Some of the mysteries and myths surrounding the most famous card in the hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Even if Bill had not trimmed it, as I've said before, it still should never have been slabbed because if real it's a sheet cut card. I have to assume PSA knew of both issues when they graded it.

I guess it worked out well for them. 31 years and countless altered cards later, the hobby doesn't care much.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Over the years the card has gone through a handful of tests each coming up with vague yes-no determinations. Eventually it landed itself in an ACA Grading holder which deemed the card to be authentic. Why would they use ACA Grading to authenticate their card? Most likely because they were the only company willing to touch the card and say it was real. ACA probably wanted some attention from the hobby too.

For a majority of the show, Mr. Edwards wouldn’t let the examiners remove the card from it’s holder. It wasn’t until the end where they brought in the individual from ACA Grading who encased the card and asked him to remove it so they could take a closer look under a microscope. While taking a look at it with the microscope, you could clearly see the print pattern on the Cobb-Edwards card was not consistent with other T206 cards from the same set. The font and spacing was off too. One of the best ways to determine if a T206 card is counterfeit is to compare it to another common card from the set. These cards were originally made as promos, and were expected to be thrown out. They didn’t go out of their way to make some cards better looking than others. Scanning the card in the CT scanner revealed that there was a potential bulge near the middle indicating that there might be more than one piece of paper present.

Before they got the scam holder, as I recall it, they had a paper expert look at it and 'test' the card, determining it was from before 1921 and the lithography was consistent with 1910 printing. Even though the front, at least, appears to be from one of the 1985 Hygrade reprints. What I am getting at is that 'forensic testing' does not really even have much of a track record of good use in card land, and is a vague term here that doesn't even mean much.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Before they got the scam holder, as I recall it, they had a paper expert look at it and 'test' the card, determining it was from before 1921 and the lithography was consistent with 1910 printing. Even though the front, at least, appears to be from one of the 1985 Hygrade reprints. What I am getting at is that 'forensic testing' does not really even have much of a track record of good use in card land, and is a vague term here that doesn't even mean much.

I assume the testing is only as good (and unbiased) as the people employing it.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

Before they got the scam holder, as I recall it, they had a paper expert look at it and 'test' the card, determining it was from before 1921 and the lithography was consistent with 1910 printing. Even though the front, at least, appears to be from one of the 1985 Hygrade reprints. What I am getting at is that 'forensic testing' does not really even have much of a track record of good use in card land, and is a vague term here that doesn't even mean much.

I like my forensic testing when it comes to investigating crimes, not baseball cards. I would guess if there were to be forensic testing done, the best way to do that would be to test another Wagner along with it. As you have suggested, sports cards have little to no track record of forensic testing of paper or ink.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

Just to add on, this structure is present in other sets that were part of the 1909-1912 project popularly credited to the ATC and AL. It is rare that cards were corrected, but when they were they typically had multiple backs. For example, the 3 spelling errors corrected in T218-1 all exist on 2 of the 4 backs, even though they represent a small percentage of surviving copies and the majority of those same 2 backs are the corrected version.

This ‘printing in waves’ appears to be a significant factor. The ATC ledger gives some evidence that some series were issued in waves; like the discordant dates for different sport subjects of T218-3.

Some 50 card sets seem to have had 25 unique cards to a sheet, and sometimes a back gets only half the subjects, like we see in T42. It seems to suggest wave printing again, not just a 2 sheet construction but those 2 sheets being done at a time gap during which decisions were made. I think our evidence suggests this happened with T220 also. The gap in between sheets saw multiple decisions made, to expand the back distribution, to cheapen the borders, to modify a couple cards, and to change the entire art style between at least four production runs over ~6 months.

While advertised and thought of as series, the traditional idea that all cards of a series were basically printed and issued together like Topps cards does not seem to be the case.

Topps cards were printed backs first then shipped to another plant for the fronts to be printed for a period of many years. It seems possible tobacco cards were handled the same way, especially as the reverses were monotone and would require less skill than the 6 color process used on the fronts. You would have a pile of back printed sheets to get through before the next batch came in, theoretically at least.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Topps cards were printed backs first then shipped to another plant for the fronts to be printed for a period of many years. It seems possible tobacco cards were handled the same way, especially as the reverses were monotone and would require less skill than the 6 color process used on the fronts. You would have a pile of back printed sheets to get through before the next batch came in, theoretically at least.

