually seen two Piedmont Wagners (one in person) where the owners BOTH told me they were 1950's reprints. The cards look identical to the ones considered period! Also, I have heard from several collectors over the years about these "1950's Piedmont Wagners".<br />if this were the case why don't these collectors come forward and prove to all that "the card" is a 1950's reprint? or why don't other owners of these reprints try to get them slabbed?, and then tell the "experts" it is in fact a reprint? if a good conditioned piedmont wagner sold for 86 K 7 years ago why wouldn't owners of these reprints come out and expose these as reprints? why is that collectors such as bray,gelman,carter et al did not know and report these reprints? if there were fakes in the hobby, shouldn't these leading collectors own one of these? i would think if these were reprints and old time collectors had access you would see alot more of them filtering into the hobby as there is a lot of $$$ to be had from their sale. but to add to this mystery, i do find it kind of strange that the piedmont wagner sold in 2001 by mastronet was not slabbed!seems hard to believe doesn't it?

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>I believe the old time collectors new about them and there was no need to announce to the world about these reprints. The tight little circle of collectors was the world. everyone else just had them in their attic. They knew all the hardcore collectors. Who were they going to announce it to? Better yet, why make anything public about a Wagner? You think they wanted non collectors to know their secrets of the hobby, that the Wagner was valuable? <br />I suppose Larry Fritch shoulda told everyone why he was paying so much for Doyles in the 70's? <br />This was common knowledge that no one bothered to write about it. Just like the printing of Goudeys or T206's in 1909 for that matter. Who woulda known that a group of collectors would care about all that stuff as much as we do. Why didn't the printers of Tango Eggs keep records? Who cared at the time.<br><br>In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Scott E, when I said "different back" on the Bray- Wagner I didn't mean it didn't look real. It was just a tad bit lighter from what I remember. The owner verifies the wet sheet overprint of another player from another sheet as previously mentioned. I believe he has matched it up to another common in the set too. It still looks 100 years old to SGC, myself, and almost everyone else. I am sticking with that until someone proves it wrong. The fact SGC graded the Bray Wagner as Authentic, to me, outweighs the fact that you have never heard of anyone with provenance for these 2-3 cards before the 1950's. That, in and of itself, isn't convincing enough. The fact they are handcut isn't either, at least for me. I will restate my thoughts on these Piedmont Wagners, as well as many leading experts....handcut from a sheet in the 1909 era.....Obviously you, and a few others, will believe what you want to...and we can agree to disagree....no harm in that....take care

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I believe Al and I were debating this last week. Neither of us would budge. This is one argument that is hard to sway people to your side, no matter which side that might be. Like I told Al, this one is just too hard to prove 100% either way, and that is what it will take to get stubborn people like you (Leon) and myself to change our minds when we believe we are correct. We simply have too much passion for this Great Hobby.................Nah! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, none of us are perfect - I still remember that Red Hindu Matty Portrait that was rebacked and in a PSA 7 holder then an SGC 50 holder! Of course, that one would have been easy for a "backman" like myself, b/c that is one of the "impossible" front/back combos from the T206 set (since the Matty portrait was issued in the 150/350 Series, it can only be found with a Brown Hindu back). <br /><br />Again, I am not saying this to bash SGC, as I really like their service and only use them myself. I am only bringing this up to show that SGC, just like myself and everyone else, makes mistakes (although certainly not as many as PSA).<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>I have held and examined the card. It is 100% legit and is in fact printers scrap. It has another player with a press run printed on the front, I do not recall at this time who it is, but when I initially examined the card I matched the overprint with a player from the owners T206 set. <br /><br />As it is printers scrap this explains the hand cut as well, as most T206 collectors know that the vast majority of printers scrap are handcut, as they never made final production. In fact if I were to reexamine it, I would check to make sure that the Wagner had all of the color runs as well, that may be what gives it a slightly different look.<br /><br />As Jim B. stated above, IF someone was going to REPRODUCE, reprint is techically the wrong word in my eyes, a T206 Wagner in 1950 for his personal collection, WHY would they not have cut it straight and further protected it so that it remained in nice condition.<br /><br />Again my feeling is that ALL of the Piedmont Wagners are printers scrap, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps after the Wagner was pulled from production they had Piedmont Wagners left over and used them for press run tests on other cards for inking and such.<br /><br />Scott

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>so there must be many other t206 printer scrap of other cards laying around too, right? if so, when submitted to grading companies, do they get "authentic" labels? must be tough to figure out if printers scrap was handcut 90 years ago or yesterday.<br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Scott, what you're saying makes perfect sense to me. As much as I find it hard to believe that these cards have fooled so many experts (I simply don't think it's possible to make a faithful duplication of a card in 1950 that's impossible to distinguish from the original), I also agree that it's a weird anomaly that the cards would have Piedmont backs. Not being a T206 expert, I'll also defer to Scott and Ted on the "Piedmont First" issue.<br /><br />Given that there are only two or three of them, I'd think that they probably never made it into circulation. As someone who does a significant amount of printing in his career, I don't find anything strange about that - there are tons of proofs and actual prints that never see the light of day, and there could be a million reasons for that. When you go on press and the printer runs that first sheet, you evaluate it for everything - color, registration, stray marks, errors, etc. Often you'll go through the process of running one sheet half a dozen times before you're ready to mass produce. Sometimes the sheets go in the trash, and sometimes they don't. I have plenty of sheets in my files from jobs that were changed before the final sheets were run.<br /><br />There could be dozens of different reasons why that card had a Piedmont back, and one of them could simply be that it was an error. Since there's no markings on the back of a T206 that would identify the player, one might not even notice it on another card that's less scarce than the Wagner. For example, if a Rube Waddell portrait was printed with a Piedmont back but the sheet was supposed to have a Sweet Cap back, you'd never know it was an error. Certainly, nobody gives it a second thought when they see a 1977 Topps Elliott Maddox with Greg Luzinski's stats on the back - happens all the time.<br /><br />In my mind (and we've already established that Scott and I have respectfully agreed to disagree), there are many plausible reasons why the Wagners would be authentic, and only one theory as to whytheyt wouldn't. And that theory is, in my opinion, nearly impossible to have happened.<br /><br />-Al

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>If someone has the combination of sophisticated technical ability to "accurately" reproduce T206's and a <br />fair knowledge of the this set.....they would reprint....<br /><br />MAGIE with a PIEDMONT 150 back<br /><br />Joe DOYLE (Nat'l) with a PIEDMONT 350 back<br /><br />PLANK with a SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 25....or, SWEET CAPORAL 350, Factory 30<br /><br /><br />BUT, they would be smart enough NOT to reprint a WAGNER with a PIEDMONT 150 back....<br /><br />They would reprint this card with it's prevailing back....namely, the SWEET CAPORAL 150, Factory 25 back.<br /><br />Sorry guy, we may agree on certain aspects of T206's.....but, I cannot accept that all PIEDMONT Wagner's<br /> were printed circa 1950....instead of 1909. Show us your proof of this ?<br /><br />If you wanted to produce a Wagner that would pass as a "real" T206, would you reprint this Wagner with a<br /> PIEDMONT back ?<br /><br />NO....you know better....you would reprint this card with the SWEET CAPORAL back. <br /><br />TED Z <br /><br /><br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Good point, Ted. You'd reprint the card to look exactly like another copy of the same card. Hadn't thought of that.<br /><br />-Al