Where can one view the old pop report?

At the top of the page it says show it says show old grading yes or no and the default is no so you have to change that to yes.

As previously mentioned, doesn't changing it to old grading, just change the way the grade is displayed? It doesn't seem to matter if you are viewing the old or the new grade. The pop report remains the same--they have graded 18 Honus Wagners.

I understand what you're saying now Charles and you're right, when I check the cert on SGC 2 Wagner with the new slab it shows that it was graded in August 2007 so even though they changed the cert the date of grading didn't change and the SGC 5 Wagner was graded in 2021 and wasn't in an old slab as Greg B. stated.

It would have been super-weird for them to hype a card as though they had never seen one this nice before if all it was was a reslab.

SGC's pop is a train wreck that will never be fixed.

PSA's T206 pop is a wreck too. The choice to implement brand and factory data after grading so many cards just makes it impossible to get a comprehensive picture. I get the change but it does not help.

+1 Agree it is a big opportunity and the Population reports are especially important on older items(especially with being Regraded and slabbed etc) and rare items (that could falsely increase the population and thus the value)

As soon as I saw the card, I thought, "how the heck is that a 5?!" Have to say, I'm glad to see that most of you feel the same way. This is a disingenuous business decision by SGC if I had to guess. Probably assuming the 5 grade will make it become the highest selling card of all time at auction, where a proper grade of 3/3.5 would likely get less publicity. That's my assumption anyway.

All of that said, it's a beautiful card and one of the best examples of the Wagner that are out there. But SGC looks bad here.

I guess at the time this was graded in July 2021, SGC had been mostly shut out of the top sports card sales, and had some blockbuster sales envy.

The highest card sales had all been either PSA (PSA 3 Honus Wagner for $3.7M, PSA 10 Gretsky O-Pee-Chee and a PSA 2 Wagner both for $3.75M, PSA 10 '52 Topps Mantle for $5.2M, or BGS (Trout 2009 Superfractor Autograph for $3.9M, 2017 Patrick Mahomes for $4.3M, 2003-04 Rookie Patch Autograph Lebron James).

PSA also had the highest graded T206 Honus Wagners with the trimmed 8, a 5 and 4. So maybe there was some Wagner envy as well.

But now, with SGC having the 3 highest sales ever with the SGC 3 Wagner selling for $6.6M through REA, the recent sale of the SGC 2 Wagner for over $7M through Goldin, and the soon-to-be record with the SGC 9.5 Mantle through Heritage, they really don't need any more publicity.

But when this was graded, maybe the high profile sales and Wagner envy got the best of them.

“Eye Appeal.”

Below is a photo of John D. Wagner as a distinguished older collector (I believe he lived into the 1980's), and a link to a great thread started by Leon with 1930's correspondence sent to him in response to ads in collector magazines.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=207944&page=3

I assume the T206 Wagner in the Burdick collection at the Met museum was John D. Wagner's second copy of the card that he sent to Burdick.

Enough talk about whether the SGC Wagner card is over-graded. The real question is...did John D. keep the best T206 Wagner, or did he give the better one to Burdick?


Brian

With such a high profile card, even if it got stolen it would be to hot to sell or show in public.

Grading scale
 

What many of you understandably don’t realize is that cards at this level are graded against each other rather than graded on the normal scale your typical Hunky Shaw would be.

These high profile cards have all been overgraded since the beginning of time or since card 00000001 rolled off the assembly line. Have any of you held the PSA 5 Wagner in your hand? While it looks nice in pictures if you saw it in person you would see there is a crease running down the middle that has been rubbed out but is still noticeable. Would it grade a 5 if it was Danny Murphy? Of course not but it’s still nicer than the lone copy of PSA 4 so that’s how the grade is justified.

Would your Orval Overall that looks exactly like this SGC 5 Wagner grade a 5? No, but is it the cards fault that these Wagner’s have all been overgraded since card 00000001? These cards get slotted into the grade they deserve AGAINST EACH OTHER and not against your typical common. Would it be fair to the card if this one gets graded on a regular scale while the rest of the Wagner’s haven’t been? Thus if you look at the Wagner’s in totality this one falls where it belongs, better than the 4 and equal to the 5. I’m not sure if it’s reasonable for it to be anyway else and certainly not the card’s fault that every other Wagner before it has been graded on a different scale than commons. So if you compare apples with apples and not Wagner’s with commons it presumably makes more sense as to why these cards are graded as they are. And if you google images of Wagner 3’s, 4’s and 5 you will see it better. Not sure it’s fair but remember it all began with card 00000001 and proceeded from there so that’s really where the blame, if any, belongs and not on a specific card that’s just being slotted where it belongs in the universe of all the Wagner’s preceding it. While I understand the frustration, don't blame the player, blame the game.

We are very much blaming the people running the game, because they claim it works differently and that big cards are not graded on a separate scale designed to juice those cards. No grading company is admitting there are separate 1-10 scales for the peons and for the marquees. I don't think anyone is unaware or does not understand that they do this in reality; the problem is the dishonesty absurdity.

