reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>In another thread it was mentioned something to the effect that in the 1950s there were some Wagner Piedmonts reprinted that were so good that they'd be mistaken for the real thing if it weren't for disclosure that they were reprints. <br /><br />If a Wagner could be reprinted so well, isn't it possible that pretty much any other card in the T206 set (or maybe ANY set?) could be reprinted similarly? <br /><br />Rob<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I think the grading companies, especially SGC, can catch pretty close to 100% of reprints. Recently I had the great fortune of seeing the Charles Bray- Piedmont Wagner in an SGC Authentic holder, debunking the rumor it is a fake card....at least in my mind. I doubt Dave Forman would want to buy back a 100k-200k card so my guess is that his guys were pretty careful....regards<br /><br />edited spellin' and to change the 00% to 100%...dunno how that happened

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>well, i'm sure for a $100k+ card, they will spend the extra time (hours?) to ENSURE the card is not a reprint, but what about a VG/EX t206 common?<br /><br />just unsettling to hear that some 1950s reprint of a wagner could be made so good to possibly pass inspection, so who knows what could be done to the common cards that i can afford (under a couple hundred dollars) and fly under the inspection radar.<br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Dwyer</b><p>I'm sure David Cycleback will chime in, but T206 cards were printed completed different than any of the modern T206 reprints. Under high magnification, instead of seeing dots you'll see irregular splotches. Today's cards show a pattern of dots. 1880's cards show brush strokes. T206 cards show irregular splotches.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I don't think reprints could be made today or in the 1950s that could fool an expert looking using his naked eyes, and I'm including many of the avid T206 collectors on this board. Further, original T206s were made with an antique printing process and ink that can be identified with the microscope and couldn't be duplicated on a good reprint.<br /><br />The printing processes is a catch-22 for the forger. The original process was primitive and could not create great detail-- thus, the cards resemble paintings. If you tried to reprint a Ty Cobb using the original process the reprint would come not looking like the original, but a primitive reprint-- as the original process isn't detailed and modern enough to reproduce exactly an image. It's kind of like to make a reprint of a Van Gogh, you take a digital photo. If you tried to make a copy of a Van Gogh using the original process (oil paint on canvas), the copy's likely to come out horrible. To reprint well the T206 card from the naked eye level, you need a modern, detailed process (like a fancy computer printer), but the modern process would be easily identified under the microscope. Just as you can tell the digital copy of the Van Gogh isn't the real painting, as it has all those little pixels in the image ... So a forger can't can't mimic naked eye quality (looks real when sitting in my hand) and real microscopic quality (looks like the original printing process and ink). The qualities are mutually exclusive.<br /><br />I don't believe the 1950s reprint stories, unless the people who were fooled weren't good at identifying authentic T206s.<br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>I hear what you're saying and I don't claim to have nearly the expertise you have to say you're wrong. However, conceptually, I don't understand why if somebody somehow had access to the original plates he could not by using the same inks and paper used in 1909 create undetectable duplicates, right down to the microscopic dot matrix pattern. As I see it, this is not like duplicating a Van Gogh where identity of painting style would be a prerequisite. Just like no two people sign their name exactly the same way, so too that no two artisits have identical painting styles. In the case of manufacturing a baseball card, though, what more to it is there than paper, ink and plates? So if someone in 1909 put in storage the plates, inks and paper to make T206's, and then removed them in, say, 1953, why couldn't he make undetectable reprints? And, if he did not save the inks and paper but someone had records of how they were manufactured and used the same manufacturing methods and ingredients to create the same inks and paper in 1953, why would the card look any different than how it looked if all this had been done in 1909? What am I missing in my analysis?