I don’t know printing, but I have never found evidence on the cards themselves for this or in the documentary material that we have uncovered. Not all backs were monotone, most were but not all (T68 Natural Leaf springs to mind immediately). I would expect that, if a sheet had the backs printed and was then shipped to another facility and had the fronts printed there at a different time, that this would result in more back/front centering mismatch than we actually see. Perhaps this assumption is faulty. It would also add expense, I would think, doubling your transportation at least. Fullgraff’s available pages from his ledger seems to indicate full cards at Brett, nothing specified that they are only doing half the work when the tables are accounting volumes printed.

Is there anything we have in support of a geographic and significant time gap between the back and front printings? Looking at our printer experts here.

[benjulmag]

Provenance to me does not require tracing an item back to its original owner. To me it entails documenting an item's existence to a period when there would not have been any incentive to make a duplicate for commercial sale.

Of the other 47 or so known Wagners, none to my knowledge come close to looking as pristine as this one, and none are believed to come from an uncut sheet. That may not raise red flags to others, but it does to me. Comfort level is a subjective matter. Speaking only about mine, for this Wagner it is not as high as for the 47 others.

It is my opinion the hobby does not fully appreciate the ability of forgers to make replicas that pass visual inspection, and this ability is not something that has not existed for many years. Sophisticated collectors I know personally going back to the 1970's have expressed concern about fake Wagners appearing. While I will not mention the auction house by name, I know for a fact (I was there) that in the late '80s an established one with a good reputation tried to sell a fake Wagner. When some collectors pointed it out to them (it was not a good fake), the AH replaced it with another (better) fake which they did not pull and which sold for tens of thousands of dollars. Again, I know that; I was there. For the area that is my expertise, 19th century memorabilia, I feel pretty confident there are slabbed cdv's whose authenticity range from suspect to plain fake. For some of them, I discussed it privately with some other long-time collectors, none of whom at the time agreed with me, though now some are beginning to develop serious doubts.

I personally have been defrauded out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by purchasing fake memorabilia that so was so expertly made that it fooled the entire hobby, and was revealed only through forensic examination. The HOF in fact had on display a sister counterfeit item for many years. To this day I marvel at the knowledge and skill required to make the counterfeits. Just a few years ago I returned a six-figure piece I purchased from a major AH after establishing, once I had it in my possession and could compare it to other items I had, that it was a fake. The underbidder, who I know, told me if he bought it it would still be hanging on his wall, and this person is a long-time sophisticated collector.

In the end this is something I think we will agree to disagree about. I believe the issue of counterfeiting is a lot more prevalent and serious than people believe. And I do not think raising the issue as it applies to this Wagner is indicative of an irrational and illogical analysis.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Didn't the blatantly fake Cobb/Edwards Wagner pass 'forensic testing'?

It isn't even a good fake but they still decided to do a thorough examination of the card on treasure detectives. No surprise on the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI3mP8xV-KE

[Lorewalker]

I don't think anyone is necessarily disputing that the Wagner 8 absolutely did not or could not have come off a printer's scrap or salesman sample sheet in the 50s but absent the provenance it seems to be a leap to state that it is therefore possibly a counterfeit.

I have collected cards for my entire adult life...in dog years I cannot even count that high...I have never seen a counterfeit of a vintage card that was remotely good enough to fool me. I have never handled T206 Wagners but plenty of other expensive high profile cards. Obviously one could argue that maybe I have handled plenty of counterfeits that were so good that I could not detect them but I honestly doubt that.

I have no idea how easy or hard it would be to do great counterfeits of vintage cards, even today, let alone in 1950. Also have no idea if it is easier to counterfeit memorabilia than it would be cards. I know nothing about memorabilia. Just seems to me that if great counterfeits could be done today they would have been all over the hobby by now. I think when you have handled enough vintage cardboard you would not be fooled and something in the card would tip you off.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t know printing, but I have never found evidence on the cards themselves for this or in the documentary material that we have uncovered. Not all backs were monotone, most were but not all (T68 Natural Leaf springs to mind immediately). I would expect that, if a sheet had the backs printed and was then shipped to another facility and had the fronts printed there at a different time, that this would result in more back/front centering mismatch than we actually see. Perhaps this assumption is faulty. It would also add expense, I would think, doubling your transportation at least. Fullgraff’s available pages from his ledger seems to indicate full cards at Brett, nothing specified that they are only doing half the work when the tables are accounting volumes printed.

Is there anything we have in support of a geographic and significant time gap between the back and front printings? Looking at our printer experts here.

