T206 Honus Wagner SGC 5 - John D. Wagner Collection

[nolemmings]

I would agree that corruption, if that's what happened here, should in no way be encouraged. What I am suggesting is that with this specific card, the grade is or should be damn near irrelevant, other than again to show that it is authentic and unaltered.

How many times have we claimed that a card "presents better"? And that the market will ignore a technical grade in view of a card's appearance? To me this is the poster child for such a position. We can all see the condition of the corners, which appears to be the card's flaw, and bid accordingly. It might be different if there are wrinkles, indentations, etc that cannot be seen and which would/should give notice to the bidder that something is amiss. Otherwise, the number is much ado about nothing, IMO. It would be interesting to ask the bidders who make a play for this card as to how much the number affected what they are willing to pay. I suspect very little, but of course I could be wrong.

I don't disagree with anyone saying this card is overgraded and making the usual gripes about how some submitters get favors. It just seems to me you should pick your battles with those arguments, and that they are insignificant here as a practical matter.

[terjung]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I would agree that corruption, if that's what happened here, should in no way be encouraged. What I am suggesting is that with this specific card, the grade is or should be damn near irrelevant, other than again to show that it is authentic and unaltered.

How many times have we claimed that a card "presents better"? And that the market will ignore a technical grade in view of a card's appearance? To me this is the poster child for such a position. We can all see the condition of the corners, which appears to be the card's flaw, and bid accordingly. It might be different if there are wrinkles, indentations, etc that cannot be seen and which would/should give notice to the bidder that something is amiss. Otherwise, the number is much ado about nothing, IMO. It would be interesting to ask the bidders who make a play for this card as to how much the number affected what they are willing to pay. I suspect very little, but of course I could be wrong.

I don't disagree with anyone saying this card is overgraded and making the usual gripes about how some submitters get favors. It just seems to me you should pick your battles with those arguments, and that they are insignificant here as a practical matter.

This.

We all want global uniformity in grading, but the fact of the matter is that it is a tool to help us evaluate a card since we can't see it in person. If the exact same card were graded a "1", we'd use that information to start looking for a pinhole or some such flaw. With the grade of a 3.5, 4, or 5, we are led to believe the corner wear is the primary flaw. As Todd indicated, the serious bidders for this card are very likely more concerned about its appearance than its number. (Although there are probably bragging rights that are above my purview... "I sold my G5 and now fly in a G6" type of stuff.) Though this particular card is likely technically overgraded, I personally couldn't care less that it is. I'm not a grade-hound though. It's an absolutely beautiful example of the card and appears to be one of the best out there.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I would agree that corruption, if that's what happened here, should in no way be encouraged. What I am suggesting is that with this specific card, the grade is or should be damn near irrelevant, other than again to show that it is authentic and unaltered.

How many times have we claimed that a card "presents better"? And that the market will ignore a technical grade in view of a card's appearance? To me this is the poster child for such a position. We can all see the condition of the corners, which appears to be the card's flaw, and bid accordingly. It might be different if there are wrinkles, indentations, etc that cannot be seen and which would/should give notice to the bidder that something is amiss. Otherwise, the number is much ado about nothing, IMO. It would be interesting to ask the bidders who make a play for this card as to how much the number affected what they are willing to pay. I suspect very little, but of course I could be wrong.

I don't disagree with anyone saying this card is overgraded and making the usual gripes about how some submitters get favors. It just seems to me you should pick your battles with those arguments, and that they are insignificant here as a practical matter.

You think this card would fetch the same price in a 2.5, 3, 4 or 5 holder?

[AndrewJerome]

Looks like a 4 to me. Beautiful card. Corners a little sharper than many 3s, assuming no wrinkles. Agree that 5 is a stretch. Also agree with Todd that nearly all T206 Wagners appear to be over graded compared to other T206s. So why are we surprised at this particular grade?