Another T206 Wagner "? AUTHTCT"

[Edwolf1963]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I thought they didn't enter the cert numbers in their database on cards with questionable authenticity?

Hmmm, didn't know that. I looked up the flip # as well and it came back unknown, so thought something was amiss. If it's known there wasn't a T206 Wagner w/BroadLeaf back (or so I would gather from others feedback), why wouldn't PSA note it as a reprint/fake then? Instead of questionable authenticity.

[njdunkin1]

I saw this as well, at first I thought there was a chance. After a close look, though, you can easily see the extra bright color and signs of a reprint. Yikes!

[Pilot172000]

Finding a real Broadleaf Wagner would be like finding survivors from the Titanic on a life boat off the coast of Greenland..... Last Wednesday

[53Browns]

I have implicit trust in his "zero" feedback.

[nat]

Who is it, exactly, that buys this junk? Is there actually someone who thinks that they can scoop up a T206 Wagner for $34 on eBay? And if the people bidding on this do think it's real, why on Earth did 23 of them get topped by a $34 bid? And if they know it's fake, why did they bid at all?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by nat

Who is it, exactly, that buys this junk? Is there actually someone who thinks that they can scoop up a T206 Wagner for $34 on eBay? And if the people bidding on this do think it's real, why on Earth did 23 of them get topped by a $34 bid? And if they know it's fake, why did they bid at all?

Again, PSA has to share some of the blame too. The word questionable leaves room for hope. It should not be labeled as questionable authenticity.

This scam has actually been discussed here before. Submitter sends fake cards to PSA knowing they will come back as questionable authenticity. Then, lists them on eBay with a pic of the flip hoping to reel in a sucker with the hopes that it might be real.

[iowadoc77]

Easy to see why people fall for this.
Unfortunate
But easy

[MetsBaseball1973]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Again, PSA has to share some of the blame too. The word questionable leaves room for hope. It should not be labeled as questionable authenticity.

Dude, you are really stretching it to try and throw shade at PSA for this. If someone sees the leading TPG flat out refused to grade something and called it "Questionable Authenticity," and still that someone wants to buy said thing, thinking it's real, that is squarely and solely on them and their idiocy.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

Dude, you are really stretching it to try and throw shade at PSA for this. If someone sees the leading TPG flat out refused to grade something and called it "Questionable Authenticity," and still that someone wants to buy said thing, thinking it's real, that is squarely and solely on them and their idiocy.

I disagree. It is true that anyone buying a card like this is an idiot. But if the card is fake that is what the flip should say. Not questionable authenticity. PSA should realize how stupid people are and that some of them are falling for this scam.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

Dude, you are really stretching it to try and throw shade at PSA for this. If someone sees the leading TPG flat out refused to grade something and called it "Questionable Authenticity," and still that someone wants to buy said thing, thinking it's real, that is squarely and solely on them and their idiocy.

What part of the authenticity do you think was questionable to PSA? Was it the card stock? The font? The ink? The fact that there's no way the Wagner could have been printed with a Broad Leaf back?

Or do you think they should have labeled it what it actually is (a reprint)?

The fact that they refuse to label it for what it is makes them somewhat responsible for this.

[JTysver]

Actually, that is mail fraud and a Federal Offense.
The seller ought to be turned in to the Postal Inspector. I would think they would be more than interested in this especially since the dude is using the US Mail to sell fraudulent materials.
How is it Fraud? He stated it just came back from PSA. That is a lie.

[Pilot172000]

Which part is mail fraud? How do you know it didn't come back from PSA? In most cases its not against the law to lie. Is he or she selling something he presumes to be Authentic? You have to show intent. Its also under $100 which leads me to believe that the FBI is gonna pass since it would be at best a misdemeanor. This guy should be outed and shamed back into the dark hole that came from. This board does a great job of outing crap like this.

[Leon]

All of this, really? It's not against the law to lie (commit fraud)?

I believe PSA should use better wording on their flips for counterfeit cards. Maybe something like "counterfeit". There is no question mark needed. If they can't tell it's counterfeit then they shouldn't be charging for their services. Or they should send it back at no cost and say they don't know what they are doing and have no clue but leave their flip out of the equation. I would imagine countless people have gotten screwed by their "?"..
I have always disliked their ambiguous wording on fake card flips. That being said, they are a great marketing company. They do a good job in grading, overall, too...imo.