To me, and I have no idea how many others even partly agree, leftover sheets would have been used either as press adjustment sheets, or to fill orders when a few cards were needed after the group they were originally intended for was shipped. The best evidence of this is the 150 only card that now has a single P350.

From every indication, fronts were printed, then backs. For Piedmont and SC, that back printing would have been almost continuous. For the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in.
It's possible small brands or groups of small brands got their own sheets, but that's still something that's wide open for study.

Those T220 sheet fragments and the added Fullgraff info, is the first indication I've seen that any of the work was farmed out to other print shops. And it opens up a whole range of possibilities.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I don't think anyone is necessarily disputing that the Wagner 8 absolutely did not or could not have come off a printer's scrap or salesman sample sheet in the 50s but absent the provenance it seems to be a leap to state that it is therefore possibly a counterfeit.

I have collected cards for my entire adult life...in dog years I cannot even count that high...I have never seen a counterfeit of a vintage card that was remotely good enough to fool me. I have never handled T206 Wagners but plenty of other expensive high profile cards. Obviously one could argue that maybe I have handled plenty of counterfeits that were so good that I could not detect them but I honestly doubt that.

I have no idea how easy or hard it would be to do great counterfeits of vintage cards, even today, let alone in 1950. Also have no idea if it is easier to counterfeit memorabilia than it would be cards. I know nothing about memorabilia. Just seems to me that if great counterfeits could be done today they would have been all over the hobby by now. I think when you have handled enough vintage cardboard you would not be fooled and something in the card would tip you off.

They could be made today. But it's still a fair amount of effort, and at least the paper stock isn't something you can just pick up at a craft store. (I tried a few, nothing they carry is the right thickness.)

And most fakers are lazy. Why spend a lot of money and effort to produce a card that will be closely examined, when you can print something that will pass from 10 feet on your home printer and sell it as "maybe a reprint" for stupid money and no scrutiny? And do that hundreds of times over.

But I do think Corey has a point, with a Wagner being a million + the attraction of making a great fake will draw someone with the necessary skills. And I have doubts that the examination PSA or SGC might do will be enough.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are a number of people still among us, including some with great expertise, who have seen it unslabbed. Has any one of them suggested it didn't look like an authentic T206? This is aside from the issue of being sheet cut trimmed blah blah.

Unsubstantiated rumors of 1950s reprints do not for me shift the burden of proof here. But Corey, how in your estimation would one forensic test it without damaging it?

well, I'll have a go at how I'd examine a potential Wagner.

Paper thickness- Is it within the range of known good T206s. (From my small sample I checked, it's a very small range, very consistent thickness. )

Other paper aspects -
The stock is often coated, is it coated stock or not, and is that consistent with the specific back it has? (and preferably with another known Wagner with the same back.

Does the fiber length/type match other T206s. (a bit tougher, but looking at one closely enough the cardstock is distinctive, It's clearly different from a similar modern cardstock (Both craft store acid free cardstock, and comic book backing boards which are similar. ) The actual scientific test would destroy some of the cardstock, but a simple look with a microscope will actually get you most of the way there.

UV light - Does the cardstock react or not. Not a certain thing, as many modern acid free cardstocks also don't react. But if it does, it can almost 100% be eliminated as genuine.

Inks and printing-
Lots that can be seen with just a good magnifier. If I had a known Wagner to compare to. even the exact halftone pattern could be compared. For that matter a very high res scan would allow the same comparison, but I haven't seen one of a Wagner. (LOC has them available for most of the set)

Again, UV. I haven't done this yet, but how the different inks react should match a good T206.

The better tests

X-ray refraction spectroscopy would identify the exact composition of the paper, paper coating if any and the inks.
Even if someone did spectacular work and worked off a real Wagner, this is where it would all come undone.
There's been some work on Stamps only in the last 10 years or so. Some of the discoveries have been very interesting. Like for well over 100 years we all "knew" that the inks used on the first US stamp used rust as a colorant making a nice red brown, but also being abrasive and leading to premature plate wear. Checked, and the XRF says..... No Iron whatsoever!


I think the reasons this sort of stuff hasn't had a good track record with sports collectibles is that the people doing the examining, even if they have a machine like the VSC machines PSA and SGC have is that the data they give needs to be interpreted properly.

Like.... I'd guess your office has a lot of law books. I could come in and read a bunch of them, and I would probably know more than when I started. But that wouldn't get me anywhere near being as good as a genuine lawyer. And I'd put money on being just plain wrong a LOT.

It doesn't help that so many incompetent or dishonest autograph "authenticators" have claimed to be "forensic document examiners".

