Revisiting the T206 Wagner "strip"
 

This strip was at Baltimore for all to see. Unfortunately, it is now encapsulated in plastic. I say this simply, because this makes it
impossible to tactilely examine this strip.

Nevertheless, I and 4 other long-time collectors ("dinosaurs") independently examined this strip under magnification and all 5 of us
have arrived at the same conclusion....it is not a standard production strip of T206's. And, it really cannot be classified as a "proof",
either. It is apparent that someone at American Litho. professionally pasted together the fronts of the 5 cards to create this strip.
Perhaps to show Wagner his card along with 4 other players to be included in their 1909 set of BB cards.

Now, I can see why they included Mordecai Brown (a 29 game winner in 1908). And, Cy Young needs no explanation (other then his
colors are not complete). I also see why Johnny Kling was included (hotshot catcher for the Championship Cubs teams, 1906-1908).
Why they selected Frank Bowerman, is not certain. Perhaps, Frank was an old-time friend of Wagner's, since they both started their
BB careers back in the 1890's.

Anyhow, the indisputable lines between each card is the revealing clue. In fact, one can see the separation between the Young and
Kling in the upper part of their adjacency.

OK, I'm sure the usual suspects on this forum will do their thing and "bust my chops" over this observation. However, I will REPEAT....
I'm not the sole critic of this strip. The other 4 guys, independently, came to the same conclusion. And mind you, that between us 5
guys there are 180+ years of hobby experience.


TED Z

Who are the other 4 fellows? If you're mentioning them to add legitimacy to your opinion then it's only fair if we know who they are, isn't it?

so what
 

who cares about the other guys. ted has a well written and interesting post here. if ted wanted to name them than he would. its interesting and perhaps adds another level of how his regular issued card was short printed.

i am glad its encapsulated, for protection, this item is one of a kind with a terrific provenance. i am sure the sgc holder frames it nicely.

Hi Ted
 

I was wondering what your opinion of this strip would be after you had a chance to view it in person.

When you say it's not a standard production strip of T206's, what is out there to compare it to?

Also, if the ALC pasted together the fronts why would there be printers marks? Was the strip thicker than a regular T206?

I'm not busting your chops, just slightly confused- and I've never seen this in person. Thanks for posting about this-

Sincerely, Clayton

Ted, hope you have a mouth guard...

What you've set out is consistent with what you said before. A few of us thought much this way earlier. The lines between the cards aren't consistent with proof marks, there's no cross marks for alignment. I know it isn't, but it reminds me of those Bazooka cards we used to cut off of those boxes 40 years ago.

Thanks for posting. I think your 'rehashing' sets out what that assembly of images (it isn't really a strip of cards) is.

I am with Ted 100%. I remember a past thread about this and when I seen it at the national I looked at it then used my loop to see. There was for sure a difference in lines where they were put together and a printed line would be. But it is what it is and someone is going to pay top $ no matter what:(

Hell its a cool piece no matter what:cool:

astute dinosaur!
 

great work, Ted.
thanks for sharing your findings.
all the best,
barry

Ted,

I am glad that you finally got to view it up close. I had expressed in the original thread that I was anxious to hear your opinion. Thanks for posting and letting us know what you saw, confirming your initial posts on the matter.

It is still a neat piece despite being fabricated.

Greg

Ted- It's very interesting that Bowerman was an old friend of Wagner's. That would be an excellent way to get Honus to agree to let them use his picture. If an old friend agreed to do it, he might too. Good stuff.

botn
 

Greg

Indeed, it is a very neat piece. There is no question about that.

Actually, I wish it was a real production piece, because it's my understanding that the Plank
card was next to (or close by) on the sheet that the Wagner card was printed on.

Can you imagine what a strip or panel of T206's with Plank & Wagner on it would be worth ?


TED Z

Barry S
 

Regarding your........
" It's very interesting that Bowerman was an old friend of Wagner's. That would be an excellent way to get Honus
to agree to let them use his picture. If an old friend agreed to do it, he might too. "


This is conjecture on my part. However, if this strip was cobbled together to persuade Wagner to grant the Rights
to portray him....then as I have said, I can understand why "Three finger" Brown, Johnny Kling, and CYoung are on
this strip with Wagner. But, why Frank Bowerman ?

