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

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are a number of people still among us, including some with great expertise, who have seen it unslabbed. Has any one of them suggested it didn't look like an authentic T206? This is aside from the issue of being sheet cut trimmed blah blah.

Unsubstantiated rumors of 1950s reprints do not for me shift the burden of proof here. But Corey, how in your estimation would one forensic test it without damaging it?

[G1911]

Didn't the blatantly fake Cobb/Edwards Wagner pass 'forensic testing'?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Didn't the blatantly fake Cobb/Edwards Wagner pass 'forensic testing'?

Over the years the card has gone through a handful of tests each coming up with vague yes-no determinations. Eventually it landed itself in an ACA Grading holder which deemed the card to be authentic. Why would they use ACA Grading to authenticate their card? Most likely because they were the only company willing to touch the card and say it was real. ACA probably wanted some attention from the hobby too.

For a majority of the show, Mr. Edwards wouldn’t let the examiners remove the card from it’s holder. It wasn’t until the end where they brought in the individual from ACA Grading who encased the card and asked him to remove it so they could take a closer look under a microscope. While taking a look at it with the microscope, you could clearly see the print pattern on the Cobb-Edwards card was not consistent with other T206 cards from the same set. The font and spacing was off too. One of the best ways to determine if a T206 card is counterfeit is to compare it to another common card from the set. These cards were originally made as promos, and were expected to be thrown out. They didn’t go out of their way to make some cards better looking than others. Scanning the card in the CT scanner revealed that there was a potential bulge near the middle indicating that there might be more than one piece of paper present.

[Lorewalker]

In the infancy of grading or worse, when this Wagner would be THE card to launch a grading company, I am guessing those who initially handled it were simply looking at it to see how high it could grade...they were more than compromised that day in the grading room. If they were all willing to overlook that it was trimmed I doubt, under the circumstances that existed then, there was any suspicion or consideration given to it being a counterfeit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Even if Bill had not trimmed it, as I've said before, it still should never have been slabbed because if real it's a sheet cut card. I have to assume PSA knew of both issues when they graded it.

I guess it worked out well for them. 31 years and countless altered cards later, the hobby doesn't care much.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Over the years the card has gone through a handful of tests each coming up with vague yes-no determinations. Eventually it landed itself in an ACA Grading holder which deemed the card to be authentic. Why would they use ACA Grading to authenticate their card? Most likely because they were the only company willing to touch the card and say it was real. ACA probably wanted some attention from the hobby too.

For a majority of the show, Mr. Edwards wouldn’t let the examiners remove the card from it’s holder. It wasn’t until the end where they brought in the individual from ACA Grading who encased the card and asked him to remove it so they could take a closer look under a microscope. While taking a look at it with the microscope, you could clearly see the print pattern on the Cobb-Edwards card was not consistent with other T206 cards from the same set. The font and spacing was off too. One of the best ways to determine if a T206 card is counterfeit is to compare it to another common card from the set. These cards were originally made as promos, and were expected to be thrown out. They didn’t go out of their way to make some cards better looking than others. Scanning the card in the CT scanner revealed that there was a potential bulge near the middle indicating that there might be more than one piece of paper present.

Before they got the scam holder, as I recall it, they had a paper expert look at it and 'test' the card, determining it was from before 1921 and the lithography was consistent with 1910 printing. Even though the front, at least, appears to be from one of the 1985 Hygrade reprints. What I am getting at is that 'forensic testing' does not really even have much of a track record of good use in card land, and is a vague term here that doesn't even mean much.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Before they got the scam holder, as I recall it, they had a paper expert look at it and 'test' the card, determining it was from before 1921 and the lithography was consistent with 1910 printing. Even though the front, at least, appears to be from one of the 1985 Hygrade reprints. What I am getting at is that 'forensic testing' does not really even have much of a track record of good use in card land, and is a vague term here that doesn't even mean much.