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by steve B

They could be made today. But it's still a fair amount of effort, and at least the paper stock isn't something you can just pick up at a craft store. (I tried a few, nothing they carry is the right thickness.)

And most fakers are lazy. Why spend a lot of money and effort to produce a card that will be closely examined, when you can print something that will pass from 10 feet on your home printer and sell it as "maybe a reprint" for stupid money and no scrutiny? And do that hundreds of times over.

But I do think Corey has a point, with a Wagner being a million + the attraction of making a great fake will draw someone with the necessary skills. And I have doubts that the examination PSA or SGC might do will be enough.

In the future I am confident there are a lot of things that will be able to be done that cannot be done today. My comment was about the present and past.

I know nothing about counterfeiting but I know humans are greedy and look for any angle to make a buck. I stick to what I wrote--I have yet to see a counterfeit vintage card that almost fooled me. My guess is that it would be far easier to counterfeit a modern card than it would be to counterfeit a vintage card.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

In the future I am confident there are a lot of things that will be able to be done that cannot be done today. My comment was about the present and past.

I know nothing about counterfeiting but I know humans are greedy and look for any angle to make a buck. I stick to what I wrote--I have yet to see a counterfeit vintage card that almost fooled me. My guess is that it would be far easier to counterfeit a modern card than it would be to counterfeit a vintage card.

The thing with high end counterfeits is that several things need to happen for it to be possible.

1) You need someone with the ability to do the actual counterfeiting work.
2) You need the equipment or a place to use it with no one else knowing about it.
3) Someone who is a scammer.
4) Knowledge of the card market.
5) Materials to do the work.
6) All this plus a little more needs to be done by as few people as possible to keep the secret.

Getting everything needed by someone who is a scammer would leave a small pool of people. There is a known ring in NJ that has been counterfeiting cards and then forging autos on them for years. So it is not like it isn't being done but few are doing it with any quality.

Personally if counterfeiting T206s I would do the Red Cobb. It is not rare and commands a decent price with a plain easy design. For T206s the only big thing would be a CNC machine to make the limestone plates. That and someone that can program the CNC machine to make the plates.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

It isn't even a good fake but they still decided to do a thorough examination of the card on treasure detectives. No surprise on the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI3mP8xV-KE

My favorite part is around 3 minutes, when the host implies that the grading is not legit because ACA is based in Canada. That's not the problem with ACA lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

My favorite part is around 3 minutes, when the host implies that the grading is not legit because ACA is based in Canada. That's not the problem with ACA lol

Have you seen KSA graded cards lol?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The thing with high end counterfeits is that several things need to happen for it to be possible.

1) You need someone with the ability to do the actual counterfeiting work.
2) You need the equipment or a place to use it with no one else knowing about it.
3) Someone who is a scammer.
4) Knowledge of the card market.
5) Materials to do the work.
6) All this plus a little more needs to be done by as few people as possible to keep the secret.

Getting everything needed by someone who is a scammer would leave a small pool of people. There is a known ring in NJ that has been counterfeiting cards and then forging autos on them for years. So it is not like it isn't being done but few are doing it with any quality.

Personally if counterfeiting T206s I would do the Red Cobb. It is not rare and commands a decent price with a plain easy design. For T206s the only big thing would be a CNC machine to make the limestone plates. That and someone that can program the CNC machine to make the plates.

Ben, what is this ring counterfeiting?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by steve B

To me, and I have no idea how many others even partly agree, leftover sheets would have been used either as press adjustment sheets, or to fill orders when a few cards were needed after the group they were originally intended for was shipped. The best evidence of this is the 150 only card that now has a single P350.

From every indication, fronts were printed, then backs. For Piedmont and SC, that back printing would have been almost continuous. For the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in.
It's possible small brands or groups of small brands got their own sheets, but that's still something that's wide open for study.

Those T220 sheet fragments and the added Fullgraff info, is the first indication I've seen that any of the work was farmed out to other print shops. And it opens up a whole range of possibilities.

This is speculation, but I suspect "for the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in" is exactly right; whatever the sheets currently being run were were printed up when that brand 'ordered' or however it was chosen that X brand would get Y card set. I doubt it was a pre-planned thing that, say, T42 would only appear on 25 of the 50 white border subjects with Emblem brand backs. I think this is indicative that some series were printed in waves; that, say, a big case of Piedmont packs sent to a distributor would not have all 50 subjects included in its packs, but only the same 25 subjects. Brands with only half weren't printed during both waves. There are strong indications, not absolute proof, of this wave type issuing in the ATC ledger.