Best regards,

TED Z

Nice work
 

Nice work Ted. I am not really a "T206" guy but this piece is a mystery and sounds like it's going to still have some mystique surrounding it. Thanks for sharing your observations. I too agree, no need to mention other folks that saw it. If you say they are long time hobbyists and know what they are looking at, then that is good by me. take care and thanks again. So far no mouth guard needed :).

Have any of the other cards that are on that strip been found o/c enough that the neighboring card is visible? If so, do the images match?

What I wonder is
 

Why does Bowerman not have a team desgnation or a colored collar in the strip... (I was thinking that when I saw the pics from timzcardz in the National Pic thread, and figured why not ask now).

Also, maybe the ATC really liked him...I remember reading a thread about him being in their advertising in Sporting life.

Thanks for starting this thread, Ted. I too spent several minutes closely examing the strip in Baltimore. Aside from the color differences already mentioned (on Young and Bowerman), a close look also shows that the ink color used for the name and team info and used to frame the image portion of the cards is quite clearly black, and not the dark brown that was used for all series of regular production. Based on these things and the overall look of the thing, I walked away convinced that the strip is undeniably cool but that it doesn't derive from the general production of T206 cards.

I also viewed the strip at the National under a loupe. Ted and I discussed this at the show and we disagree. It seemed clear to me that the lines between cards were printed. I do not believe separate cards were pasted onto the strip. In my opinion, it was a test run. This particular one was sent to Wagner to try to entice him to sign on with the project by showing him how good they looked. Meanwhile, I think that back at ALC, they looked at what was potentially a final product and decided to make some further changes after the sample sent to Wagner. Color changes were made to some cards in what would be final production decisions.

In my opinion, it does not make sense that they would cut cards off a sheet and then paste them back together. If it was sent to Wagner to impress him and convince him to sign on, why not just send him cut up cards? Why paste them back onto a sheet? I think they just cut a strip off of a sheet in the place that included Wagner's own image. They included a few others adjacent to his to give him a better sense of the set as a whole. It was close enough to a final production stage that the changes that might be made later (like adding color) would be relatively inconsequential in terms of giving Wagner a sense of what the cards would look like in general.

Of course this is speculation, but it is based on quite a bit of information and a close inspection of the piece under a 10X loupe at the National. Sometimes Ted and I disagree and I mean no disrespect. I know that Mark Macrae had similar questions as Ted when we talked at the National. Good, honest, knowledgable people can disagree.
JimB

I will also add that even if they were cut off different sheets and pasted together on a strip to send to Wagner, that would not affect the importance or value of this piece in slightest IMHO.
JimB

I guess my questions must've came across wrong about this strip, so I'll try again.........

I am confused about the "making" of the strip. When I imagine them pasting the fronts on to the strip (am I understanding this right?) it seems as though this strip would be "thicker" than a normal T206. This is why I asked about the thickness........

As far as the "paste" itself, what did they use as paste back then? Would it hold up this well 100 years later?

It just seems like it would've been easier to print the strip on one solid piece of paper than to painstakenly paste each subject's fronts together.

Sincerely, Clayton

JimB you were posting while I was trying to figure out a way to ask questions without coming across as "attacking".......but what you said makes the most sense to me.

Somehow you didn't make it into Ted's post where he spoke of the universal consensus of the hobby experts he spoke with at the show.

Hobby veterans often disagree on any number of issues, but this seems to be a very odd one not to have a consensus. Either it's a continuous strip or the cards are pasted on; wouldn't everybody who looked at it closely agree on one or the other? I don't get this one.:confused:

The fact that Ted and his panel of experts examined it while it is slabbed is a factor. I think in one of the previous threads about the strip, a former owner, who obviously handled and examined it unslabbed, said that the cards are a continuous strip and not individual ones pasted together.

I would search for the exact post if I thought it would make a difference.

Jim B

1st....The color differences of the Bowerman and CYoung with respect to the other 3 cards on this strip totally contradicts the 6-color
process that American Litho. used to print their standard production T206's. Therefore, I have to question your observation......
"I think they just cut a strip off of a sheet in the place that included Wagner's own image."

2nd....We haven't discussed the back of this strip. The back is simply a strip of thin white cardboard that appears to have been pieced
together. And, not the type of cardboard backing typical of T206 cards.

Finally....Jim, how do you account for the vertical lines between each card ?
They are not printed lines.