I totally understand and agree but simply by looking at all of the PSA and SGC Wagner's it is clear that is not the case. All of them are overgraded on the typical scale and I suspect it will have no choice but to continue. Its just not fair to the next card to be graded any differently than all of it's predecessors.

I think we can all agree that, whether it is a 3 or 5 of an unaltered, authentic T206 Wagner and a nice copy to boot, winning it will be the equivalent of the winning Power Ball ticket. There are so many ultra wealthy collectors, who have been on the sidelines licking their chops for the next Wagner to hit the auction block, final price will almost be, or should be in this case, determined by the card and not the slab.

It’s not fair to tell people it’s an orange when it’s obviously an apple. If they want to adopt a new scale for investors that grades 1-10 they can do that, but they are pretending that a 5 EX is a 5 EX quality card whether it is Wagner or Billy Purtell. The people doing this dishonest absurdity will receive some judgement for that because it’s a lie. “We lied in the past so we have to keep lying” is absurdist. Makes good business, got to juice for the big boys, but it’s absurdism.

I get it and share your frustration but the reality is that it is what it is and at this point short of regrading all of them it would seem to be far more of a disservice to the next one to grade it accurately when nearly all before it haven't been. Slotting them where they belong in the hierarchy seems a much fairer solution as new ones come down the pike.

Here's one of 6 PSA 9 1952 Mantle's. Think PSA might want to grade this one again?

That must be a misprint on the label. No way that is a 5, not even close.

Edited to add - Well, at least it's closer in grade than the PSA 00000001 card which is graded an 8 and should be AUTH/ALT.

4 of the 6 52 Mantle PSA 9's look like this one. And they're all owned by one family. There are many 6's that are nicer. For $175K you can get a nice 6 now when the last PSA 9 (probably the nicest one) sold for over $13M privately. We all see the problem with grading.

I think we sometimes have to apply some logic. "SGC lied about A, B, C, D, therefore they must lie about E" is not really logical or reasonable. If a claim is made, that claim should be true, or if it is a claim of opinion, that opinion should be consistent with evidence and reasonable. If I say a card I'm selling or trading is in EX condition, it should be reasonably within the parameters of an EX card. If it is not, I will get lambasted on these boards for my dishonesty, and rightfully so. We all know right off the bat that this is not a 5 EX and there is no argument that it is. SGC is not special because they are a corporate entity. If a claim is untrue or unreasonable to hold as an opinion, it should be abandoned and corrected. Many people will not go along with a lie just because it is convenient for some. If SGC wants to make a brand new "i5 - Investor Excellent" grade and slap that on cards, they can do so. But as long as they blatantly lie, some people will continue to observe this fact and criticize the obvious dishonesty.

I imagine SGC would admit to it around the same time PSA looks us in the eye and says the Mantle is a 9.

There we agree, I have no doubt at all that both firms will continue to lie and pretend up is down if it suits the bottom line. After all, their customers have 0 standards for conduct for them and will go with whatever the companies say no matter how obviously untrue it is because everyone's investment relies on accepting the fictions as truth.

https://i.postimg.cc/3NMVcPCm/IMG-0092.jpg

Burdick's might be slightly better, although who knows what the back looks like.

My first thought was also that those are some worn corners for a 5. BUT, if literally everything else about the card is damn nice I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

WaGS TO WITCHES
 

solid 3.5 and the witch get witcher

If I owned that Wagner, I sure wouldn't complain about the grade--bottom line if the card ever goes to auction, I don't think the investment group bidders will complain either, its graded a 5--end of story==

This is what happens when common folk submit a similar card.

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/YLFVpd2l.png[/IMG]

Additionally, when an older SGC graded card is submitted for a reholder, the date of the original grading shows as the date the card was graded. It does not change.

Speaking of SGC or PSA grading scale, in my opinion, the greatest failings come in SGC 1/ PSA 1 grades. Almost any horrible T206 card that is basically intact can get a 1. Cards with large spots of paper loss on front, or the back essentially completely missing are graded a 1. Some are given an Auth grade, but it is not always possible to understand why. Often, cards in worse condition than an "auth" are also seen as 1's. And it can have nothing to do with trimming, just overall condition.

On the other hand, there are many 1's that are decent and intact, which should be given a "fair" 1.5 designation. Poor is poor. Maybe the grading companies should expand the grade to "super poor" or "barely a card" and the new corresponding grade is an SGC 0.5 Use your "fair" designation dammit.

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/0NbKQe5l.jpg[/IMG]

Wagners have always gotten generous grading. I don't think any of it is on a scale, just that maybe some people get wierd around the "big" cards.

The one I saw up close in an auction in Connecticut was graded properly in that auction. Still sold for 30K even as a weak G. Creases, writing on the back.
over the next year or two it was offered a couple more times, and each time the grade and price changed g-vg it wasn't, but the ad said 60K, next time VG for 90K. It was not even close to VG in any way.

clearly a 1.5 if sent back to me by those slobs at SGC. Looks like a pinhole.

Truth! I enjoy the speculation of prices when its been proven the posters here haven't a GD CLUE!

Can only imagine is wishful thinking their cards will be "worth" more when the speculators sell them.