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>If you keep inks 50 years they age and change in how they display.<br />If you keep paper 50 years it too will tone and change and will not look the same post the printing process.<br />And those plates are large things, meant to run on awfully large printing machines (eg.30ft+ many many tonnes), and are not so easily accessed.<br />If you try and reproduce ink and paper with ingredients that are known but modern in construction, you will not end up at the exact same results, it just doesn't work that way. Sure at casual glance cyan is cyan and black is black, but put a pantone color chart next to the individual colors and the shades/tones that can arise are enormous.<br /><br />I also seriously doubt a reprint would look much like an original t206 unless you accepted that the issue had great variation originally in display. ie. some stock had a different tone and feel and accepted the inks differently, thus resulting in an entirely different overall appearance. <br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p><br />I can't understand how this theory can continue to have legs.<br /><br />-Al<br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. shanus</b><p>Thanks for the response. What you say makes a lot of sense. Certainly I can understand how inks and paper chemically can change over the years, and as a practical matter be unusable many years later if the sole purpose is to create undetectable reprints. And I also hear your point that modern manufacturing methods would result in papers and inks different enough from those made years ago through cruder manufacturing processes, once again preventing the reprints from being undetectable. The only caution I have to all this is that given the extraordinary economic incentive to create the perfect Wagner reprint (right down to the microscopic dot matrix pattern), I wonder if somehow somebody could recreate the primitive manufacturing processes necessary to create ink and paper identical in all detectable aspects to those used in 1909. I'm not saying it would be easy, nor even possible, only that with a successful outcome you've just created a multi-million dollar card. Certainly gives counterfeiters a lot of incentive to try.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I suppose there would be some incentive to try, but it seems like an aweful lot of effort and money to put into something that probably will not pan out. I would think there are easier scams to pull off for those so-inclined. It certainly would not have been financially viable in the '50's for somebody doing it without the intention of making large sums of money off of fakes.<br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Based on what I've just learned in this thread, I agree that the notion of 1950's reprints passing muster is as a practical matter not possible. Not that I ever had reason to believe the PSA 8 Wagner is not a period card, only that now I understand why for all practical intents it cannot be a reprint. Going forward, however, and forget about the PSA 8 Wagner, as I said at the end of my last post, given the incredible economic incentive to somehow make the perfect undetectable reprint, I not only do not discount the possibility that someday it will be done, but feel that in the future should any PSA 8/SGC 88 Wagner surface, without provenance I'm not sure I'd be willing to bet the millions of dollars it would take to buy the card that it was real.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Absolutely true Corey, enormous incentives.<br /><br />But to buy a period printing press (eg. authentic Heidelberg) will cost you 100K plus.<br />Then all the incedentals of ink, paper, and technical research and application to achieve the result...in all I don't think you would roll off a copy to even check for under 150K - 175K.<br /><br />And then, you better hope like hell your reprint doesn't look like exactly that, otherwise you could be doing nothing but producing reprints for 10c a piece in the hopes of one day recouping your investment. A Methusela type prospect!<br /><br />Sounds dumb to me, but not impossible <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Daniel

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Absolutely true Corey, enormous incentives.<br /><br />But to buy a period printing press (eg. authentic Heidelberg) will cost you 100K plus.<br />Then all the incedentals of ink, paper, and technical research and application to achieve the result...in all I don't think you would roll off a copy to even check for under 150K - 175K.<br /><br />And then, you better hope like hell your reprint doesn't look like exactly that, otherwise you could be doing nothing but producing reprints for 10c a piece in the hopes of one day recouping your investment. A Methusela type prospect!<br /><br />Sounds dumb to me, but not impossible <br /><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br /> Not if all this was available to you and you were just doing it to see if it could be done. Like if all the presses at Topps or the presses that created Goudey's were available to your disposal. Hmmm, funny thing about this board.<br />Creating real looking reprints back in the 50's are out of the question, but making a freaking Goudey Calendar from 1930 as a proof and put it in the printers desk is a possibility. Yes you've all seen the Wagner. Yes it's been blessed by PSA. How could they ever make a mistake the large. Who says they made a mistake? That single card put them on the map. <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>davidcycleback</b><p>A question is why would anyone in 1953 recreate the original T206 ink and paper? What was a Wagner worth back then? I can see someone reprinting baseball cards in 1953. However, 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. That is unless he was also working on a time machine to get 2007 prices (Be wary of the man at the National Convention who dresses as if he's from 1953 and uses phrases like 'Territory of Hawaii,''Vice President Nixon' and has a companion named Romana).