Regards,
TED Z

Do we know who owns it?

This may simply be the result of two different approaches to observation. To oversimplify the issue (it's really a scale), some folks approach things by simply making observations on what they see. Others process what they see with other information they already knew to form their observations.

As an example, Jim may have seen the lines that appear to be printed between the cards and said the lines were printed there. Ted, knowing that for regular T206 printings no lines were printed between cards, may have seen the lines and observed they must be the result of cards being cut and then adhered adjacently.

Again, the above is an example, I can't actually say how either of them processed their encounter with the strip - just using it as an illustration to answer Barry's question.

Since the SGC guys read the board, maybe one of them could chime in on the subject since they are the ones that slabbed it?

Proof
 

It may be possible that the strip is indeed "cobbled" together while at the same time being a single continuous strip. This is possible if you understand how these items were printed. The key to this is the lithographic transfer process. I am not going to explain it in this post but will provide a link to a site that I have been working on to explain how chromolithographs were printed in the mid 19th century up until the early to mid 20th century. If you read the making of a cigar label .pdf keep in mind that in lieu of the keyline drawing the halftone photo of the player with the border such as that of Wagner most certainly served as the key instead.

http://mjdalton.blogspot.com/

1. I do not understand why ALC could not have printed a sheet that looked like that.

2. The back did not look pieced together to me. It looked like one piece. And under a loupe it looked just like any other T206 cardboard (without the ad printed on it).

3. I think they simply printed lines between cards on this particular pre-production test run.

JimB

Isn't it owned by the same guy that owns the PSA 8 Wagner, the Diamondbacks owner?

Oh man if so I hope he is not 0/2. :D

Peter,

Both the T206 "Gretzky" Wagner and the T206 Wagner strip card are part of the hobby industry folklore. Thus, without definite proof (which we will never get), the debate over whether "the" Wagner card was/is trimmed or whether the strip is not really a strip, only serves to enhance the value. So we can debate this until we are blue in the face, meanwhile the current owner will laugh all the way to the bank.

Lovely Day...

I am still puzzled how Jim's view was so different from Ted's (and others). The issues at least some don't really seem to be subjective ones.

JimB

Hey ole buddy....we had several interesting conversations at the National in Baltimore during that week. You asked me
my opinion of the 1949 LEAF Joe DiMaggio you acquired, regarding its color variation. I pointed out to you the quality
aspects of this card, which made you quite happy about it. And, you got a "kick" from the TyCobb/Ty Cobb card some
one showed me at the show, who thought it was a real one.

But, now there are at least 7 guys who have personally examined this Wagner strip at the National that differ with you
on it.

I'll respond to your 3 comments......

Jim...."1. I do not understand why ALC could not have printed a sheet that looked like that."

The 6-color process used by lithographers back then applied the individual ink passes simultaneously on all cards on a
given sheet (or strip). Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this strip to have been printed with the CYoung and Bowerman
cards to have certain colors missing, while the other 3 cards' colors are virtually complete.


Jim...."2. The back did not look pieced together to me. It looked like one piece. And under a loupe it looked just like any
other T206 cardboard (without the ad printed on it)."

We discussed the "backing" on this strip. In no way, is it a normal blank-backed T206 card's cardboard. It's a bright white
piece of carboard, that does not jive with the cardboard used in 1909 to produce the T206's.


Jim...."3. I think they simply printed lines between cards on this particular pre-production test run."

These so-called lines are not printed, but are actually separations between the cards. Examining this strip under high magni-
fication revealed this. Furthermore, this observation is reinforced by the separation between the CYoung card and the Kling
card at the upper right end of the strip. If the strip was not in its plastic encapsulation, you would be able to tactilely feel
the separations.

Two final points......

Jaime Hull noted here (in post #15)....
"a close look also shows that the ink color used for the name and team info and used to frame the image portion of the cards
is quite clearly black, and not the dark brown that was used for all series of regular production"

And, since you mentioned Mark Macrae (in post #16)....you'll recall that he was even more convinced than me, that these 5
cards were individually placed together on this "strip".


Regards,

TED Z

Is an image available?

Ted - one question regarding the color and the differences in "completeness" you observe....

You stated above "it is IMPOSSIBLE for this strip to have been printed with the CYoung and Bowerman
cards to have certain colors missing, while the other 3 cards' colors are virtually complete."

