Brock, I haven’t typed why its way off as I figured it would be a waste of time as you seem to be way into the fantasy world of belief with the Huggins Team on this. The only argument that Huggins is hanging their hat on is that this card must have been next to the Wagner because of the strip that once belonged to Wagner.
That proof strip is very cool but in no way is a final production sheet clearly that can be seen from the graphic elements missing from the strip.
Using this to assume this is how the sheets were laid out. Let alone make the claim that a factory cut production card has remnants of Wagner’s back is an absolute leap of blind faith at best if you’re a collector. If you’re an auction house with any shred of integrity its downright glorified unfounded bull.
Brock reputable auction companies don’t do stuff like this. You will never see an 18th dynasty Egyptian artifact that looks high-end and might have come from a royal court. Try and tie the item to most likely but not for sure belonging to King Tutankhamun. With some drawn out story about how they have pictures of Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter in the tomb with a similar item so this one could be Tut’s.
There are countless other little nuances and bits of info taken over the years from collectors who share knowledge much is right here on the board to read. All of these also put further death nails in this cocked up story spun by Huggins & Scott.
Hope this helps….
What a surprise this has ties to Patrick Chan even more reason to run for the hills on this epic yarn.
