David Hall talks about The Wagner
 

Enjoy!

https://youtu.be/1vWkfnOLA18?si=zOKBaFVHbt5LsVPP

"In the grading room, it was never a question of 'is it good or bad?'. We looked at it and compared it with other T206s under magnification and it looked totally OK to me. So we graded it. The only question was whether it was a 7 or an 8. I mean the card just jumps out and slaps you in the face it's so beautiful. So we graded it, and then the book comes out, the FBI gets involved, etc. But to me, to my dying day, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that card. It's gorgeous. Probably the greatest of all sports cards. Right up there with Marshall Fogel's 10 1952 Mickey Mantle. And that's my side of the Wagner story."

- David Hall (~20 min into the video)

So Hall is either unable to see a trimmed card or is lying? Because the card was cut down by Mastro, that is a proven fact.

"So we graded it, and then the book comes out"

It's made to sound like these things happened in short succession as opposed to nearly 20 years apart.

In this video Hall speculates the FBI was obsessed with the card and this case, and he believes Mastro might have lied about cutting down the card in order to reduce his prison sentence.

I guess Bill lied about trimming the card when he was secretly recorded in undercover videos admitting he trimmed it. Or when he recently publicly admitted he still owns the paper slicer he used to trim the Wagner.

Does David Hall have dementia or is he just another lying hobby scumbag?

Wasn't Bill Hughes in the room? Hasn't he said that he knew the card had been cut from a sheet?

https://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_62.html

No, and I would believe about 80% of what O'keefe ever said. He lied about something I had said before, so he could easily lie again. He totally changed a sentence told to him and made it look like something else was said, which to me, is a lie.
.

I hear you. How I'd love to weigh in with my opinion, but the forum rules...

It's sheet cut anyway, whether or not it was then trimmed again. Who cares.:D

I personally think David Hall is in deep denial.

It's a pretty bad hack job, hard to believe anyone who looks at a lot of t206s could miss the trim.

His own collection was said to have many trimmed cards.

Neat video, but ultimately, this card is still in a PSA 8 holder. And if it does sell again, it will bring top dollar.

Ya think?:eek:

I do not believe kendrick has any intention of selling any of his collection...per interview w/Ken Goldin Ken Goldin. We may never see the sale of the psa 8 wagner again in our lifetime.

Well he is 82.

haha...well he claims his son isn't selling either!!!!!!

Exactly. What happens later might change.

This was put in print by Harper Collins, one of the biggest publishing houses in the world. Their legal department would have wanted interviews recorded to protect themselves from lawsuits. If this was false, Bill Hughes would be able to sue the authors and the publisher.

Mic drop…

Maybe he wants to be buried with his cards so he can enjoy them in the afterlife.

That would be the ultimate vault.

PSA built their entire company off the backs of trimmers. He clearly is not concerned with card trimming. He knows the Wagner was trimmed. He just doesn't think it matters. As long as a card "looks right", then that's all that matters to him. Remember, the graders used to meet with dealers at the private events at Nationals to tell them what the edges needed to look like in order for their trimmed cards to pass grading. They would essentially coach them into how to "properly" trim cards.

What I don't fully get is why, in 30 plus years, not a single former grader or other employee in a position to know has talked. I am sure some of them have enjoyed lucrative relationships with PSA as dealers, but not all. And NDAs can't be the complete answer; people defy those frequently and (not my area of expertise) there are whistleblower protections I imagine might apply. But to my knowledge, it has not happened.

That's cause' most of them remain in the industry. For example, he will go from PSA to HA to SGC to Goldin, etc. Everyone knows everyone and everyone has to work with everyone. If you say one bad thing about anybody, then you're finished. For example, Joe Orlando went to HA, and like most auction houses, they do a lot of business with PSA. Now, imagine what would happen if Joe started trash-talking Nat Turner or somebody else at PSA? He most likely would lose his job.

What is interesting to me is how much money is involved and, relatedly, how important these things can feel, but then to realize what a small segment of people care. For example, the link has 194 views, guessing mostly from here.

Bill Mastro - “I trimmed the card”

PSA- “no you didn’t”

Usually it’s the other way around lol

I've actually done this. I included notes on a card that was submitted to PSA saying it was altered and to grade the card as such (not trimmed, but still altered). It came back in a numeric holder. Disclosures do not matter. They are offering their opinion. They don't care about yours.

Can't speculate as to the former, but res ip on the latter.

C'mon, Leon, regardless of your views on O'Keeffe, give your devil his due: he was right that The Card has been doctored. Please don't fall in with the fantasists who still defend 'The Card' even after the guy who cut it up admitted that he cut it up. Don't sit with Linus waiting for The Great Pumpkin. You'll miss tricks or treats.

