T206 Honus Wagner SGC 5 - John D. Wagner Collection

[BobC]

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is a VG 3, maybe a VG+ 3.5 card, at best, all day long and twice on Sundays. Don't get me wrong, it is still a great card, and presents well, but all four corners show wear and obvious rounding, and it looks like there may be some surface/coloration issues. Like the print mark/dot that seems to be above Wagner's head to the viewer's right.

[FrankWakefield]

+1 on what Bob C said.

I dislike grading, not a follower, disciple, nor student. It's a great looking card, and it's a 3.

[G1911]

“I’ve never seen one like it. The card has everything going for it: near 50/50 centering, a crisp image, even corner wear, awesome color, and a clean surface. I almost couldn’t believe what my eyes were seeing. These attributes are rare to even your average common T206, let alone a Wagner.”

I love this load of crap. "Even corner wear", they can't of course even pretend those corners are in any way nice. VG T206's with heavy corner rounding are available, dozens per day on the market and are by no means rare "to even your average common T206". Is SGC just adding +2 to any marquee card now, or do you have to pay them off to get your +2 bump?

[drcy]

I agree. Those are the biggest load of crap, cover my ass lines. They make it sound like corner wear (snuck in the middle) is a positive quality. I guess it would have been docked in grade if the corners were sharp. I'm pretty sure corner wear isn't an attribute "rare to even your average common T206, let alone a Wagner."

Originally Posted by G1911

“I’ve never seen one like it. The card has everything going for it: near 50/50 centering, a crisp image, even corner wear, awesome color, and a clean surface. I almost couldn’t believe what my eyes were seeing. These attributes are rare to even your average common T206, let alone a Wagner.”

I love this load of crap. "Even corner wear", they can't of course even pretend those corners are in any way nice. VG T206's with heavy corner rounding are available, dozens per day on the market and are by no means rare "to even your average common T206". Is SGC just adding +2 to any marquee card now, or do you have to pay them off to get your +2 bump?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is a VG 3, maybe a VG+ 3.5 card, at best, all day long and twice on Sundays. Don't get me wrong, it is still a great card, and presents well, but all four corners show wear and obvious rounding, and it looks like there may be some surface/coloration issues. Like the print mark/dot that seems to be above Wagner's head to the viewer's right.

Was hoping somebody would throw out a numerical assessment in this range..

[parkplace33]

If this card is an SGC ex card, then my entire collection must be NM.

[FrankWakefield]

Oscar Stanage, thanks for posting that. It does make sense that a TPG would like the collectors to see it in their holder instead of some other TPG slab. Good point.

For the collectors who are buying the graded plastic, and not the card, they'll be happy with the 5 grade. Seems most of the graded Wagner cards have a number that's lower.

For the collectors buying the card, not the slab, they'd be buying a very nice looking Wagner. But it's still not a 5.

Early on, when collecting the white border cards, I quickly could see that most of my better condition cards were either 350 or 460 cards, and that the ones that were more worn were from the 150 series. The 150s would have been in the grimy paws of young collector kids like I was as a kid. Those cards went through much more wear, spending more time in a kid's pocket, shuffled, handled, and such. I mention this because I don't think the 150s should be graded more leniently based on the relative condition of other 150s. And maybe that 5 is because that Wagner is better than most of the other Wagners, but it's still not a 3.

[D. Bergin]

Not to kick a dead horse.......LOL, who am I kidding, I'm gonna kick that dead horse hard.

This is a recent 4.5 I got from SGC. SGC isn't any less strict then PSA nowadays. They are just less strict with certain cards from certain clients...just like PSA.

All that said, if you've got the money to buy a T206 Honus Wagner, the number on the slip is irrelevant. The only thing really important is if it's authentic, and has it been altered (sorry PSA ). Look at the giant pictures any auction house is going to provide for you, ask a lot of questions, and decide what you want to pay for it.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is a VG 3, maybe a VG+ 3.5 card, at best, all day long and twice on Sundays. Don't get me wrong, it is still a great card, and presents well, but all four corners show wear and obvious rounding, and it looks like there may be some surface/coloration issues. Like the print mark/dot that seems to be above Wagner's head to the viewer's right.

+1. When a company inflates the grade on a high profile card it really hurts credibility. The PSA 8 Wagner is obviously one of the most if not the most extreme example.

[Kidnapped18]

Card is definitely not an EX 5...Looks more like a VG 3 to VG+ 3.5

But then again it is still a T206 Wagner

[bobbvc]

Regardless of the grade I like the corners. They look real.

[bobbvc]

Unlike many graded T206's.

[PhillyFan1883]

Spectacular card and sounds like a world class collector. That said the card looks like a 3.5-- 4 maybe. SGC who I revere as the best graders, IMO have been slipping recently with the cards graded 2-5 range. I have received 5's when I thought they were 3s/3.5s and 2.5s when I thought they were 3.5, 4s.

