T206 Wagner vs. Cobb/Cobb

[xplainer]

Got this through email from PSA today.
Interesting commentary.
Thought I'd share, if you haven't read it.
http://www.psacard.com/Articles/Arti...OTQzMTA5NDk1S0

[nsaddict]

Interesting indeed, but Joe forgot to mention the Wagner has been graded higher than the Cobb

[xplainer]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

Interesting indeed, but Joe forgot to mention the Wagner has been graded higher than the Cobb

And, reportedly, was trimmed ...and they knew it. 0000001.

[BBB]

The Cobb is the more risky but has a higher ceiling on return potential. The Wagner has history behind if ....safer bet, lower return potential


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BBB

The Cobb is the more risky but has a higher ceiling on return potential. The Wagner has history behind if ....safer bet, lower return potential


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeap. Cobb/Cobb hasn't been in the stratosphere very long. Wags has...

[darwinbulldog]

1. 60-75 is not "truly scarce." Scarce does not mean expensive, and money aside, the Wagner is a pretty easy card to find. The Tinker and Doyle variations are truly scarce.

2. "While those differences are real, in my opinion, they don't disconnect the card from the set." Yes they are real, but that isn't a matter of opinion, and they clearly disconnect the card from the set. Would he be making the same argument if it was die-cut instead of glossy? What if Cobb's name was printed in red? Allowing one card to be so distinctly different and still say it was intended to be part of the same set because the guy on the card was famous is a pretty weak argument. Burdick is the only reason to call it a T206, which is to say it's T206 by definition or by fiat but not by any other criterion we would apply if a new alleged T206 subject suddenly turned up.

3. In retrospect, yes, Cobb was the marquee player of 1909-1911, but as Wagner had been the marquee player of 1905-1908 he would be more likely to be chosen as the special player who gets a glossy coat in 1909 or 1910; this of course should be moot because of point 2.

4. "Would anyone in their right mind say that the 1933 Goudey Napoleon Lajoie shouldn't be part of that set because of the different way you had to obtain it? Of course not." Try it this way instead. "Would anyone in their [sic] right mind say that a card produced in 1934 must be regarded as part of a 1933 set? Of course not."