Where did I say it's unaltered? It is altered. I just said I don't think the grader knew it at the time.
I said Okeefe isn't a good reporter, imo. And that is due to how he reported something about me.

Just my opinion, but I would bet both Hall and Hughes at least strongly suspected the sheet cut card had been further trimmed. People who have seen the card say it's fairly obvious.

I saw the card in Anaheim around 2005 or so, whenever the last National was there. My first thoughts were, 1. This card is obviously trimmed. 2. It is WAY more obvious in person than in any photo or scan I had seen.

I haven't seen the card in person. You might be right.
The only thing I am real sure of is that my 5 dogs and 2 fosters need to be fed and taken care of today. That I am sure of. The rest is always a little bit fuzzy. Is that called plausible deniability?
.

Regraded today what is it getting?

It won't be, so the question is moot.

I think it's called speculation and it's a valid question.

As long as we're speculating, what are the odds that they won't recognize that it's the same one that they graded at cert 00000001?

If your question is based on a fantasyland where it gets regraded, and where it's not identified as having been previously graded, and they really look at it fresh without any preconceived notions, then it seems likely that it would get the AA grade.

But that requires us to suspend a whole lot of belief to get there.

I think they likely knew it was trimmed but didn't care, as evidenced by the other countless obviously trimmed cards they encapsulated back then.

AUTH first because it's sheet cut and second because from there it was trimmed. That said, they would know it's the same card and stubbornly stick it in an 8 holder again.

Absolutely agree! No way it would ever be downgraded to what it actually is.

After Mastro admitted the card was trimmed, during the National PSA luncheon, David Hall said that he called Ken Kendrick about the PSA guarantee, and that Kendrick refused. He mentioned this again during the video above.

I was told that at that lunch he doubled down that it was legit, asking for a show of hands who had seen it outside the holder and his was the only one.

David Hall talks about The Wagner
 

I was there, at the luncheon. That is also true.

Frankly I have never understood this. If I get a 1962 Post Cereal card that was "sheet cut" in the first place, would it matter if, today, I trimmed it? If so, why.

It seems to me that Wagner deserved an Auth grade based on it being cut from a sheet, and subsequent cutting was no more an alteration than the original cutting.

In other words, why would cutting a card from a sheet be acceptable, but cutting it a second time be criminal?

I've said this many times, and it NEVER seems to gain any traction. I think you've analyzed it perfectly.

LOL, too bad Bill wasn't at the lunch.

I agree with others that the people in the grading room knew it was trimmed. I saw the card at the National one year...not in hand so I was not able to determine if the trim job was obvious or not. From that distance and even knowing that it had been cut off a sheet and then trimmed again, it looked the part.

I also take Hall's stance as self-serving and not sure he exudes the sophistication of someone who has a keen eye for grading and authentication but I could be entirely wrong. Just an impression from the numerous interviews he has done over the years.

Making sure I understand the definitions, do these sound correct?

Factory cut - cutting the card from a sheet while at the factory
Sheet cut - cutting the card from a sheet after it leaves the factory
Trimming - further cutting one or more of the card's edges after it has been cut from the sheet

Hypothetically the same (or extremely similar) tool could be used in all 3 applications?

Yes he has:

I'm not buying David Hall's story.

:(

Every thread needs a card, and this is what would have happened if Dmitri Young had submitted it...

LOL Doug, that is funny. Anytime I see a card with his pedigree on the flip, I run. He wasn’t exactly shy about his actions.

The difference between a Post Cereal card and the Honus Wagner card is that Post Cereal cards were distributed as panels that were intended to be cut by kids. The Honus Wagner card was intended to be distributed as a single factory cut card in cigarette packs. And that's a very big difference.

Not if it wasn't factory cut. If it was cut off a sheet, it was cut off a sheet.

If anybody should know about T206's, clean and messed with, it is David Hall, who made collecting them into a lifetime feast. A very bad odor coming from his camp.

It's not. As I've maintained over and over again, he wasn't convicted for trimming the Wagner. Don't let the clown lawyers around here convince you that someone agreeing to a plea deal that mentions the Wagner trimming among a laundry list of a dozen other far more serious offenses equates to him having actually committed a crime with respect to trimming that card. "Obtaining a conviction" via a plea deal and being "convicted" by a judge and jury are not the same thing. I don't care what your hobby lawyer friends tell you. Even if they're the best lawyers on the planet. They're lying to you. That's what they get paid to do.

Exactly. This is what I find hilarious is all these people who think they can identify a trimmed edge. LMAO. No, they can't. They can identify an edge that was trimmed by an Exacto knife, or a pair of scissors, or some other obvious trimming, or cards that are hilariously small, but they absolutely cannot distinguish between whether or not an edge was cut by Martin Yale ream cutter A or Martin Yale ream cutter B or even which decade it was cut during (and yes, I'm aware of claims regarding oxidation of the edges vs a fresh cut. And I promise you, those claims are misguided).