As far as I am aware and remembering right now, before the T220 sheet we really only had the Ball letter that said it was American Lithographic doing the printing. Brett, Fullgraff's journal, Hyland's letter and the resulting other documents that were found mentioning some non-sport sets and silks were the first evidence (and they are conclusive evidence, this part is fact) that it was not AL directly doing the whole T card project with the ATC. It is deduction that AL farmed the work out to Brett and likely others; there is no hard evidence that Brett was a subsidiary partner of AL's silent monopoly, but I think that is probably the case and the anti-trust politics of the time mean we will never find a smoking gun document.

I think the find also suggests it may not have been just the ATC, but other non-cigarette makers involved in this project. The E229/D353 sheets originating with it, that bear a very similar list of names to those contracted with the ATC and their printers, are likely related. This connection is an opinion deduced from the evidence and not a proven fact.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Have you seen KSA graded cards lol?

I would say KSA is, from what I have seen, better than ACA at least. They grade trimmed and sheet cut cards (so does PSA ) and there opinion is junk, but I don't think they would stoop quite THIS low as to grade a Hygrade Wagner as a pre-production test card. The problem is not that they are Canadian . Thought it was a funny implication, the 'you need to get the card graded by an American company to auction it" followed immediately by the 'Montreal? Canada? Hm' tone.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

To me, and I have no idea how many others even partly agree, leftover sheets would have been used either as press adjustment sheets, or to fill orders when a few cards were needed after the group they were originally intended for was shipped. The best evidence of this is the 150 only card that now has a single P350.

From every indication, fronts were printed, then backs. For Piedmont and SC, that back printing would have been almost continuous. For the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in.
It's possible small brands or groups of small brands got their own sheets, but that's still something that's wide open for study.

Those T220 sheet fragments and the added Fullgraff info, is the first indication I've seen that any of the work was farmed out to other print shops. And it opens up a whole range of possibilities.

These are some of the things that I have been working on with the print flaws. I'm pretty sure that the Old Mills and SC350/25's along with the Sovereign and Piedmont 350's were printed together or at the very least printed back to back.
I'm also almost certain that the T206's weren't all printed at the same facility.

[steve B]

If I ever get the chance, I want to go to the Lowell Historical society and see what info they might have on a local printer.
The company that did the orange borders boxes specialized in candy boxes. Those share some images with T206.

The company was in Boston, moved to Lowell with some publicity, printed the orange borders here in their new plant, and promptly went out of business.

I don't really have a solid address for that new plant, I have a guess as to where it was, but it's not making sense compared to the buildings there now, which are both old enough to be it. Unless the plant had to be torn down from a fire or something. and the current buildings are the replacements.


All of it makes me wonder if what I see as three different runs for much of the 150 and 350 series were more an issue of three different printers. Multiple shops being subcontractors makes the need for constant production less pressing.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

If I ever get the chance, I want to go to the Lowell Historical society and see what info they might have on a local printer.
The company that did the orange borders boxes specialized in candy boxes. Those share some images with T206.

The company was in Boston, moved to Lowell with some publicity, printed the orange borders here in their new plant, and promptly went out of business.

I don't really have a solid address for that new plant, I have a guess as to where it was, but it's not making sense compared to the buildings there now, which are both old enough to be it. Unless the plant had to be torn down from a fire or something. and the current buildings are the replacements.


All of it makes me wonder if what I see as three different runs for much of the 150 and 350 series were more an issue of three different printers. Multiple shops being subcontractors makes the need for constant production less pressing.

It is strange I can't find anything from 1911-1918 but I found addresses from 1905-1930 minus the 8 year gap in the middle.

1905-1907 463 Commercial street Boston Mass.
1908-1910 Warrensville Lowell Mass.
1911-1918 ?
1919-1930 210 Broadway Everett Mass.

This might have had something to do with the gap

From the Boston Globe August 23 1913
img246.jpg

[Pat R]

I found some more information regarding the 1911-1918 gap. It looks like he filed for bankruptcy in 1910 and then his sons might have started the business back up again in 1919.

December 1910
img247.jpg

May 1927
img248.jpg
img249.jpg

[steve B]

Interesting stuff, a lot more than I had found a while back.

The local historical society is an interesting mix of things, all local newspapers going back essentially to the beginning either hard copy or microfilm.
Tons of pictures from when a city wide architectural survey was done I think as a prelude to establishing the national park downtown.

But most other things are spotty and seldom organized at all.