But, wouldn't this be possible if the ALC had intended the CYoung and Bowerman to have been complete as they appear on the strip, and then later, after examining what they considered to be the final product, decided to add more color and improve those cards to make those cards look better? I think you are assuming that the CYoung and Bowerman cards were intended, from day 1, to appear in the final form that we are all used to seeing today. But, what if that wasn't the original intention?

To illustrate with another example - what if the ALC had originally intended the Wagner background to be white... A "final" preproduction example was created of Wagner with a white background. They looked at the white background and said this looks awful - lets make the background orange. So, the production example were made with orange. Years later, both cards exist. Someone claims the white background Wagner is missing color. Well, that is not accurate. The white background example is missing no color - that was the "original" intention. However, subsequent intention was to give it an orange background.

So, isn't it entirely possible that the strip can have cards that look complete to what we know is the final product (ala Wagner), and cards that looks incomplete (ala CYoung) because those "incomplete" cards may have been the original intention?

The normal printing processes of lithography could easily have been discarded for a test/experimental run of this strip. So it is very possible that this test or experimental strip had all sorts oddities that do not occur in the normal process of printing T206s. Applying color to an entire sheet was done to save time and print fast. When you are experimenting, time is not an issue and so color could have been applied to one card and not the other.

Again, they could have easily used test paper that was not used in the actual production of T206s, because this was a test/experimental piece. However, the fact that it is bright doesn't mean much, it could be just well preserved.

This is so far the best (and perhaps only) evidence that the cards were pasted together. However the only person on this board that actually touched this card, a previous owner, disagreed with your idea that you could feel the separation, and thought that it was one card. I haven't examined or handled this card so I don't know one way or another, but its interesting that people can disagree on something that you can either see or can't.

The separation between the Young and Kling appears to be a heavy crease, where it was folded. But I haven't seen it so I can't say for sure. Just a thought.

I do think it is interesting that you couldn't see the separation without a high degree of magnification. If it was pasted together, someone certainly did an expert job.

In my opinion whether these cards were printed together on one piece of paper, or printed on separate pieces of paper and then pasted together, makes little difference to the strip's value or legitimacy. If they were pasted together, it appears to have been done by original person at the printing factory, not by some modern collector trying to increase the value. That is the crucial distinction.

So if this piece consists of five cards glued onto a cardboard strip, which at minimum seems to be the majority opinion, under what circumstances did SGC authenticate it? Wouldn't it seem like the kind of piece that could not be authenticated, given the circumstances of how it was constructed? Part of the criteria of authentication is knowing what a piece is, and being able to identify it as such. What exactly is this?

Just Noticed the
 

Kling and Mordecai Brown cards are also missing the color in the collars. Additionally, the Bowerman appears to have Rosy Cheeks so the Red was applied to the card....just not the B for Boston. So 4 of the 5 have some color variance.....

This strip is 100 years old, perhaps a bit more. If I remember the lore behind it, it was found folded, in a pocket.

The creasing and overall wear that it exhibits is something that nobody can deny - it appears to have taken a beating over the years.

That being the case, I would guess that if it had been five separate cards pasted together on a strip, at least one of these cards would have, by now, begun peeling away from its backing, or from the other cards. I'm unaware of any glue that could have been used in 1909 to paste these cards together that would have held up for 100 years while being subject to the abuse that this strip has taken over the years.

Coupled with the fact that two different people who have seen and held the actual strip outside of a holder and verified that it is one continuous strip seems to be fairly strong evidence.

This is, of course, not to denigrate the knowledge of some of the experts who have chimed in on this, but it seems that most of those who feel it's not a continuous strip have evaluated the item either from pictures, or from holding it while encased in a slab.

As for why colors are not consistent with the final issue, or why lines appear in places where we're not accustomed to seeing them, as someone who buys various printed materials every single day, there are dozens of reasons why a test, a proof, or a press sheet might look different than the final product. That's a detail that I don't find particularly odd at all, especially using 1909 printing technology.

-Al

Wagner Strip Card
 

Will this help in your discussion;)

If it's not a continuous strip but is in fact six individual pieces- the five cards plus the backing- how do we know when it was glued together? I think it's safe to say the printing is period and it was sent to Wagner right before the mass printing of the cards was to take place. But how do we know the cards weren't sent loose to Wagner and the family later glued them to a backing? That's my point about it being authenticated- has the glue been tested? Do we know how and when the strip was constructed? I just feel if it consists of five separate cards then authenticating it is a bit of a slippery slope.

