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...