Some of the mysteries and myths surrounding the most famous card in the hobby.

[steve B]

The percentages by back are really interesting.

I think it appears clear that Plank and Wagner weren't on the same sheet. Or perhaps the same part of the sheet. But it's possible that isn't right.

It's very curious that for two cards that were probably pulled from production, multiple different backs are available.

That points to the different backs being produced at the same time, probably on different presses from a common stack of fronts.

Then the question is exactly how were the cards pulled from production, and is it possible they were on the same sheet for the 150 series?

I think even with the numbers being so different, we might look at the cutting. It's probable that a large number of sheets with Wagner and maybe Plank were produced with blank backs to be used as needed to fill orders for each brand and factory. So what's the best way to pull a card from production?
If you're both cheap and need to get product out the door, step one is to cut the finished sheets that already have backs in strips and simply discard the withdrawn card. But strips isn't how cutting is usually done with big sheets, as it makes for a very awkward second step, cutting a 2-4 foot long stack of strips into individual cards. So maybe after a short time, you decide that cutting the sheet essentially in half and discarding everything from the Wagner to the edge is much more cost effective especially if it's sort of near the edge and the discarded portion would also include Plank who you hear is also making a fuss about being included.

While you're working through the stack, the plate guys are resurfacing the stone and redoing it less the Wagner and Plank. Or possibly only redoing those areas, none of the references I've found get into plate repairs much if at all. With the labor to resurface a stone and start again, I think a repair is likely. With the more modern photographic plates making a new plate is the way to go.

If you're very cheap, and have little labor cost you cut down the big sheets into smaller sheets and print backs on them.

Or if labor is costly, you simply scrap the finished fronts, redo the plates and carry on.

Using scrap to make more product was absolutely done with stamps, creating some real rarities. I believe Intaglio press operators and Lithograph press operators were roughly equal at the time.

Knowing that the 150's were done 3 different times, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the less printed brands that would lead us to think that they were printed from partial sheets. Like if the remaining portions of the Wagner sheets were used up doing some Old Mills or Hindus. Or if those sheets were not cut and used for the less popular brands.

[G1911]

Reminder that we are still awaiting the research and evidence that this card was not discovered in Florida, but in New York.

If it did come from a sheet, I think it almost certain it is not a complete sheet, and we are being too literal, what is meant is surely a strip or sheet fragment.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Reminder that we are still awaiting the research and evidence that this card was not discovered in Florida, but in New York.

If it did come from a sheet, I think it almost certain it is not a complete sheet, and we are being too literal, what is meant is surely a strip or sheet fragment.

I don't think you're going to get a response on the New York evidence Greg.

I'm not claiming it as proof of how the sheet or partial could have been discovered in Florida but I think it could certainly be a possibility.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wonder if Alan Ray is still living.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I don't think you're going to get a response on the New York evidence Greg.

I know, unfortunately. It’s a shame people will post fictions they have made up and try to pass off as evidenced fact. Nothing wrong with speculation, but speculation is very different from claiming there is evidence and research leading to X conclusion when there clearly is absolutely nothing.


Ray said he was saving the juicy bits for his book that never came to be. Wonder if there’s a manuscript or something that will eventually come out. Mastro is a lying fraudster with a long history of both that makes whatever he says difficult to give much reasonable credence too, as his stories change with the winds of the moment. Sevchuk is a relevant, deeply involved participant and eyewitness but his testimony alone is not a whole lot, and Ray was not necessarily honest to him about the origin in the first place.


Do we know what the other cards were in the find? I recall there were 50 or so from O’Keefe’s interviews (AKA - Lifson told him, who seems to be his only source for this part). I assume a number of the long slabbed high grade cards are these, but which ones I have never seen beyond the Wagner and Plank. A single Wagner and Plank could be present on a partial sheet, a panel, but there should be much duplication between the other cards from it. If there isn’t, these cards cannot be from an actual panel, they might be from small strips (probably not even from the same sheet) at best.

I still see no reason to think Wagner and Plank were on the same sheet. The evidence leans against it.

[lowpopper]

maybe they were all made in the 80s with the square corner bond bread jackie

[G1911]

Maybe we will see even one tiny shred of evidence the card(s) from this find are fake.

Maybe. I expect that evidence is about as real as the alleged research showing the sheet was secretly found in NY.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by G1911

Maybe we will see even one tiny shred of evidence the card(s) from this find are fake.

Maybe. I expect that evidence is about as real as the alleged research showing the sheet was secretly found in NY.

