Posted By:
davidcyclebackMy opinion is you couldn't make a perfect T206 reprint. Duplicating the
original printing process and ink would be prohibitive enough in and of
itself, as the process is no longer used. And you couldn't replicate
perfectly the card both at the naked eye and microscopic level. Somewhat
like Heisenbrg's Uncertainty Principle in Nuclear Physics, the more
accurately one duplicates the printing at the naked eye level, the less
accurate the printing becomes at the microscopic level-- and visa versa.
One way to look at it the T206 printing process is primitive by today's
standards-- even your home computer printer can make a more realistic
looking reprint of your family picnic photo. You'd make a far better
naked eye reprint of a T206 Wagner with your computer printer than with
the original lithography process. In other words, if you used the original 1909
process to make a reprint of a T206, it would look bad at the naked eye
level. And if you used your computer printer to make a realistic reprint
at the naked eye level, it wouldn't resemble 1909 printing under the microscope.
And, even if you could duplicate the printing and card stock in the 1950s,
the production & research costs would be so high you'd make more than
two Wagners.
I haven't read all the posts so may repeat what has already been said,
but the low grade Piedmont Wagner appears to be a scrap card.
I also agree with Ted's point that if you could make a perfect copy of the
Wagner, you'd make one with a Sweet Caporal back. Especially in the 1950s, a
unique back would merely draw attention to the fact that the card is different
than all other known Wagners. Whether it's a 1963 Topps Pete Rose or a $5 bill,
the point of making a perfect copy is to have it slip in with all the others.
Even today, someone trying to make the best fake Wagner ever wouldn't chose a
Tolstoi or American Beauty back, as the initial collector reaction would be
"No way."