[painthistorian]

Its so ironic that SGC has been grading so conservatively low last year its insane but because of this high profile train wreck is a 3 or 3.5 at best and thats the old standard which was accurate, hypocrisy should not be the norm with this company

[darwinbulldog]

Solid 3 any day. Looks like they gave it to the same kid that graded the NM-Mt '52 Mantle in Heritage.

[boneheadandrube]

Was this card in an old SGC 60/5 holder previously? There were some very soft 60's graded way back, maybe they knew it didn't really make a difference so they left the grade (sort of like a legacy grade). I've seen a few PSA graded 2 and 3 Wagners that are obvious 1's today rholdered the same grade. Its probably just a legacy grade for Wagners so they don't have to change pop reports or registries.
GB

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

Was this card in an old SGC 60/5 holder previously? There were some very soft 60's graded way back, maybe they knew it didn't really make a difference so they left the grade (sort of like a legacy grade). I've seen a few PSA graded 2 and 3 Wagners that are obvious 1's today rholdered the same grade. Its probably just a legacy grade for Wagners so they don't have to change pop reports or registries.
GB

It was graded in July 2021

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

It was graded in July 2021

And graded completely abandoning their own written grade definitions and all the while implementing more harsh standards to the average collector's submissions.

Makes zero sense to me.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

And graded completely abandoning their own written grade definitions and all the while implementing more harsh standards to the average collector's submissions.

Makes zero sense to me.

I think it makes cents

[Exhibitman]

Now who do you suppose made SGC overgrade such a high profile card?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it makes cents

I think it also makes scents, no?

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

It was graded in July 2021

The new cert numbers on SGC are a different number structure than the old. I have reholdered many cards and they do not re-use the older format certs, they create a new one and it gets entered as being graded the day it was reholdered. There is a 60/5 listed in the old SGC pop and a new 5 listed in the new report. I'm guessing this is just a legacy reholder.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

The new cert numbers on SGC are a different number structure than the old. I have reholdered many cards and they do not re-use the older format certs, they create a new one and it gets entered as being graded the day it was reholdered. There is a 60/5 listed in the old SGC pop and a new 5 listed in the new report. I'm guessing this is just a legacy reholder.

I am not sure I follow. What do you mean by the old SGC pop?
You can view the Pop grades in either the old format or the new format.
Either way, they have graded 18 Honus Wagners (1 Piedmont, and 17 Sweet Cap) and only one is a 5.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I am not sure I follow. What do you mean by the old SGC pop?
You can view the Pop grades in either the old format or the new format.
Either way, they have graded 18 Honus Wagners (1 Piedmont, and 17 Sweet Cap) and only one is a 5.

What Greg is saying is this card was graded before and is in the old pop report as a 60/5 but it was put in a new holder and now shows up in the new pop report as a 5 but they changed the cert number and it shows as being graded recently. PSA on the other hand keeps the same cert number when they re-holder a card which I think is the better way to do it.

Here's another SGC Wagner that changed holders and cert numbers.

11b.jpg

11c.jpg

[rhettyeakley]

That card is at best a 3.5. That used to be what a VGEX card looked like but not anymore. I would expect a 3 if I submitted that card. Overgraded by at least 1.5 grades. Unforgivable.

[painthistorian]

well at least they are consistent in not having customer phone service, probably
saved me some $$$ this last 18 months not submitting anymore

[ClementeFanOh]

Whew, a firestorm of controversy! My observations:

1) I have not seen every PSA/SGC slabbed T206 Wagner. However, this is
the sharpest non trimmed (ahem, ahem PSA 8 example) Wagner I have
seen. The centering, image, and reverse are wonderful- the card is
great.

2) If SGC's reasoning is that factors other than the corners justify the
5, I would actually be okay with that; however, this same reasoning
should then apply to any other T206 graded by SGC. For that matter, it
should apply to any card graded by SGC.

3) I wonder how thoroughly this grade was vetted? How many folks looked
at the 5 grade and gave it a thumbs up, is what I mean?

4) I am awaiting a much, much smaller T206 result as I type. I submitted
a McIntyre Brooklyn that is minimally the equal of this Wagner (much
better corners, centering not as good). I am intensely curious to see
the grade now.

5) Someone above said PSA is criticized for being too harsh on grades. This
is not my experience. My criticism of PSA is that they are routinely
inconsistent or out -and- out wrong in their grading, and that said
grading is nothing short of glacial in terms of wait time. I don't think PSA
are harsh, I think they are clueless.

Trent King

[Touch'EmAll]

Does the card appear to have any creases? Any paper loss front or back? Any stains?

I used to have a Dockmans Mathewson SGC 60 that had quite soft corners, but no other flaws.