I find this take pretty funny, given the number of rather obviously trimmed cards in your collection. (Here come the ignorant comments about how this conflicts with my statement above, when in fact it does not).

Clown lawyers indeed. Right up there with clown data scientists perhaps? Anyhow, I don't think Mark's post had anything to do with the Mastro case, he's simply saying as I have said that the card already was at best an AUTH due to it being sheet cut so the focus by the hobby on any further trimming is misplaced. But I am sure Mark will correct me if I misinterpreted.

It’s almost impossible to believe how dumb you are — except when I look at your pathetic collection, the value of which reflects your IQ and low earning ability.

This was a beautiful response. I'm saving this one. Thank you for that! LOL

This may show my ignorance, but here it goes.... I assume that Bill Mastro trimmed the Wagner very carefully given its value even at the time. And I assume that that the Wagner was taken very carefully to PSA, resulting in no wear. But David Hall says the graders at PSA debated whether to give the card a 7 or an 8. But if the card is so perfect (aside from being hand cut), shouldn't the debate have been 9 vs. 10? And if the card is not that perfect, why not, given how carefully the card must have been cut and handled?

WTF? :eek: I don't care what issues you have with any poster, those kind of statements have no place on any board.

Mastro, as is easily proven, pled guilty to trimming the Wagner and the resulting fraud. Snowman's repeated position that it doesn't count as a conviction or a crime because he pled guilty is beyond stupid and seems to not understand the very basics of how the legal system works, but the reason he is wrong about something is not because some other poster has more money than him or a less pathetic collection. Until people want to accept that whoever the richest man in the world is at any given time is infallible, this is just as senseless.

^ I agree.

:)

I must admit that I’m a bit puzzled about this quest you keep coming back to on this issue. While I get your argument, it seems like an odd battle to keep fighting, and an even odder hill to choose to die on.

But maybe you’re convinced that Mastro didn’t actually trim the card?

If he did trim the card, then the precise details of how the legal system adjudicated it seems like a rather picayune element to spend so much time fighting over.

I suppose it’s possible that you don’t think that Mastro actually trimmed the card? If so, then I guess this quest makes a little more sense.

Travis is like the Terminator, he keeps coming back. :)

Shhh... don't stop him now. He was just getting started!

Time for a baseball card, 2 v 1 seems fitting.

Maybe you could join his card forum and talk it out. I hear it is very popular.

Excuse me sir. Please don't tap on the glass. Thank you.

You have THIRTY THOUSAND more posts than him, so I would say you "keep coming around" a little more often

Ok. I stand corrected on that. I was told something else but will just leave it as my apparent misunderstanding.
I can't imagine they would put a quote in print, like that, if they didn't have firsthand knowlege of the conversation...or an irrefutable source.
.

Never mind, high road.

The funny thing is once Mastro admitted to cutting the Wagner Hall banned him from ever being able to submit a card to be graded by PSA!

The public comments that I've seen from David Hall on that particular Wagner have always struck me as ludicrous.

"It doesn't look trimmed to me."

Really? This guy was supposedly the world's foremost expert on the T206 set; at one time had the world's most complete master set with nearly all known back variations. If anyone in the world has seen it all in terms of legit factory sizes, how trimming or sheet cut cards from that set are supposed to look - it's David Hall.

So that is the expertise of grading, that's why we should send our cards to his newly formed (at the time) company to have them encapsulated?

"It doesn't look trimmed to me."

Gee, I'm just overwhelmed by the wealth of technical information about sizing, the minutiae about the cut and appearance of the paper, the myriad reasons why it might be a legit factory cut, the fantastic overall detail in the opinion presented by PSA.

"It doesn't look trimmed to me."

(Unbelievable). :eek:

The truth is he knows it was trimmed but he doesn't care. He doesn't think there's anything wrong with trimming cards. I assume he's a trimmer himself.

Yes. Because David Hall hated being exposed himself.

I believe it. He didn't care. He just wanted to launch his "grading" company with a big splash.

:(

Just a big PSA publicity stunt to get some eyeballs on their corrupt new (at the time) company. Very fitting that their first-ever submission was fraudulent.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Agreed!

I don't doubt it at this point given all that has come out. Hall is the one generally credited with successfully migrating the concept of the coin grading business over into the world of sportscards. I'm quite sure he was no stranger to shenanigans, even then...

I'd rephrase it as "blamed" rather than "credited". You credit someone who made a positive contribution to a film. You blame someone who gave you chlamydia.