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>The Wagner was worth $50 and the Plank $25. Forget the money, even thought $50 was a months salary in 1950. Comes out to what? About $5000.00 in todays dollars? What if you didn't own one? What if there was no e-bay, no cell phones, communication by letter. Hmmmmmmm, chances are you may never own one. But my buddy does and all my buddies work or have ties with major card publishers. Let create some cards for fun, like a sheet of T206's with a Wagner and a Plank with a Piedmont back so now one will ever confuse it with a real one. How about some wrong # Goudeys? How bout a #116 since everyone has that spot open because of that Lajoie fiasco. How about some Goudey's with differnt color backs so know one will ever confuse them with real ones. <br /><br />You guys don't ever do any government work at work? Gosh knows, I don't. <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>E, Daniel</b><p>Two things about the Calendar Ruth card.<br /><br />A. It wasn't very good and was instantly judged a fake the minute anyone with hobby experience held it in hand.<br /><br />B. And as a one off, printed on white stock, with only black (or blue - can't remember) as the printing color, there was nothing to compare it to or colors to be judged against....and even then everybody thought it was crap upon inspection.<br /><br />So when a freak one-off card (that many would WANT to be real and have the chance at making a 'find' of) can be quickly discounted for authenticity, how does one in full blazing color known intimately by so many hobbyists manage to reproduce the 'magic' of the original printing and pass itself off?<br />Its not like you could print half a dozen to make retiring money off of, the hobby would be incredibly suspicous if more than one or two fresh wagners or planks turn up in the next 10 years I would think.<br /><br />It does make me wonder though, if somebody REALLY wanted to reprint something in the hopes of passing it off as real, a black and white card would certainly be a tougher example to discount - especially over the internet.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>But Joe, 50 years later?<br /><br />This isn't like printing USA greenbacks of today because you can find matching stock and the ink is one color......<br /><br />I'm not saying you wouldn't make nice reprints, but line them up against orginal t206 and tell me you couldn't instantly tell them apart.<br /><br />Goudeys on the other hand were printed on stock that seems to have much greater variance in it - grayer/bigger grain/larger pulp , so too the inks. If you wanted to make nice dull goudeys to pass off, I could certainly imagine doing that some 15-20 years after the originals were created. Even then, those who have suggested the 'prank' were careful to make it kind of obvious.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"But my buddy does and all my buddies work or have ties with major card publishers. Let create some cards for fun, like a sheet of T206's with a Wagner and a Plank with a Piedmont back so now one will ever confuse it with a real one. "<br /><br /><br />Few, if any people knew in 1950 that the Wagner was only issued with Sweet Cap backs. In fact, one of the few hobbiests who might have known that sort of thing, Charles Bray, had been offered a copy with a Piedmont back. Collectors were way to spread out and too few people had ever seen a Wagner, much less owned one from which to reprint. I think this scenario is very far-fetched.<br />JimB

