T206 Honus Wagner SGC 5 - John D. Wagner Collection

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Oscar_Stanage

There is not a problem with numerical grading on it's own. Being able to categorize card quality/value based on a set of criteria is extremely useful, assuming the standards are consistent over time. The problem is that TPGs have utterly failed to enforce any standard. The fact that a group of collectors can take one look at the Wagner and dismiss it's 'professional' grade is comically sad.

It is either corruption or incompetence by SGC whose sole goal seems to be 'winning' the right to grade marquee cards. I guess they think it is good brand marketing to cater to a dozen people who can afford these cards. I'd argue they should have just invested in a strong registry.

I was talking to another collector at the National while taking a look at the Mantle. He told me that SGC probably paid the owner to grade the card - i had never thought of that , but it makes sense that TPGs would engage in a bidding war for the right to grade these types of cards. if this is truly how it works, that degrades the point of the service.

I do not know the provenance of this card, but my first thought was that it was submitted with the owner requesting a minimum grade of 5, maybe as a crossover, and that SGC jumped at the chance to have a graded Wagner on display in their holder. Just the cynic in me I guess.

That being said, does it really matter? For that card of that player from that set, is there really going to be a ruckus raised over the numeric grade? Is some registry hound out there thinking he needs to "upgrade" his Wagner to score big points? Another screaming foul because he just got jumped in the standings by an overgraded card? If so it just makes me wonder more about the egos of some people being unhealthily out of whack.

IMHO, the card is simply gorgeous, and should be enjoyed and valued as such. Any numeric grade as an assurance that the card is genuine and unaltered should be enough. The card speaks for itself.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I do not know the provenance of this card, but my first thought was that it was submitted with the owner requesting a minimum grade of 5, maybe as a crossover, and that SGC jumped at the chance to have a graded Wagner on display in their holder. Just the cynic in me I guess.

That being said, does it really matter? For that card of that player from that set, is there really going to be a ruckus raised over the numeric grade? Is some registry hound out there thinking he needs to "upgrade" his Wagner to score big points? Another screaming foul because he just got jumped in the standings by an overgraded card? If so it just makes me wonder more about the egos of some people being unhealthily out of whack.

IMHO, the card is simply gorgeous, and should be enjoyed and valued as such. Any numeric grade as an assurance that the card is genuine and unaltered should be enough.

It should matter, in a rational world, if value is effectively decided by the grading companies. Blatant corruption should matter. Just giving them a pass for every single fraud, lie and load of bunk doesn’t seem rational, or to promote anything but fraud, lies, and BS in the hobby. That the grade of a card is determined as much by who submits it and how much SGC is either paid off or feels they’ll get in marketing gain from a marquee card should be a cause of concern for people who do graded. If grading is not based on any objective standard but simply politics then the entire exercise is pointless, except for the people using the corrupt system to make money.

[vansaad]

Maybe this one had its corners factory cut to fit in packages of bread since Hans didn't want them going into cigarette packs.

[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?

[steve B]

To me it's a classic VG. No better.
If it was a common it would get that grade, but something I've noticed for years is that Wagners almost always get a grade that's better than they are.

And that's going back before grading companies.

The one I saw auctioned in CT was p-f, and resold a few times over the next couple years via ads in SCD. Each time it was offered it got "better" ending up vg-ex despite creases and writing on the back.