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

Which part is mail fraud? How do you know it didn't come back from PSA? In most cases its not against the law to lie. Is he or she selling something he presumes to be Authentic? You have to show intent. Its also under $100 which leads me to believe that the FBI is gonna pass since it would be at best a misdemeanor. This guy should be outed and shamed back into the dark hole that came from. This board does a great job of outing crap like this.

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by Leon

All of this, really? It's not against the law to lie (commit fraud)?

I believe PSA should use better wording on their flips for counterfeit cards. Maybe something like "counterfeit". There is no question mark needed. If they can't tell it's counterfeit then they shouldn't be charging for their services. Or they should send it back at no cost and say they don't know what they are doing and have no clue but leave their flip out of the equation. I would imagine countless people have gotten screwed by their "?"..
I have always disliked their ambiguous wording on fake card flips. That being said, they are a great marketing company. They do a good job in grading, overall, too...imo.

You completely took what I said out of context. I didn't say "It's not against the law to lie" "I said in Most cases its not against the law to lie" BIG DARN DIFFERENCE. You can lie to your wife, you can lie to pretty much anyone as long as its not to a Federal agent, to misrepresent for profit (Fraud), or to cover for a criminal act. I have looked this listing over a dozen times and he didn't lie about anything. Vague? Absolutely, but no lying.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

I believe PSA should use better wording on their flips for counterfeit cards. Maybe something like "counterfeit". There is no question mark needed. If they can't tell it's counterfeit then they shouldn't be charging for their services. Or they should send it back at no cost and say they don't know what they are doing and have no clue but leave their flip out of the equation.

You and I share the same opinion, Leon, so welcome to the cesspool.

And, if M. Browne wants to continue to participate in this thread, he really needs to have his full name in his post, but for now I'll assume the 'M' stands for Meathead.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JTysver

Actually, that is mail fraud and a Federal Offense.
The seller ought to be turned in to the Postal Inspector. I would think they would be more than interested in this especially since the dude is using the US Mail to sell fraudulent materials.
How is it Fraud? He stated it just came back from PSA. That is a lie.

It did just come back from PSA. Read Post #12. While I think it's morally wrong, it's not legally wrong. Ebay won't do anything about it because, technically, he's selling it for what it is as described on the flip - a Broad Leaf Wagner with Questionable Authenticity.

It's a very unfortunate situation.

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It did just come back from PSA. Read Post #12. While I think it's morally wrong, it's not legally wrong. Ebay won't do anything about it because, technically, he's selling it for what it is as described on the flip - a Broad Leaf Wagner with Questionable Authenticity.

It's a very unfortunate situation.

You are absolutely right and I remember hitting the brakes and looking at it while going through Ebay. Its shows it as ended and around $80+, did somebody bite on it or did they pull it?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

Its shows it as ended and around $80+, did somebody bite on it or did they pull it?

No, they didn't pull it. He ran it as a 5 day auction and it ran it's course.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Edwolf1963

Hmmm, didn't know that. I looked up the flip # as well and it came back unknown, so thought something was amiss. If it's known there wasn't a T206 Wagner w/BroadLeaf back (or so I would gather from others feedback), why wouldn't PSA note it as a reprint/fake then? Instead of questionable authenticity.

Good question I might add a note that nobody has touched base on yet. Not only is there no Broad Leaf Wagner.

The series the Wagner was printed didn't even print Broad Leaf!



These are it

Piedmont 150
Sweet Caporal 150/25
Sweet Caporal 150/30

[bnorth]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the listing. There is no BS story saying it could be real. It is a hell of a lot better than someone listing a card as ExMint or NrMint when the card is in a Authentic holder, to me that is trying to deceive someone.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the listing. There is no BS story saying it could be real. It is a hell of a lot better than someone listing a card as ExMint or NrMint when the card is in a Authentic holder, to me that is trying to deceive someone.

What part of the auction title "1909-11 T206 BROADLEAF CIGARETTES HONUS WAGNER" should be taken as not "saying it could be real?" The word "reprint" is not listed anywhere in the auction, but that's not a sketchy attempt to get people to think the card is real?

Edd*e Sm*th

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

What part of the auction title "1909-11 T206 BROADLEAF CIGARETTES HONUS WAGNER" should be taken as not "saying it could be real?" The word "reprint" is not listed anywhere in the auction, but that's not a sketchy attempt to get people to think the card is real?

Edd*e Sm*th

For me it is the clearly pictured PSA flip showing it is a reprint. ?authentic=reprint/counterfeit