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Too many attacks. Regarding David Rudd's statement above about people not knowing what to look for in a real T206 regarding these 1950's reprints - is that a blanket statement David? If so, you would be referring to Mr. Heitman not knowing what to look for in a real T206. Again, I doubt anyone in the Hobby has handled more raw T206's and done as much research as Mr. Heitman has done. Again, I have seen two of these 1950's reprints. One was on ebay in the early days - the seller was honest and selling it as such - the bidding still went into the high four figures back then. I remember when the bidding was over $7k, I really took a close look at the enlarged scans and said to myself "with knowledgeable people bidding on this card, and it looking so real, I believe this seller might have a real Wagner and doesn't really know what he owns". Well, after exchanging e-mails with the seller, I realized he was knowledgeable and knew exactly what he had - as he acquired it in the 1950's as such and told me the story about these 1950's reprints with different - Piedmont backs (as late as Lipset's Encyclopedia, the Wagner was only known with a SC 150 back). Also, in 1987, I was at a card shope in Gatlinburg, TN and the owner had a display with one of these 50's reprints and a real SC 150 Wagner. I was speaking with him about the difference and he said over 90% of the people who tried to guess which was real or fake were wrong. He then showed me the backs - one was a Piedmont and one a SC 150 and told me that real Wagners would only have a SC 150 back, as that was the only cigarettes the cards were issued in.<br /><br />Anyway, I have spoken via e-mail with Joe about this. Joe seems to know all about these reprints and has some great knowledge and information. Also, with Bill Heitman talking on this very board several weeks ago about these reprints and even stating that their is really NO WAY to tell that these are not real except for the "different backs" - like the Goudey #106 Durocher (which I have pics of if anyone would like to see it). Well, according to David Rudd, Bill Heitman, myself, Joe, nor anyone else who knows about these real looking 1950's reprints doesn't know how to spot a real T206. Personally, I have had tens of thousands of T206's over the years and I wouldn't doubt for one second that Bill Heitman has handled well into the six figures of T206's over his collecting career. Again, as Mr. Heitman stated - a lot of these people were printing cards at Goudey and Bowman factories, so they did not have to shell out all this money for the euquipment, inks, etc. This was NOT done to fool anyone, as that is why the backs WERE and ARE different. Also, a lot of these were printed up for Woody Gelman by some of his buddies at these factories.<br /><br />I may not know much about printing or photographs David Rudd. However, I have been collecting and researching cards since 1978. I have been fooled in the past by a fake card and early on by some trimmed cards. I am not perfect. However, like I stated in another post, if I would have saved every book, magazine, catalog, etc. I have read and owned about this Hobby, I would need another home to store this material in. I still read about the Hobby every day and am still learning. I can tell you that I found out about these 1950's realistic reprints with different backs around a dozen years ago and it sounds like Mr. Heitman has known about them much longer. If you say these do NOT exist, you simply do not know what you are talking about from a Hobby standpoint!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Read again what David has written.<br /><br />So please explain, through all your bluster, exactly what you are claiming.<br />As I remember from the Heitman post, all he suggests (rather vaguely) was that mocking up copies of these cards happened by a few good buddies, who left plenty of clues of their deception because they weren't really out to fool people.<br />I do not remember him saying they were perfect, or that no one but the pope could discern authentic from fake.<br /><br />Are you suggesting Joe has examples he could share, or has enough personal experience with authentic wagners and the reprints that he will confirm they are indistinguishable?<br /><br />And while you may have great experience with cards in the hobby, until you produce an example of this 50's reprint with miraculous powers of convincing all who see it, I will very comfortably say you are full of hot wind.<br /><br />They may exist, but line them up alongside an authentic SC wagner and lets see who's fooled. I'd take my chances of picking out the one authentic card in a line up of ten fakes.<br />In the spirit of recent wagers you can have my E103 Wagner If I'm wrong. <br />Game on.<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Most forgers pick an audience. Most forgeries aren't intended to fool Rob Lifson and most forgers don't try and sell to Rob Lifson. The forgeries are intended to fool people unfamiliar with the cards, including people who may not actively collect. The maker of those AAA slabbed picture cut outs probably knows that someone who owns a Standard Catalog and reads this board knows they're not cards, but that's not his targeted audience. <br /><br />Personally, I don't know why a forger would chose Rob Lifson and Bill Mastro and Lew Lipset as the intended buyers. It's like having to give a critiqued math lecture and picking the M.I.T. math department as the audience. In particular if you are worried about the audience discovering you aren't good at math, a better audience might be a first grade class or the dementia ward. Even if you think your are great at math and practice on your abacus every day, the M.I.T. department will probably still find a plethora of errors in your lecture.