Posted By:
Tim NewcombJeremy, thanks for taking all this in a spirit of good cheer-- none of it is personal at all-- And you were not well served by SCD, which made a horrible mess of the set.
I'm just concerned that a big-money card like this should be offered to buyers as accurately as possible. Apart from the ethics involved, it could save you a lot of aggravation down the line.
The problem with population reports on this set is that for a long time the companies lumped many cards with printed backs into the generic M101-4 or M101-5 category. I think they are doing better lately, but this still makes it very difficult to use the reports with any degree of accuracy.
But as Matt says, I am not disputing that this is currently the only graded M101-5/D350-1 Wagner with a Standard Biscuit back. SGC doesn't show one with this back either. So yes, the claim that it is currently 1 of 1 in grading reports is reasonable.
However, the fact that I cannot produce proof right now of another Wagner with this back does not make the card uncataloged or unchecklisted. The checklist for M101-5/D350-1 has been known almost since 1916, with the exception of the three cards I referred to above.
And the numbering of the Wagner card does not deviate from the standard M101-5 checklist. There are multiple copies of #184 Wagner known with other M101-5 or blank backs. Therefore the card has to be considered fully cataloged.
There's a big difference between a card that no hobby reference has ever listed before, like the M101-5 Becker or Wallace cards until recently, and a card (however rare it might be) that is known to be part of a set's standard checklist-- even if no other copy can be found at a given moment.
As I say, it's a great card, and you could certainly claim that it would be very difficult to find one anywhere else. It's just a matter of altering the wording to remove claims like "uncataloged" and "unique."
Does that help at all?
Tim