T206 Wagner, Memory Lane style

[Runscott]

Maybe I'm having a brain fart...or two - I'm sure this has been brought up, but I can't find the thread. Is there ANYONE here who thinks this should be in a '2' holder?

[travrosty]

yeah they talked about it before. looks creased to beat heck to me, and dirty on the bottom, how can be a 2?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by travrosty

yeah they talked about it before. looks creased to beat heck to me, and dirty on the bottom, how can be a 2?

I am really a failure when it comes to using the 'search' function here

I just received my Memory Lane catalog, so this just caught my attention. Lots of good stuff, just not getting these recent Wagner grades.

[atx840]

You posted about it last Wed

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yes, but PSA and SGC always try to do their best to grade honestly and accurately, as with the Piedmont 150 Plank. Surely they are aware of the "Wagner" mystique and would be careful not to be influenced by it when grading.

Agreed overgraded, but I'd take it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by atx840

You posted about it last Wed



Agreed overgraded, but I'd take it.

There are just too many T206 Wagners available these days - I get them confused. I remembered that post, but remembered it as being about a different card - bad memory, inability to use search function. Think I'll go for a run and clear my brain out.

[HRBAKER]

IMO, if the "8" is an "8," then that's a "2."
In other words, I don't put much stock in the Wagner grading.

[drc]

If you ignore the grade issue, it's a nice looking card though. 'Honest wear' as they would have used to call it.

I agree (in my opinion) that the recently grading of some Wagners is sometimes getting close to offensive. There's no legitimate reason one card in a an issue should be graded using a different scale than another card-- 1988 Fleer or 1909-11 T206s.

But, as I said, I don't care about the number 2, which was literally (and some might say figuratively) applied to the label and not the card. I have nothing against the card, it's good looking and I'd enjoy owning it.

My opinion is even the buyers may soon be ignoring the grades on the labels if the graders continue in this vein. Inflationary, obvious favoritism-based grading eventually means no one trusts or takes seriously the grades.

I mean, seriously, will it some day mean that when a player is elected to the Hall of Fame or wins the Triple Crown the grading scale for his cards will change? Though I'm sure the grading companies would love another reason for collectors to mail in their cards to be regraded.

Another reason PSA is not good for the vintage industry. They just don't care.

[t206blogcom]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

IMO, if the "8" is an "8," then that's a "2."
In other words, I don't put much stock in the Wagner grading.

+1

[CW]

While it does look like the grader was being generous giving that Wagner a "2" grade, I could see how someone would subjectively give that card such a grade. The Wagner in REA, however, should not only have an MK qualifier for having ink on both the front and rear of the card (small splotch of ink on the front border, date stamp on the reverse), but it should possibly have an MC qualifier as well for having half of Honus' name cut off at the bottom. I've seen T206's with better centering get the MC qualifier.

And, yes, I realize both cards have been discussed in several threads now.

Perhaps when it comes to T206 Wagners and people who can afford to buy one, they will buy the card, despite the numerical grade of 1, 2, 2MK, etc. I just wish the "professional graders" were consistent.

[cmcclelland]

This is just my two cents worth, but I think it is very funny how critical the hobby has become about distinguishing between what the numerical grade is for a low end card.

My opinion is that a card that is graded a "1" or "Poor" grade should be an extremely "poor" looking card that almost does not look like a card any more. To me, this means things like pieces of the card that are missing, holes in the card, very bad marks or writing on the card, extreme paper loss, etc. To me, this was always the standard back in the day.

These days, all it takes is some small, easy to miss flaw to potentially throw a card into the "1" category. I have always viewed the "2" or "Good" category as the cards that are pretty beat up but not having the horrible flaws that make you say it's one of those cards that makes you kind of say this is just a poor card that couldn't get much worse.

So, I think this PSA Wagner is very much worthy of the "2" grade based on the way I have always graded cards going back to the "olden days" before professional grading. I have always thought a heavily creased card with severely rounded corners was a "2" or a "Good" card. A "poor" or "1" card had to either be so heavily creased to render the image so poor that you couldn't make out the image, or there had to be some other major flaw such as a piece of the card missing or a hole, etc.

Again, just my two cents, but I think the hobby has become waaaaay too critical on the low end of the grading spectrum.

[FrankWakefield]

I'm not as knowledgeable about grading as most of the folks who've posted.

Only way I could see that card as a 2 would be if it were a 2RDCOCOG.

2RDCOCOG, ie 2 Rounded corners, Dirty, Creased, Off center, and Over-Graded.


It's a 1, and it would be a nice one for any of our collections. I'd like to have that card, and I'd bust it out if I had it. A soak would get rid of some of that non-original dirt that's been added to the surface over the years.

[E93]

Originally Posted by drc

If you ignore the grade issue, it's a nice looking card though. 'Honest wear' as they would have used to call it.