If on the other hand it's a single contiguous strip then I have no issues with the authentication. But as has been stated earlier in this thread, can't somebody from SGC come on here and solve this mystery for us? Whichever is correct, it certainly shouldn't be a secret and no confidences should be compromised by answering that question.

Thanks for that picture. On one hand, those creases between the cards do suggest they might be glued down to something. However, look at the print lines at the top and bottom of the seams between Wagner and Bowerman, and Wagner and Brown. How would those lines be there if five cards were pasted down? Still a mystery.

I looked at it and........
 

they are not individual pieces glued to the backing. In fact the spaces/lines in between are irregular and appear to be hand cut cards layed out together. Whether they were trial color runs, progressive proof runs or printers scrap.

How far back can anyone definitively trace this piece??

Thank you Jon for stating this much more eloquently than I did above. This is what I was trying to say.
JimB

Ted my friend,
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I looked at the card very closely under a loupe, specifically looking for evidence that it was multiple cards pasted together. What I saw was printed lines between the card, except for the Young/Kling where the crease was so heavy it was impossible to discern. I know there are not length-of-card printed lines on other extant T206 proofs, only the hash marks that are also on this piece. I believe I am reporting what I saw accurately. It would be nice if the SGC grader who examined it outside of the holder would chime in here.
Best,
Jim

I agree with Jim, the lines between the cards are irregular and wavy, yet they are printed on the stock just like the cards.

I still can't understand how roughly half the people who examined this piece saw it one way, and half the other way. Is it an optical illusion? Because it's either five separate cards or one strip- period. There's no gray area here.

If glued together how to explain what seems to be a clear black printed little line segment at the bottom of the separation between each card. Look e.g. at the bottom of the division between Brown and Wagner.

My math skills must be off - perhaps I miscounted, but it looks like every single person who has examined the card in person and come on the forum, including two people who held it raw, say it is printed, with the exception of Ted.

Ted & Jim... It was nice discussing this piece with both of you at the National. While we are all at a disadvantage not being able to examine the piece ‘outside of plastic’, there are numerous anomalies when compared to typical T-206 cards. I’ll agree that based on what I’ve seen, this piece is most likely period and most likely pre-production. Beyond that, I'm not going to speculate. Modern collectors may never be able to determine exactly what this piece is, much like the 19th century hall of fame jerseys that were in Barry Halper’s collection.....:confused:

Matt- Ted said several other people whom he spoke with at the National agreed that these were separate cards. I don't know who they are or how many he discussed it with, but it appears more than one feel these are separate cards. My opinion from memory is that it was printed on a single strip, but I last saw it in person in 1999.

I recall reading that Wayne Varner of Shoebox Cards owned it & held it before he sold it to Barry Halper. Perhaps, Wayne could help break the tie from that half the people thinks it's one way & half think it's another. :D

One would say you are "mathe-MATT-ically" challenged

Mark Macrae, Jamie Hull (see post #15), and I have stated the strip is not a 5-card print....but, has been pieced together.

Furthermore, there are at least 4 others who have seen this strip an agree with us. Two of them occasionally post here.
The other two do not.


I'm tired of your constant attempts to "derail" me, as you have tried in other threads. If you have something constructive
to add, then by all means state it.
Keep your negative thoughts to yourself.


TED Z

At least we know why there is a disagreement.

Ted see my post 47, what was your take on the little black line segments separating the cards along the bottom border, and how to reconcile them with theory of cards being glued together, thanks.

Mark

I think modern collectors may never know what those 19th century HOFer Halper jerseys were, but they do know what they're not ;)

very unfair
 

Hey Ted
For the record I think when Mark M said above, that he feels it is pre-production, it means that it was not put together as different cards and is in fact one strip. Maybe I took it the wrong way? I just got off of the phone with a very advanced collector who louped it at the National, with another advanced collector. He and the other chap say they are positive it is one strip. There is absolutely no doubt in their minds.

As for negative thoughts in this thread, I don't see them. I see a good debate going on, with good folks that are agreeing and disagreeing. I hope this debate doesn't get personal. best regards.....your friend ....LL

Here is the original thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=123958. On it both Wayne and Solomon, who held and owned the strip, commented.