[profholt82]

As soon as I saw the card, I thought, "how the heck is that a 5?!" Have to say, I'm glad to see that most of you feel the same way. This is a disingenuous business decision by SGC if I had to guess. Probably assuming the 5 grade will make it become the highest selling card of all time at auction, where a proper grade of 3/3.5 would likely get less publicity. That's my assumption anyway.

All of that said, it's a beautiful card and one of the best examples of the Wagner that are out there. But SGC looks bad here.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by profholt82

As soon as I saw the card, I thought, "how the heck is that a 5?!" Have to say, I'm glad to see that most of you feel the same way. This is a disingenuous business decision by SGC if I had to guess. Probably assuming the 5 grade will make it become the highest selling card of all time at auction, where a proper grade of 3/3.5 would likely get less publicity. That's my assumption anyway.

All of that said, it's a beautiful card and one of the best examples of the Wagner that are out there. But SGC looks bad here.

I guess at the time this was graded in July 2021, SGC had been mostly shut out of the top sports card sales, and had some blockbuster sales envy.

The highest card sales had all been either PSA (PSA 3 Honus Wagner for $3.7M, PSA 10 Gretsky O-Pee-Chee and a PSA 2 Wagner both for $3.75M, PSA 10 '52 Topps Mantle for $5.2M, or BGS (Trout 2009 Superfractor Autograph for $3.9M, 2017 Patrick Mahomes for $4.3M, 2003-04 Rookie Patch Autograph Lebron James).

PSA also had the highest graded T206 Honus Wagners with the trimmed 8, a 5 and 4. So maybe there was some Wagner envy as well.

But now, with SGC having the 3 highest sales ever with the SGC 3 Wagner selling for $6.6M through REA, the recent sale of the SGC 2 Wagner for over $7M through Goldin, and the soon-to-be record with the SGC 9.5 Mantle through Heritage, they really don't need any more publicity.

But when this was graded, maybe the high profile sales and Wagner envy got the best of them.

[JackR]

“Eye Appeal.”

[brianp-beme]

Below is a photo of John D. Wagner as a distinguished older collector (I believe he lived into the 1980's), and a link to a great thread started by Leon with 1930's correspondence sent to him in response to ads in collector magazines.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...=207944&page=3

I assume the T206 Wagner in the Burdick collection at the Met museum was John D. Wagner's second copy of the card that he sent to Burdick.

Enough talk about whether the SGC Wagner card is over-graded. The real question is...did John D. keep the best T206 Wagner, or did he give the better one to Burdick?


Brian

[Lobo Aullando]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Enough talk about whether the SGC Wagner card is over-graded. The real question is...did John D. keep the best T206 Wagner, or did he give the better one to Burdick?

Brian

Burdick's might be slightly better, although who knows what the back looks like.

[Fred]

That must be a misprint on the label. No way that is a 5, not even close.

Edited to add - Well, at least it's closer in grade than the PSA 00000001 card which is graded an 8 and should be AUTH/ALT.

[Rocketcards]

4 of the 6 52 Mantle PSA 9's look like this one. And they're all owned by one family. There are many 6's that are nicer. For $175K you can get a nice 6 now when the last PSA 9 (probably the nicest one) sold for over $13M privately. We all see the problem with grading.

[823dek]

solid 3.5 and the witch get witcher

[Directly]

If I owned that Wagner, I sure wouldn't complain about the grade--bottom line if the card ever goes to auction, I don't think the investment group bidders will complain either, its graded a 5--end of story==

[nodgrass]

This is what happens when common folk submit a similar card.

[IMG][/IMG]

Additionally, when an older SGC graded card is submitted for a reholder, the date of the original grading shows as the date the card was graded. It does not change.

Speaking of SGC or PSA grading scale, in my opinion, the greatest failings come in SGC 1/ PSA 1 grades. Almost any horrible T206 card that is basically intact can get a 1. Cards with large spots of paper loss on front, or the back essentially completely missing are graded a 1. Some are given an Auth grade, but it is not always possible to understand why. Often, cards in worse condition than an "auth" are also seen as 1's. And it can have nothing to do with trimming, just overall condition.

On the other hand, there are many 1's that are decent and intact, which should be given a "fair" 1.5 designation. Poor is poor. Maybe the grading companies should expand the grade to "super poor" or "barely a card" and the new corresponding grade is an SGC 0.5 Use your "fair" designation dammit.

[IMG][/IMG]

[steve B]

Wagners have always gotten generous grading. I don't think any of it is on a scale, just that maybe some people get wierd around the "big" cards.

The one I saw up close in an auction in Connecticut was graded properly in that auction. Still sold for 30K even as a weak G. Creases, writing on the back.
over the next year or two it was offered a couple more times, and each time the grade and price changed g-vg it wasn't, but the ad said 60K, next time VG for 90K. It was not even close to VG in any way.