<br /><br />One thing a successful scammer knows is that a collector with little to no knowledge about the material has money like everyone else, sometimes more money than the expert. If the scammer aspires to either, it's not to scam the person with the most knowledge but to scam the person with the most money. If the person with the most money has the least knowledge, that much easier.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Don't take me as a zealot on this issue,( just take me out to the ball game) but when the senario arises you have take a look at the history of the card. Didn't show up until the 80's. The most world known baseball card in pristine condition remains hidden for 80 years. Ok, I'll buy that. The most printed back in the history of baseball cards and there are only 2 known examples? Paper drives got the rest huh? But 60 or so SC's made. Now I know all of you that have calculated the odds of how many T206's were original printed with every back and how the % of how many survived would have to say that this number, 2, is unbelievablly low to say the least. Wouldn't the estimate be near 90 or 120? <br />Did they just print them for 1 day and no one smuggled any out? No baseball fans in the printing plant. No printer scaps? Just 2? <br /><br />And the Plank. Just 1? The rarest card in the world.<br /><br />Let's move away from T206's for a minute. If you are to believe or not to believe what B.H. the author of the monster, who has probably seen as many T26's as anyone, look at 1 goudey card.<br /><br />In a recent auction a #116 Goudey came up for sale. It's listed as a proof. Was it a proof? Or was it a card made in the 1950's? No #116 was issued that year, the Lajoie was issued the next year by mail to appease angry collectors.<br /><br />Now if you believe any of this you believe the hobby is built on a scam.<br />Haven't we all found out recently that some of the most trusted names in the hobby are shilling their own auctions, not honoring (without threat of lawsuit) guarrantees, card doctors, false discriptions, including trimmed cards in major auctions, grading companies doing major favors for auction houses and auctions actually doctoring cards submitted for auctions. Did I miss any thig besides dinner in New York or Seinfeld?<br /><br />By the way, where are rest of the cards printed on this one mind boggling only surviving T206 sheet? How come only 1 has ever surfaced? And then only 80 years later. 80 years later. Don't throw Tango eggs in this, because they were never heard of and had no value at the time. T206's were a well know issue long before the 80's or any other unkown ISSUE. <br /><br />I'm throwing all this on the wall and see what sticks. <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>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, let me clarify a few things. First of all, when a Wagner is sold, have you ever seen another by its side for comparison? Especially a Piedmont Wagner?<br /><br />Also to David Rudd's statement that I understand just fine. If you know the history of the PSA 8 Wagner, it was NOT sold directly to Bill Mastro. I don't even know if the sheet was sold as real or not. I do know it was sold at a FL Flea Market and ended up in New York. Bill Mastro was not the intended buyer for ever who made the sheet. For all we know, the person who produced the sheet might have been deceased - if it was printed in 1909 or 1950. So, this argument that someone selling a forgery would not target Mastro is true, but has NOTHING to do with a Piedmont Wagner that was printed in the 1950's! I don't even think Bill Mastro started collecting cards until the early to mid 60's anyway.<br /><br />Also, a MAJOR FACT some of the people attacking these 1950's reprints are missing is that NONE of the known Piedmont Wagners have any provenance that can be traced back beyond the 1950's! Is that a coincidence? You might think so, I think not! I remember Doug Allen e-mailing me with a letter stating he had proof that the last T206 Piedmont Wagner Mastro sold was an original issue. Well, in typical Doug Allen style, he was spinning the facts - the letter was dated in the 1950's! I told Doug this letter only provides provenance back to the 1950's, and since it is no earlier, really adds more fuel to the fire that these Piedmont Wagners were printed in the 1950's! Also, ALL of these Piedmont Wagners have been cut from sheets! Also, Piedmont is the MOST COMMON T206 back - there should be twice as many T206 Wagners with Piedmont backs as Sweet Caporal backs if they were issued in 1909 with Piedmont backs! I have given some strong arguments here as to why I believe the Piedmont Wagners were printed in the 1950's. SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE SOME PROVENANCE OF ONE OF THESE PIEDMONT WAGNERS BEFORE 1950! Don't just say, well they couldn't have been printed in the 1950's or Bill Mastro said so - I WANT REAL PROOF. You won't be able to find it - I know, as I have looked for it myself over the years! You won't even find anyone talking seriously of a Piedmont Wagner until after Mastro sold the one that now resides in a PSA 8 holder to Copeland. There must be some reason Mastro would not let Rob Lifson look at the Wagner closely when they went to buy it with Rob's money!?!?!? Again, list some proof. I can say we all know technology usually advances. If the printers could print sheets of T206's in 1909, do you really think that some of these Bowman employees (who were fair printers in their own right I am sure) couldn't have done something that was done in 1909 in the 1950's