Let me flip it on you. What is the evidence the card(s) are real? Yes, they pass the visual test, and that does mean something. But, to me, for items of sufficient value to create incentive for counterfeiting, not enough. So that leads to the next inquiry -- credible provenance -- which in this instance IMO is lacking. Let's take off the table the allegation of T206 reprints made in the 1950's from the original printing plates, an allegation I was not even aware of when I was first offered the card by Sevchuk. I felt then, as I continue to feel now, that a NrMt-Mt T206 Wagner popping up out of nowhere with no documented provenance -- and, yes, allegedly first turning up in a flea market far from the point of original manufacture is something I would characterize as popping up out of nowhere with no documented provenance -- creates legitimate concerns about authenticity. I recognize it is not easy to make replica T206s that pass visual inspection, and for that reason I feel it is entirely possible the card is real. But in this instance, to satisfy my comfort level, I would require forensic examination.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

The percentages by back are really interesting.

I think it appears clear that Plank and Wagner weren't on the same sheet. Or perhaps the same part of the sheet. But it's possible that isn't right.

It's very curious that for two cards that were probably pulled from production, multiple different backs are available.

That points to the different backs being produced at the same time, probably on different presses from a common stack of fronts.

Then the question is exactly how were the cards pulled from production, and is it possible they were on the same sheet for the 150 series?

I think even with the numbers being so different, we might look at the cutting. It's probable that a large number of sheets with Wagner and maybe Plank were produced with blank backs to be used as needed to fill orders for each brand and factory. So what's the best way to pull a card from production?
If you're both cheap and need to get product out the door, step one is to cut the finished sheets that already have backs in strips and simply discard the withdrawn card. But strips isn't how cutting is usually done with big sheets, as it makes for a very awkward second step, cutting a 2-4 foot long stack of strips into individual cards. So maybe after a short time, you decide that cutting the sheet essentially in half and discarding everything from the Wagner to the edge is much more cost effective especially if it's sort of near the edge and the discarded portion would also include Plank who you hear is also making a fuss about being included.

While you're working through the stack, the plate guys are resurfacing the stone and redoing it less the Wagner and Plank. Or possibly only redoing those areas, none of the references I've found get into plate repairs much if at all. With the labor to resurface a stone and start again, I think a repair is likely. With the more modern photographic plates making a new plate is the way to go.

If you're very cheap, and have little labor cost you cut down the big sheets into smaller sheets and print backs on them.

Or if labor is costly, you simply scrap the finished fronts, redo the plates and carry on.

Using scrap to make more product was absolutely done with stamps, creating some real rarities. I believe Intaglio press operators and Lithograph press operators were roughly equal at the time.

Knowing that the 150's were done 3 different times, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the less printed brands that would lead us to think that they were printed from partial sheets. Like if the remaining portions of the Wagner sheets were used up doing some Old Mills or Hindus. Or if those sheets were not cut and used for the less popular brands.

IMO it's because the T206's were printed in phases and a % of certain backs were printed at the same time together in each different phase. The pop numbers and print flaws reflect that.

Here's an example of flaw on Tenney that was probably printed in the phase that Wagner was printed.

Tenney.jpg


I think we might eventually be able to break down the different phases by using print flaws and pop numbers for example the flaws and pop numbers show that for print group 1 the Sovereign 350's weren't printed in the phase with the PD350's, Old Mills and Sweet Caporal 350 25's and 30's. I think there was another phase where The Sovereign 350's were printed with PD350's Sweet Caporal 350 30's and 25's but not Old Mills.

Old Mill phase
Stats Killian.jpg

Stats Schlei.jpg

0Walsh Stats.jpg

[G1911]

Just to add on, this structure is present in other sets that were part of the 1909-1912 project popularly credited to the ATC and AL. It is rare that cards were corrected, but when they were they typically had multiple backs. For example, the 3 spelling errors corrected in T218-1 all exist on 2 of the 4 backs, even though they represent a small percentage of surviving copies and the majority of those same 2 backs are the corrected version.

This ‘printing in waves’ appears to be a significant factor. The ATC ledger gives some evidence that some series were issued in waves; like the discordant dates for different sport subjects of T218-3.

Some 50 card sets seem to have had 25 unique cards to a sheet, and sometimes a back gets only half the subjects, like we see in T42. It seems to suggest wave printing again, not just a 2 sheet construction but those 2 sheets being done at a time gap during which decisions were made. I think our evidence suggests this happened with T220 also. The gap in between sheets saw multiple decisions made, to expand the back distribution, to cheapen the borders, to modify a couple cards, and to change the entire art style between at least four production runs over ~6 months.

While advertised and thought of as series, the traditional idea that all cards of a series were basically printed and issued together like Topps cards does not seem to be the case.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

Just to add on, this structure is present in other sets that were part of the 1909-1912 project popularly credited to the ATC and AL. It is rare that cards were corrected, but when they were they typically had multiple backs. For example, the 3 spelling errors corrected in T218-1 all exist on 2 of the 4 backs, even though they represent a small percentage of surviving copies and the majority of those same 2 backs are the corrected version.