I assume the testing is only as good (and unbiased) as the people employing it.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

Before they got the scam holder, as I recall it, they had a paper expert look at it and 'test' the card, determining it was from before 1921 and the lithography was consistent with 1910 printing. Even though the front, at least, appears to be from one of the 1985 Hygrade reprints. What I am getting at is that 'forensic testing' does not really even have much of a track record of good use in card land, and is a vague term here that doesn't even mean much.

I like my forensic testing when it comes to investigating crimes, not baseball cards. I would guess if there were to be forensic testing done, the best way to do that would be to test another Wagner along with it. As you have suggested, sports cards have little to no track record of forensic testing of paper or ink.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by G1911

Didn't the blatantly fake Cobb/Edwards Wagner pass 'forensic testing'?

It isn't even a good fake but they still decided to do a thorough examination of the card on treasure detectives. No surprise on the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI3mP8xV-KE

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Pat R

It isn't even a good fake but they still decided to do a thorough examination of the card on treasure detectives. No surprise on the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI3mP8xV-KE

My favorite part is around 3 minutes, when the host implies that the grading is not legit because ACA is based in Canada. That's not the problem with ACA lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

My favorite part is around 3 minutes, when the host implies that the grading is not legit because ACA is based in Canada. That's not the problem with ACA lol

Have you seen KSA graded cards lol?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Have you seen KSA graded cards lol?

I would say KSA is, from what I have seen, better than ACA at least. They grade trimmed and sheet cut cards (so does PSA ) and there opinion is junk, but I don't think they would stoop quite THIS low as to grade a Hygrade Wagner as a pre-production test card. The problem is not that they are Canadian . Thought it was a funny implication, the 'you need to get the card graded by an American company to auction it" followed immediately by the 'Montreal? Canada? Hm' tone.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are a number of people still among us, including some with great expertise, who have seen it unslabbed. Has any one of them suggested it didn't look like an authentic T206? This is aside from the issue of being sheet cut trimmed blah blah.

Unsubstantiated rumors of 1950s reprints do not for me shift the burden of proof here. But Corey, how in your estimation would one forensic test it without damaging it?

well, I'll have a go at how I'd examine a potential Wagner.

Paper thickness- Is it within the range of known good T206s. (From my small sample I checked, it's a very small range, very consistent thickness. )

Other paper aspects -
The stock is often coated, is it coated stock or not, and is that consistent with the specific back it has? (and preferably with another known Wagner with the same back.

Does the fiber length/type match other T206s. (a bit tougher, but looking at one closely enough the cardstock is distinctive, It's clearly different from a similar modern cardstock (Both craft store acid free cardstock, and comic book backing boards which are similar. ) The actual scientific test would destroy some of the cardstock, but a simple look with a microscope will actually get you most of the way there.

UV light - Does the cardstock react or not. Not a certain thing, as many modern acid free cardstocks also don't react. But if it does, it can almost 100% be eliminated as genuine.

Inks and printing-
Lots that can be seen with just a good magnifier. If I had a known Wagner to compare to. even the exact halftone pattern could be compared. For that matter a very high res scan would allow the same comparison, but I haven't seen one of a Wagner. (LOC has them available for most of the set)

Again, UV. I haven't done this yet, but how the different inks react should match a good T206.

The better tests

X-ray refraction spectroscopy would identify the exact composition of the paper, paper coating if any and the inks.
Even if someone did spectacular work and worked off a real Wagner, this is where it would all come undone.
There's been some work on Stamps only in the last 10 years or so. Some of the discoveries have been very interesting. Like for well over 100 years we all "knew" that the inks used on the first US stamp used rust as a colorant making a nice red brown, but also being abrasive and leading to premature plate wear. Checked, and the XRF says..... No Iron whatsoever!


I think the reasons this sort of stuff hasn't had a good track record with sports collectibles is that the people doing the examining, even if they have a machine like the VSC machines PSA and SGC have is that the data they give needs to be interpreted properly.

Like.... I'd guess your office has a lot of law books. I could come in and read a bunch of them, and I would probably know more than when I started. But that wouldn't get me anywhere near being as good as a genuine lawyer. And I'd put money on being just plain wrong a LOT.

It doesn't help that so many incompetent or dishonest autograph "authenticators" have claimed to be "forensic document examiners".