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>These posts are very interesting, but when did this urban legend start? I have never even heard this story in the 35 or more years I have been in the hobby. I know Bill Mastro, have met Rob Lifson years ago. I also knew Frank Nagy and I don't remember him mentioning these reprints either. I am not an expert on the T206 cards, but this could not have been hidden all those years, could it?<br /><br />Joe <br><br>Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Geez Scott, I thought I just said all that 30 minutes ago? LOL<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>Scott Elkins</b><p>You guys are talking as if these people in the 1950's were printing Wagners and other cards to make money - THEY WERE NOT! They would print some cards that were unattanable to fill holes in their collections and their friends collections. These people were NOT trying to deceive anyone or make a fortune (If you look at any price guide in this period, baseball cards were not worth a fortune and collecting was really looked upon as a kid's activity). At least these people "fooling around" with the printing presses were honest and put different backs on cards they did print. I am certain if these people were dishonest, cards were worth a fortune in the 1950's, and these people had these presses at their disposal, they would have printed Wagners with Sweet Caporal backs (that is IF all of this were true and they were trying to deceive someone for financial gain). <br /><br />Again, for those of you who think you are experts, I have the front/back scans of the #106 1933 Goudey Durocher that came from Woody Gelman (who was friends with a lot of these printers and employees at Goudey and Bowman and obtained a lot of "stuff" from his friends). I would like to see if you can tell the difference between this Goudey printed by the Goudey printers and another Goudey, besides no bleed through (but some Goudeys don't have the bleed through on the back). You cannot tell the difference! This card was probably printed at Goudey in 1933 - just not a print run that would have been inserted into packs - and was later obtained by Gelman.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Evidently, you have to repeat things on here for some to comprehend what you are saying. BTW - this has been known for years - just go back several weeks and look at Bill Heitman's post about these reprints. He did not go into detail about them, and I don't blame him - he would be here explaining himself over and over like Joe and I are doing!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Corey (and Scott and Joe, for that matter), please don't take my flippant earlier comment as disrespect toward any of you. In fact, Scott and I had a brief debate about this very issue on another board this week, and it was a pleasure to debate so civilly. So I didn't mean to sound disrespectful.<br /><br />That said, my comment was based solely on my belief that printing these cards in 1950 would have been UNBELIEVABLY COMPLICATED, too expensive to do for a goof, virtually impossible to pass undetected by 67 years of experts, and highly unlikely to be done without leaving evidence.<br /><br />On the other hand, printing up two or three sheets of make-ready sheets or proofs that were never cut down from the sheet until some time after 1909 is not only possible, but it's extremely likely. Because that's how printing works.<br /><br />So, what I'm basically saying, is that the Wagners were cut from proof sheets with Occam's Razor.<br /><br />-Al