This ‘printing in waves’ appears to be a significant factor. The ATC ledger gives some evidence that some series were issued in waves; like the discordant dates for different sport subjects of T218-3.

Some 50 card sets seem to have had 25 unique cards to a sheet, and sometimes a back gets only half the subjects, like we see in T42. It seems to suggest wave printing again, not just a 2 sheet construction but those 2 sheets being done at a time gap during which decisions were made. I think our evidence suggests this happened with T220 also. The gap in between sheets saw multiple decisions made, to expand the back distribution, to cheapen the borders, to modify a couple cards, and to change the entire art style between at least four production runs over ~6 months.

While advertised and thought of as series, the traditional idea that all cards of a series were basically printed and issued together like Topps cards does not seem to be the case.

Topps cards were printed backs first then shipped to another plant for the fronts to be printed for a period of many years. It seems possible tobacco cards were handled the same way, especially as the reverses were monotone and would require less skill than the 6 color process used on the fronts. You would have a pile of back printed sheets to get through before the next batch came in, theoretically at least.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Topps cards were printed backs first then shipped to another plant for the fronts to be printed for a period of many years. It seems possible tobacco cards were handled the same way, especially as the reverses were monotone and would require less skill than the 6 color process used on the fronts. You would have a pile of back printed sheets to get through before the next batch came in, theoretically at least.

I don’t know printing, but I have never found evidence on the cards themselves for this or in the documentary material that we have uncovered. Not all backs were monotone, most were but not all (T68 Natural Leaf springs to mind immediately). I would expect that, if a sheet had the backs printed and was then shipped to another facility and had the fronts printed there at a different time, that this would result in more back/front centering mismatch than we actually see. Perhaps this assumption is faulty. It would also add expense, I would think, doubling your transportation at least. Fullgraff’s available pages from his ledger seems to indicate full cards at Brett, nothing specified that they are only doing half the work when the tables are accounting volumes printed.

Is there anything we have in support of a geographic and significant time gap between the back and front printings? Looking at our printer experts here.

[benjulmag]

Provenance to me does not require tracing an item back to its original owner. To me it entails documenting an item's existence to a period when there would not have been any incentive to make a duplicate for commercial sale.

Of the other 47 or so known Wagners, none to my knowledge come close to looking as pristine as this one, and none are believed to come from an uncut sheet. That may not raise red flags to others, but it does to me. Comfort level is a subjective matter. Speaking only about mine, for this Wagner it is not as high as for the 47 others.

It is my opinion the hobby does not fully appreciate the ability of forgers to make replicas that pass visual inspection, and this ability is not something that has not existed for many years. Sophisticated collectors I know personally going back to the 1970's have expressed concern about fake Wagners appearing. While I will not mention the auction house by name, I know for a fact (I was there) that in the late '80s an established one with a good reputation tried to sell a fake Wagner. When some collectors pointed it out to them (it was not a good fake), the AH replaced it with another (better) fake which they did not pull and which sold for tens of thousands of dollars. Again, I know that; I was there. For the area that is my expertise, 19th century memorabilia, I feel pretty confident there are slabbed cdv's whose authenticity range from suspect to plain fake. For some of them, I discussed it privately with some other long-time collectors, none of whom at the time agreed with me, though now some are beginning to develop serious doubts.

I personally have been defrauded out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by purchasing fake memorabilia that so was so expertly made that it fooled the entire hobby, and was revealed only through forensic examination. The HOF in fact had on display a sister counterfeit item for many years. To this day I marvel at the knowledge and skill required to make the counterfeits. Just a few years ago I returned a six-figure piece I purchased from a major AH after establishing, once I had it in my possession and could compare it to other items I had, that it was a fake. The underbidder, who I know, told me if he bought it it would still be hanging on his wall, and this person is a long-time sophisticated collector.

In the end this is something I think we will agree to disagree about. I believe the issue of counterfeiting is a lot more prevalent and serious than people believe. And I do not think raising the issue as it applies to this Wagner is indicative of an irrational and illogical analysis.

[Lorewalker]

I don't think anyone is necessarily disputing that the Wagner 8 absolutely did not or could not have come off a printer's scrap or salesman sample sheet in the 50s but absent the provenance it seems to be a leap to state that it is therefore possibly a counterfeit.

I have collected cards for my entire adult life...in dog years I cannot even count that high...I have never seen a counterfeit of a vintage card that was remotely good enough to fool me. I have never handled T206 Wagners but plenty of other expensive high profile cards. Obviously one could argue that maybe I have handled plenty of counterfeits that were so good that I could not detect them but I honestly doubt that.