.

I agree. Nice looking card.
JimB

[drc]

I'm not active at all in collecting graded cards, but I've in person looked at graded T206s belonging to my friend. Some of the 1s look so nice, I wondered if the real beaters of the world would get a -1. I mean, I've had 1933 Goudeys that looked as if they were used coasters raised from the titanic.

[steve B]

Wagners have always been odd when the grades are used.

The one sold at an auction house in CT a few years back got resold 3 times after roughly every 6 months. It had creases and writing on the back. and vg ish corners.
CT auction f-g -sold for 30K
next auction g
next auction g-vg
next auction vg

And along the way each auction house was bigger than the previous one. As was the minimum bid.

Going to the auction was fun. I only bought one card, but having a card that was once in the same box as a Wagner is as close as I'll ever get.

Steve B

[barrysloate]

SGC would likely give this a Fair 20, which is what I believe the card should grade.

For PSA, it's too nice for a 1 but not worthy of a 2. Do they have a 1.5? I don't think so.

And when it comes to Wagners, there certainly is grade inflation. I have to think the submitters are lobbying for a higher grade. So much money is at stake, even for a half grade bump.

[DJR]

.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cmcclelland

This is just my two cents worth, but I think it is very funny how critical the hobby has become about distinguishing between what the numerical grade is for a low end card.

My opinion is that a card that is graded a "1" or "Poor" grade should be an extremely "poor" looking card that almost does not look like a card any more. To me, this means things like pieces of the card that are missing, holes in the card, very bad marks or writing on the card, extreme paper loss, etc. To me, this was always the standard back in the day.

These days, all it takes is some small, easy to miss flaw to potentially throw a card into the "1" category. I have always viewed the "2" or "Good" category as the cards that are pretty beat up but not having the horrible flaws that make you say it's one of those cards that makes you kind of say this is just a poor card that couldn't get much worse.

So, I think this PSA Wagner is very much worthy of the "2" grade based on the way I have always graded cards going back to the "olden days" before professional grading. I have always thought a heavily creased card with severely rounded corners was a "2" or a "Good" card. A "poor" or "1" card had to either be so heavily creased to render the image so poor that you couldn't make out the image, or there had to be some other major flaw such as a piece of the card missing or a hole, etc.

Again, just my two cents, but I think the hobby has become waaaaay too critical on the low end of the grading spectrum.

I really enjoyed reading this post, although I disagree with you. In the "olden days" we did not have grading companies. Yes, an old guy might have called this 'good', but you would have looked at it and paid what you thought it was worth (unless buying through mail with no picture, in which case you might have been able to get a refund).

The grading companies job was to give a grade that consistently represented the issues (or non-issues) with the card. PSA has not done that with this card - almost every T206 that they grade in this condition will get a lower grade. And as far as refunds, many sellers fall back on: "no refunds for professionally graded cards."

If a card gets a 2 when it deserves a 1, the price is affected, like it or not. If you have 4-5 bidders and even ONE of them is willing to pay for that 2, then the card brings more than it would if it were raw. Yes, the card has good eye appeal, especially for a 1 - 1.5, but not for a 2.

[drc]

I thing changing grading systems for certain cards, especially certain cards involving big money and well healed buyers and sellers, is bad for the grading company. Somewhere down the road some pipsqueak on eBay or some chat board is going to say, "Yeah, well know PSA does gives grading favors for certain companies and people in the hobby," and people are going to say, or at least think to themselves, "This poster's an obnoxious twit, but he has a valid point."

Doing stuff like this just gives credence to and fuels the conspiracy theories that exist in any hobby.

My personal opinion is that raising grade scales for certain cards is really, really bad, for many reasons. In my opinion it defies the very reasons and foundations for having a standard grading system, it's unethical, it looks bad and is getting close to sleazy.

[vintagecpa]

What are the general guidelines for a T206 card to receive a (MC) qualifier? Not that they would ever stick such a qualifier on a T206 Wagner.

[CMIZ5290]

the grade is a joke....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

....Somewhere down the road some pipsqueak on eBay or some chat board...

'Pipsqueak'?!? that one's so old I had to look it up.

Synonyms: cipher, dwarf, half-pint, insect, insignificancy, lightweight, morsel, nonentity, nothing, nullity, number, pip-squeak, pygmy (also pigmy), shrimp, snippersnapper, twerp, whippersnapper, zero, zilch

[barrysloate]

Snippersnapper??? I learned a new word today.

[Peter_Spaeth]

GOOD 2: Good
A PSA Good 2 card's corners show accelerated rounding and surface wear is starting to become obvious. A good card may have scratching, scuffing, light staining, or chipping of enamel on obverse. There may be several creases. Original gloss may be completely absent. Card may show considerable discoloration. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.