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>What you're saying is that 1950's reprints made with original plates but using either (i) 1950's ink and paper or (ii) ink and paper chemically consistant with that used in 1909 but manufactured in the 1950's would result in a card undetectable to the NAKED EYE to T206 experts compared to an original made in 1909.<br /><br />Is this possible? Not being an expert in these sorts of things I can't say for sure but from a layperson perspective I would say it is, especially given that (real) T206's of an identical card exhibit subtle variations in color tone. However, let's take the next step. Are you saying that these 1950's reprints would also be undetectable when viewed though a microscope? From the previous posts on this thread it is that threshold which makes 1950's reprints as a practical matter impossible to pass scrutiny (due to the economically insurremountable barriers to recreating the 1909 manufacturing processes necessary to create the inks and paper). Is there anything I've said that you disagree with, and if so, why? <br /><br />Finally (and I put this question to anyone), is it true that there is only one known T206 Piedmont-back Plank and it is trimmed/hand-cut?

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I know you and I have had our debate and we have to agree to disagree - which is fine. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Also, I have never looked at any Wagner under a microscope or a loupe (I doubt many here have). I saw one of these 1950's Wagners in person at a card shop in Gatlinburg, TN in 1987 and another around a dozen years ago from an eBay seller with large scans. The only thing I can tell you is the one in Gatlinburg looked identical to the real Wagner it was setting beside of (but, both were in a glass case and in the thick screwdowns of the time). Also, the one on eBay looked real (by the scans of course). In fact, both of them look identical to the Piedmont Wagners I have seen that are claimed to be real. Also, it is widely known that Bill Mastro wanted the PSA 8 Wagner graded quickly and put in a slab! If I sold someone a legitimate card that was not trimmed nor questionable in any other way, I would not care if they slabbed the card or not!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>But Al, Isn't it fun to debate something actually related to basball cards on this board? And when I say debate I mean civilly with no name calling and pouting? It's great we all have an opinion. <br /><br />If it's agreed that the Wagner is hand cut, the hobby is still built on a scam, and alot of the major players are running their own types of scams. This hobby is like an onion. The more you layers you peel, the bigger it stinks. <br />Serious thoughts of selling all my vintage and getting out. <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>Scott Elkins</b><p>I believe I posted one pic of it here and one on the other forum. It was auctioned in an old REA auction and is DEFINITELY hand cut. In fact, it is badly cut! I believe it to be the one that came from the same sheet as the Wagner that is now in a PSA 8 holder, as it is the only Piedmont Plank I can find a picture of anywhere. However, the picture is not that great unfortunately - I cannot remember without hunting it again, but I even think the catalog picture was black and white of the front and back of the Plank.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Al, you beat me to the punch. Of course I had to kick start my brain cells to work fast enough to understand what Scott has so generously tried to explain to the simpletons like myself on this board.....<br /><br />How's this for a slight embelishment:<br />Firstly, if Piedmont were the first back printed, a couple of sheets were mocked up and shown to prospective players to get their approval. Most say yes, Wagner says no. So the sheets were saved by the then Gen. Manager of ATC (or whoever was commissioning the printing) as a keepsake. Thus, no more Wagners printed. <br />Unfortunately, when the Sweet Caporals were created from the existing artwork/plates the Wagner plate had not been changed out and was thus run alongside the rest of the player issue. Cards go out in packaging and the Wagner is quickly 'discovered' by the public who were only too aware of his non-appearance in the Piedmont packets - on the first day of sale I would imagine. Wagner hears about it and calls the Gen. Manager and threatens legal action if all existing copies aren't pulled from the factories and points of sale.<br />Thus, a smattering of SC Wagners survive to be the curious scarcity we know them as, and some time in the middle late 1980's the Piedmont sheets find their way into the hands of someone who wants to profit from them. <br /><br />The rest is the rest.<br /><br />How's that Scott?<br /><br /><br />Oh, and the difference between some printer buddies working at the same establishment as was responsible for an earlier set - having access perhaps to original plates and or artwork and thus mocking up 'fill in' cards, and generating ENTIRELY NEW artwork and plates for T206 Wagner, Plank, and unknown from...I don't know where, is a HUGE leap in rationale. If one of those workers actually owned a wagner, how big an incentive does he have to make the card less valuable? How long did it take him to attain it, and knowing its scarcity and history - why screw that up? How likely is it that all his mates were t206 collectors? And if they went to all this trouble to create them (and they would have lost their jobs if they had been found out) and run the risk of legal action over copyright of the original product, would they only run a sheet or two of the product? Why haven't more of the dupes survived if they were produced in ostensibly larger numbers than the original Wagner.<br /><br />For me, you've just gotten caught up in your own sense of cloak and dagger intrigue without a whole lot bones to back it up. To then go on and scoff at anyone who doesn't believe your hypothesis is childish.<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br /><br /><br />

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1180579287.JPG"> <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>Scott Elkins</b><p>You are knowledgeable and have a great eye to spot these fakes or questionable cards. Simply do what I do. I still even bid in Mastro auctions and win items from them (even though I shouldn't until they clean up their act and might change my mind about that one). I do however pass on a LOT of items in Mastro auctions and some other auctions - especially the ones that you can tell are setting there in a high grade holder and my daughter could spot that it is trimmed! I have simply become more focused in my collecting and collecting what I really love - even multiples of cards I really like. Maybe, if more and more people let these auction companies know that we are NOT going to let them get by with altering cards before having them graded and other things they are doing, we can band together and attempt to clean this mess up!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Joe, when I start feeling that way, I always do the same thing:<br /><br />I walk into my card room and look around. I grab a handful of cards and I stare at them. I read the stats and copy on the back, and I try and remember a story about each of the players. I grab a couple of cards I got from friends, and try and think of the circumstances under which I acquired them. I grab the 1977 Topps cards I pulled out of a pack as a kid and flip through them.<br /><br />I love this hobby. Nobody will ever, ever change that. This is my hobby.<br /><br />That being said, I do think it's weird that this thread is staying civil. I feel like I slipped into Bizarro World.<br /><br />-Al

