Question on this Wagner "Piedmont"
 

The photos below are supposedly from the same card, however I have not actually seen this card in person yet. I am by no means an expert, but I don't believe this is a T-206 card. (I didn't find the pose in the reprint set I have)

I do not believe the photo of the back of the card to be from the same card front, or the back was somehow previously added / altered to the front of the card.

Can some identify what the front of the card might be? And confirm that the front / back combo shouldn't exist?

Front is an E95. You are correct- Front/Back combo does not exist.(At least in the "unaltered" world)

Thanks Bob! I had a gut feel it was an E card. It will be interesting to look at it up close when I can see it in person.

Like Bob said it's an E95 front. The front/back should look like this:

http://www.57hits.com/wp-content/upl...ner-SGC-20.jpg

Wasn't this the "new" Wagner discovered in the 1970s that created a stir until it was realized that it was an E95 with a T206 back?

Yep, that is exactly right, Stay way from this card. I'm surprised it is still circulating.
JimB

An interesting read that includes some information on this fake:

http://blog.robertedwardauctions.com/?p=281

Thanks for the pointers to the article. Interesting...

In the end, the owners decided to soak the card in water, and in minutes it came apart, revealing the caramel card back hiding under the thin glued-on T206 back, and once and for all determining that it was definitely a caramel card (probably put together by a frustrated collector decades earlier who could not find a Wagner to complete his T206 set).

So it's not the same card as in the article but there seem to have been others made. Interesting that the article has sitings of these card(s) in 1957 and again in the 1970s. It's possible the one referenced in 1957 was the same one re-discovered in the '70s (as the article noted), but if the one in the '70s was soaked, then the one in the pics at the top isn't the same card, but rather another instance of the same rebacking tactic.

Are we sure that it's not a rare "unreleased version "?