I have no idea how easy or hard it would be to do great counterfeits of vintage cards, even today, let alone in 1950. Also have no idea if it is easier to counterfeit memorabilia than it would be cards. I know nothing about memorabilia. Just seems to me that if great counterfeits could be done today they would have been all over the hobby by now. I think when you have handled enough vintage cardboard you would not be fooled and something in the card would tip you off.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t know printing, but I have never found evidence on the cards themselves for this or in the documentary material that we have uncovered. Not all backs were monotone, most were but not all (T68 Natural Leaf springs to mind immediately). I would expect that, if a sheet had the backs printed and was then shipped to another facility and had the fronts printed there at a different time, that this would result in more back/front centering mismatch than we actually see. Perhaps this assumption is faulty. It would also add expense, I would think, doubling your transportation at least. Fullgraff’s available pages from his ledger seems to indicate full cards at Brett, nothing specified that they are only doing half the work when the tables are accounting volumes printed.

Is there anything we have in support of a geographic and significant time gap between the back and front printings? Looking at our printer experts here.

To me, and I have no idea how many others even partly agree, leftover sheets would have been used either as press adjustment sheets, or to fill orders when a few cards were needed after the group they were originally intended for was shipped. The best evidence of this is the 150 only card that now has a single P350.

From every indication, fronts were printed, then backs. For Piedmont and SC, that back printing would have been almost continuous. For the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in.
It's possible small brands or groups of small brands got their own sheets, but that's still something that's wide open for study.

Those T220 sheet fragments and the added Fullgraff info, is the first indication I've seen that any of the work was farmed out to other print shops. And it opens up a whole range of possibilities.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by steve B

To me, and I have no idea how many others even partly agree, leftover sheets would have been used either as press adjustment sheets, or to fill orders when a few cards were needed after the group they were originally intended for was shipped. The best evidence of this is the 150 only card that now has a single P350.

From every indication, fronts were printed, then backs. For Piedmont and SC, that back printing would have been almost continuous. For the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in.
It's possible small brands or groups of small brands got their own sheets, but that's still something that's wide open for study.

Those T220 sheet fragments and the added Fullgraff info, is the first indication I've seen that any of the work was farmed out to other print shops. And it opens up a whole range of possibilities.

This is speculation, but I suspect "for the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in" is exactly right; whatever the sheets currently being run were were printed up when that brand 'ordered' or however it was chosen that X brand would get Y card set. I doubt it was a pre-planned thing that, say, T42 would only appear on 25 of the 50 white border subjects with Emblem brand backs. I think this is indicative that some series were printed in waves; that, say, a big case of Piedmont packs sent to a distributor would not have all 50 subjects included in its packs, but only the same 25 subjects. Brands with only half weren't printed during both waves. There are strong indications, not absolute proof, of this wave type issuing in the ATC ledger.

As far as I am aware and remembering right now, before the T220 sheet we really only had the Ball letter that said it was American Lithographic doing the printing. Brett, Fullgraff's journal, Hyland's letter and the resulting other documents that were found mentioning some non-sport sets and silks were the first evidence (and they are conclusive evidence, this part is fact) that it was not AL directly doing the whole T card project with the ATC. It is deduction that AL farmed the work out to Brett and likely others; there is no hard evidence that Brett was a subsidiary partner of AL's silent monopoly, but I think that is probably the case and the anti-trust politics of the time mean we will never find a smoking gun document.

I think the find also suggests it may not have been just the ATC, but other non-cigarette makers involved in this project. The E229/D353 sheets originating with it, that bear a very similar list of names to those contracted with the ATC and their printers, are likely related. This connection is an opinion deduced from the evidence and not a proven fact.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

To me, and I have no idea how many others even partly agree, leftover sheets would have been used either as press adjustment sheets, or to fill orders when a few cards were needed after the group they were originally intended for was shipped. The best evidence of this is the 150 only card that now has a single P350.

From every indication, fronts were printed, then backs. For Piedmont and SC, that back printing would have been almost continuous. For the brands using far fewer cards it may have been whatever was the current group of fronts at the time the order came in.
It's possible small brands or groups of small brands got their own sheets, but that's still something that's wide open for study.

Those T220 sheet fragments and the added Fullgraff info, is the first indication I've seen that any of the work was farmed out to other print shops. And it opens up a whole range of possibilities.

These are some of the things that I have been working on with the print flaws. I'm pretty sure that the Old Mills and SC350/25's along with the Sovereign and Piedmont 350's were printed together or at the very least printed back to back.
I'm also almost certain that the T206's weren't all printed at the same facility.