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>You can even ask Al about that one, as he and I definitely don't see eye to eye on this. You have been mad at me ever since I would not sell you a Red Hindu Tannehill for a loss and put it on eBay and proved you wrong about what you swore it was ONLY worth! All I do is keep coming on here to explain to people like yourself who try and take what I say out of context. Don't worry - I won't do it again, as this is my last post here on the subject. Like Al and I agreed - we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one and it truly is something that we will probably never know 100% of the truth about unfortunately, so there is no point in typing over and over to try to explain ourselves.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>That is the last Piedmont Wagner sold by Mastro. Now, can anyone look at that scan and really say with a straight face it looks real!? If Joe Blow listed that on eBay instead of Mastro, there would be a 500 post thread here on it being a fake! Also, this is the one that Doug Allen sent me the "provenance proving" letter to my e-mail address regarding. Yep - the provenance according to the letter from Doug (which I believe was also posted in the Mastro catalog as well - cannot remember), proved this card's provenance ALL the way back to the 1950's!<br /><br />Edited to add this link - the letter supposedly proving this card's provenance dates back to where Bray offered the owner $25 for the card. This REALLY proved the provenance as Doug suggested - ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1958!<br /><a href="http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_24.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_24.html</a>

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Since it resides in an SGC Authentic holder, and with the exact provenance it does and DOESN'T have, I am going to go out on a limb and say it's real...just keeping it civil....

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>If that card isn't hand cut, I'll give away all my vintage.<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>It is absolutely hand cut and Authentic....From the little I have seen and heard (and to a lesser extent "know") I would theorize that the Piedmont Wagners are period and came on sheets.....and were never inserted in packages...each one I have seen has been hand cut....regards

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>yup...looks real-ly hand cut!<br /><br />pete in mn

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Leon, If that's the case how can the Card reside in a PSA 8 case? <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>That's a rhetorical question right?

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I believe the Piedmont Wagners were printed on sheets later, a lot of people, including Leon believes they are period and hancut. We are all entitled to our views and I don't disprespect anyone for theirs (and don't appreciate anyone disrespecting me for mine). I still say that if that exact card had been put on eBay by someone other than Mastro, a lot of the people who believe Piedmont Wagners are period would have questioned that card right away!<br /><br />Back to the PSA 8 Wagner and Leon's thoughts - I probably should have posted this in the appropriate thread, but the card is very visibly "skinny" side to side on the Piedmont reverse - one can easily tell it is thin when compared to another Piedmont card side by side, as I did on the other forum. Also, the Piedmont print is a different color than a real Piedmont. Take a look for yourself! You cannot tell me that these two Piedmont backs' colors are not different. Also, anyone notice the dark spot above the 150 on the Wagner back???? The PSA 8 Piedmont Wagner's back is the first back shown.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1180582003.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1180582014.JPG">

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Notice how on the PSA 8 Wagner that the little lines bunched together around "Base Ball Series 150 Subjects" and "The Cigarette of Quality" seem to run together??????? Doesn't this happen when you "copy" or "reprint" an image? In an original, the lines are distinct and seperate - though, they are very close together. On the PSA 8 Wagner, the lines are "blurred together". I KNOW this happens when something is copied, as I had to copy thousands of documents when I was in the insurance business and smaller details like these lines bunched together didn't come out as plain as on the original!!!!!! BTW - this is not just a freak coincidence on the PSA 8 Wagner's back - I have looked through several Piedmont backs and none of the originals have these little lines "blurred together" like this Wagner does!

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>I thought for certain someone would have posted a response trying to debunk what I said. Guess that is hard to do when you have the two above back scans - the Wagner clearly narrow and the fine lines bunching together just like a copy along with a real Piedmont back that is full size and the fine lines clearly seperate!?!? Still waiting on someone to call me an idiot or tell me I am wrong (even though a picture is worth a thousand words)............................................ .................................................. ............<br /><br />Edited to add - I didn't even mention the slant cut on the Wagner that is clearly visible on the bottom of the card from the back scan - sorry about that.

reprint wagner piedmonts
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Joe May 30 2007, 11:24 PM <br /><br /><br />That's a rhetorical question right?<br /><br /> <br />Of course.<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 />In my experience the cardinal rule about comparing images to ascertain whether one is a reprint is to compare original to original. You've posted copies of the backs of each card, and unless it can be said that these copies are both of the same generation and were made from identical processes, then we are not comparing apples to apples, making comparison useless.<br /><br />

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 />