Altered high grade E93s in Mile High?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by bbcemporium

Tough to tell on the Cobb. It looks like the Wagner has been submitted a few times. These all have the black fisheye by the ear, but the red backgrounds appear to have subtle differences, which could just be due to scanner settings.






(edited to add the PSA 6 and PSA 9 scans for comparison)

Ok so to get back to the original topic real quick, I'm still VERY confused about the Wagner.

So is the claim that the PSA 9, PSA 8.5 and PSA 7.5 and PSA 6 are all the same Wagner? Then can someone explain to me how this timeline makes sense?

2008: the PSA 9 wager sells at memory lane

2012: the PSA 8.5 wagner sells at Greg Bussineau

2015: the psa 9 Wagner surfaces again in the same holder from 2008 and sells at mile high

So if the PSA 9 Wagner was around in 2008 and 2015 in the same holder, then the psa 8.5 Wagner from 2012 must be a unique specimen, NOT the same card in the PSA 9 case. It seems like the assumption was that the 8.5 was resubbed to get the 9, but it doesn't seem like they can possibly be the same card. Unless I'm really missing something.

And yet the PSA 8.5 and 9 look identical, down to the black "hickey" to the right of their heads. If they are nearly indistinguishable, then isn't it feasible that the PSA 6 Wagner and PSA 9 Wagner also just look indistinguishable, and are not the same card at all?

Peter, Jeff, someone... can you explain to me what I'm missing?

[Peter_Spaeth]

8.5 has some white specks against the red background that the 9 doesn't seem to have?

[ejharrington]

The original poster only claimed the Wagner 6 and 9 were the same card. The other two cards came up later in the thread. What you have shown, however, is that simply because there is a similar mark on the two cards and they look virtually identical does not mean they are the same card.

Also, I am still confused how the claim about the three Cobbs. How could the certified 50082114 and 50082116 cards be the same since presumably they were submitted together. And then how does a card with a corner that needs to be rebuilt pass and become a 9?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

The original poster only claimed the Wagner 6 and 9 were the same card. The other two cards came up later in the thread. What you have shown, however, is that simply because there is a similar mark on the two cards and they look virtually identical does not mean they are the same card.

Exactly. I mean honestly I would have SWORN that the 8.5 and the 9 were the same card, but I would have been wrong (I noticed the wear on the 8.5 but attributed that to the saturation of the image or the scanner). And I think the 8.5 looks a lot closer to the 9 than the 6 does...

So if that's the case, it seems really difficult to make the claim that just because the PSA 6 and the PSA 9 look nearly identical that they must be the same card. That being said of course it's totally still possible, just not as sure a thing as I think many realize.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Again, I see specks on the 8.5 but not the 9, along the top border and in the upper left quadrant. Maybe it's the scan. But I see them.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, I see specks on the 8.5 but not the 9, along the top border and in the upper left quadrant. Maybe it's the scan. But I see them.

Of course they're different, but that's not the point. It's their similarities that are significant.

I mean, imagine if the 8.5 didn't have those little specks. It would look exactly the same as the 9, you would swear they were the same card. They have nearly everything else in common. Same registration, centering, printing defects (hickey), etc. I would have thought that two cards with unique provenances from the e93 set could not possibly have so many features in common.

But they aren't the same card. And if Wagner already has one (nearly) identical twin, who's to say the 6 just isn't another card with the same registration, centering, printing defects etc. as the 8.5 and the 9?

[Peter_Spaeth]

In your prior post you said they looked "identical." Sorry but I am now confused as to your point.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Also, my assumption is that Lichtman is relying on more than scans to suggest the 6 and 9 are the same card.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In your prior post you said they looked "identical." Sorry but I am now confused as to your point.

Ok, let me clarify. People were saying "look how many similarities there are between the psa 6 and the 9, they must be the same card! Look at the registration! The centering! Look at the printing defect next to Wagner's head! They must be the same card!"

But all the similarities people are pointing out are also shared by the 8.5 and the 9, making all the similarities meaningless if you're trying to use them as evidence that the 6 and the 9 are the same card since we know that the 8.5 and the 9 are unique, individual specimens.

Must the 6 and the 9 be the same card because they share the same centering, registration, hickey etc? NO, because the 8.5 also has all those same features and but is not the same card. Therefore it would be faulty logic to assume that on the basis of their similarities the 6 and the 9 must be the same card, because the same similarities are shared by the 8.5 and the 9, which we know for a fact are not the same card.

That being said, I know you're saying there might be more evidence somewhere, but without it there seems to be absolutely no basis to assume they are the same card. It is however, entirely possible that they are of course and that someone doctored it. My only point is that their physical similarities are not enough to justify that claim alone. Which surprises me, because I would have though that two cards from the e93 set that shared so many similarities would have to be the same card, but the 8.5 and the 9 proves that that assumption is just not true.