What is even more mysterious than the origin of the strip is the number of experts who Ted and Leon have talked with whose names cannot be mentioned. It is just an opinion they are providing not testimony in a court of law. Why the anonymity?

One commented in this thread and the other is a bit more private but has been collecting for around 40 yrs. And my response mentioned one collector and another friend of his....so that number is 2, Greg.

Like Leon, I don't see anyone having any negativity towards you Ted. There is a good debate going on here, and there is nothing wrong with counting up who is on what side. But nobody has any personal stake in it and its all pretty much opinion, and it looks like there are opinions on both sides. Don't take it personally if we disagree with you, its all just an academic debate anyway that doesn't really matter that much...

Back to the debate, as I said on the previous thread:

Because of its plastic entombment, I couldn't determine whether it was a frankenstrip or not. What I feel totally convinced of is that the strip (or "strip") was separately produced from standard T206 press runs and thus sheds only limited light on T206 production methods.

Barry,
maybe there is some room for grey area..
perhaps its a 3 card strip with two cards added (glued on). ?

;)

SGC, where art thou?
 

Since they are the ones who slabbed the strip, it really is a shame that someone from SGC hasn't chimed in on this thread. If we keep the debate going for another 5 days maybe Brian Dwyer (who will then be formerly of SGC) will have some comments.

Marty- you are a master at finding that great middle ground.:)

well
 

I sort of doubt SGC will come on here for this debate. They do read the board quite a bit though. I would have to imagine that if they thought it were seperate cards glued onto a strip then they would not have slabbed it. If I am wrong I will let ya'll know tomorrow, after they call me and correct me :D. regards

Leon- why couldn't SGC come on here and comment? All they would have to say is whether it's a strip or an amalgamation of cards. It's easy and they certainly (hopefully) won't get attacked. I bet if you asked them they would- they've certainly commented on this board before.

Hey guys....
 

My "beef" is just with one character here....Matt, and his comment in post #48......
" My math skills must be off - perhaps I miscounted, but it looks like every single person who has examined the card
in person and come on the forum, including two people who held it raw, say it is printed, with the exception of Ted. "

While his comment may sound innocuous to you, it is unsolicited "digs" like this that he posted on several occasions,
that I have finally become fed up with.
It is apparent that he did not bother to read the prior posts here, before making that comment. Or, perhaps he did
read them; but, has a comprehension problem.

In any event, please try to understand my side of this matter. I don't post on here to generate controversy.
I have stated my opinion on this strip and that I'm entitled to do so. I fully expect & accept constructive differences
of opinion.
However, I don't think we need uninformed, sarcastic commentary.


TED Z

I can think of a few reasons. One is that it establishes a precedent I'm guessing SGC would like to avoid. If someone from SGC comes on the board and provides details on the strip, then where do they draw the line? Are they required to do it the next time there are questions about a high-profile card? Plus, my guess is they'd prefer to let their work do the talking. I don't think it would be slabbed like it is if it were five cards pasted together (the collective opinion of Ted's group of experts not withstanding).

Second, I'm sure they feel a responsiblity to their customers to not publicly comment on cards they grade. I'm betting they would feel the need to get permission from the card's owner before commenting.

Third, I'm sure they've seen how quickly other threads have deteriorated when folks who don't post that often come aboard.

Finally, I doubt it would end up being a simple post. One answer would lead to another question, which would lead to another, etc., etc., etc. They received the card, received payment and did their job. I don't think SGC should be expected to host a Q&A. At least at this point in time.

Of course, now that I've said all this, expect someone from SGC to post within the hour.

Ted, quite simply: No, you do not.

Rob- I agree that even the simplest threads can end up in dogfights, so I'm with you there.

But we aren't asking them to reveal anything even slightly confidential or controversial. We're merely asking if it's a single strip or not.

And as far as where they draw the line, it would pretty much stop right here. This is an extremely unusual, and admittedly unique item. I don't care how they came to the conclusion it's genuine, I don't care who submitted it...I just want to know if it's a strip or not.

And I agree that they wouldn't have slabbed it if it were five cards glued together. Therefore, I have to put myself in the camp that it is a strip and not five individual cards. But it would be nice to hear it from them.

That said, they probably will not chime in.

I disagree. Two or three times a week on this board, I see people calling for a representative from a grading company to chime in to a thread and offer an opinion or explanation. The first time a grading company representative does this, it sets a precedent. There have certainly been plenty of other high-profile items where grading companies have been asked to comment on this board.

I also know that if I submitted a card to a grading company, or if I owned a card that was the subject of some discussion, I wouldn't want the grading company to be making public statements about my card - whether they be positive or negative or indifferent. SGC is not the owner of the card; they were asked to render an opinion for the owner of the card at the time of submission, and not to make a public statement to the entire hobby at the request of someone who has no ownership interest in the card at all.

My suggestion would be to have one of the academics here contact the owner of the card, and in the interest of learning, ask if the slab could be opened at next year's National, in a public forum. It could be examined under a loupe, and then re-slabbed. I'd be happy to pony up some cash for re-slabbing the card.

-Al

Fair enough Al. I'll go with that. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me but this board can often be a lion's den so maybe they shouldn't say anything.

Could they at least give us a hint?

Not to disagree or agree with anybody-just my opinion.

I examined this piece 2 different times while at the National. I thought it was odd all the cards had heavy creasing except the Bowerman.
The cards have perfect registration and appear to be a first run or very close, much better quality than any other cards I have seen of these players.
The piece appeared to be one strip of cards to me. I couldn't see any evidence that these were pasted together but I only could examine it through the plastic.
The vertical lines looked to be printed on and unique to this piece because if these lines were on all 206 sheets we would see them on other 206 cards. I don't think if cards were pasted together, vertical lines would appear.

I have taken 5 raw 206s and put them together. Where they touch doesn't appear to be a printed vertical line.

It would have been nice to hold it and feel the cardboard and run my fingers across the strip.

Great idea !!! Then all of us Net54 members could take turns examining it. We could vote one piece or not one piece. The item would then be re-slabbed with that info on the label on what the majority of members decide.

another 2 for a strip.....
 

I have emailed back and forth with Wayne Varner about some other things in the last day or two. He and his partner Bill have handled this raw. Here is his message (I hope he doesn't mind)...

" By the way that Wagner strip is the real thing. No cards pasted together. You can talk to Bill and I about it at the Valley Forge show next month if you are planning to be there. I am sure Ted Z, Bill and I will have conversation. He sits up right next to us if you recall. Hope to see you there.

Wayne"




The other 1 of the 2 people that think it's a strip, which I previously mentioned, is Richard Masson....He and Scott B, my partner (and who already gave his opinion), both louped it at the National and think it's one strip. No more anonymity in my musings :). I don't really like to throw names around for a few reasons but I never make crap up.....I could be wrong sometimes, and will admit it, but if I say something there is a reason. best regards

Why not stand by your opinion
 

What I don't understand is that SGC would have a problem standing by their opinion. I mean, they examined the card and slabbed it, why wouldn't they want to express their opinion on the card? I understand that sometimes threads can become negative, but if they come on the board and express their professional opinion, I would have greater respect for third party grading.

It's a piece of hobby lore and any details about the strip should be expressed so we can come to a detailed conclusion about the piece.

I guess I am just having a hard time believing that a company created to determine the authenticity and grades of these cardboard pieces, wouldn't come onto this board and tell us their opinion on the piece?

Jeff

Sgc
 

I can see both sides but they have graded and authenticated it already by slabbing it. In essence they have already rendered a professional opinion.

Exactly!

I suggested maybe someone from SGC chime in back at post #25 so I'm guessing either they don't want to get involved in the discussion or they assume the fact that they slabbed it speaks for itself. Personally, if prior owners say it's one strip that's good enough for me. Unless I hit the lottery I won't have to worry about ever owning it so I'm not losing much sleep over it one way or the other, but it would be interesting to hear SGC's take on it.

Sgc
 

SGC gave their opinion-it is in their holder-SGC A-that is their opinion.

Anything else that is said or written should be to the owner of the card, not on a public chat board...:rolleyes:

If you step back and think about it a minute, how can 5 cards could be glued together so perfectly that it is essentially undetectable under a 10x loop 100 years after being glued, then creased, folded and tossed about.

The alignment on the top and bottom is razor perfect across all cards. I simply cannot see how it is plausible that they are 5 separate cards glued together 100 years ago. No way IMHO.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...agnerstrip.jpg