David Hall talks about The Wagner

[rats60]

Wasn't Bill Hughes in the room? Hasn't he said that he knew the card had been cut from a sheet?

https://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_62.html

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wasn't Bill Hughes in the room? Hasn't he said that he knew the card had been cut from a sheet?

https://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_62.html

No, and I would believe about 80% of what O'keefe ever said. He lied about something I had said before, so he could easily lie again. He totally changed a sentence told to him and made it look like something else was said, which to me, is a lie.
.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Leon

No, and I would believe about 80% of what O'keefe ever said. He lied about something I had said before, so he could easily lie again.
.

I hear you. How I'd love to weigh in with my opinion, but the forum rules...

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's sheet cut anyway, whether or not it was then trimmed again. Who cares.

I personally think David Hall is in deep denial.

[Luke]

It's a pretty bad hack job, hard to believe anyone who looks at a lot of t206s could miss the trim.

[Peter_Spaeth]

His own collection was said to have many trimmed cards.

[parkplace33]

Neat video, but ultimately, this card is still in a PSA 8 holder. And if it does sell again, it will bring top dollar.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's sheet cut anyway, whether or not it was then trimmed again. Who cares.

I personally think David Hall is in deep denial.

Frankly I have never understood this. If I get a 1962 Post Cereal card that was "sheet cut" in the first place, would it matter if, today, I trimmed it? If so, why.

It seems to me that Wagner deserved an Auth grade based on it being cut from a sheet, and subsequent cutting was no more an alteration than the original cutting.

In other words, why would cutting a card from a sheet be acceptable, but cutting it a second time be criminal?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Frankly I have never understood this. If I get a 1962 Post Cereal card that was "sheet cut" in the first place, would it matter if, today, I trimmed it? If so, why.

It seems to me that Wagner deserved an Auth grade based on it being cut from a sheet, and subsequent cutting was no more an alteration than the original cutting.

In other words, why would cutting a card from a sheet be acceptable, but cutting it a second time be criminal?

I've said this many times, and it NEVER seems to gain any traction. I think you've analyzed it perfectly.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Frankly I have never understood this. If I get a 1962 Post Cereal card that was "sheet cut" in the first place, would it matter if, today, I trimmed it? If so, why.

The difference between a Post Cereal card and the Honus Wagner card is that Post Cereal cards were distributed as panels that were intended to be cut by kids. The Honus Wagner card was intended to be distributed as a single factory cut card in cigarette packs. And that's a very big difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

The difference between a Post Cereal card and the Honus Wagner card is that Post Cereal cards were distributed as panels that were intended to be cut by kids. The Honus Wagner card was intended to be distributed as a single factory cut card in cigarette packs. And that's a very big difference.

Not if it wasn't factory cut. If it was cut off a sheet, it was cut off a sheet.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Frankly I have never understood this. If I get a 1962 Post Cereal card that was "sheet cut" in the first place, would it matter if, today, I trimmed it? If so, why.

It seems to me that Wagner deserved an Auth grade based on it being cut from a sheet, and subsequent cutting was no more an alteration than the original cutting.

In other words, why would cutting a card from a sheet be acceptable, but cutting it a second time be criminal?

It's not. As I've maintained over and over again, he wasn't convicted for trimming the Wagner. Don't let the clown lawyers around here convince you that someone agreeing to a plea deal that mentions the Wagner trimming among a laundry list of a dozen other far more serious offenses equates to him having actually committed a crime with respect to trimming that card. "Obtaining a conviction" via a plea deal and being "convicted" by a judge and jury are not the same thing. I don't care what your hobby lawyer friends tell you. Even if they're the best lawyers on the planet. They're lying to you. That's what they get paid to do.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Making sure I understand the definitions, do these sound correct?

Factory cut - cutting the card from a sheet while at the factory
Sheet cut - cutting the card from a sheet after it leaves the factory
Trimming - further cutting one or more of the card's edges after it has been cut from the sheet

Hypothetically the same (or extremely similar) tool could be used in all 3 applications?

Exactly. This is what I find hilarious is all these people who think they can identify a trimmed edge. LMAO. No, they can't. They can identify an edge that was trimmed by an Exacto knife, or a pair of scissors, or some other obvious trimming, or cards that are hilariously small, but they absolutely cannot distinguish between whether or not an edge was cut by Martin Yale ream cutter A or Martin Yale ream cutter B or even which decade it was cut during (and yes, I'm aware of claims regarding oxidation of the edges vs a fresh cut. And I promise you, those claims are misguided).

Originally Posted by calvindog

LOL Doug, that is funny. Anytime I see a card with his pedigree on the flip, I run. He wasn’t exactly shy about his actions.

I find this take pretty funny, given the number of rather obviously trimmed cards in your collection. (Here come the ignorant comments about how this conflicts with my statement above, when in fact it does not).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's not. As I've maintained over and over again, he wasn't convicted for trimming the Wagner. Don't let the clown lawyers around here convince you that someone agreeing to a plea deal that mentions the Wagner trimming among a laundry list of a dozen other far more serious offenses equates to him having actually committed a crime with respect to trimming that card. "Obtaining a conviction" via a plea deal and being "convicted" by a judge and jury are not the same thing. I don't care what your hobby lawyer friends tell you. Even if they're the best lawyers on the planet. They're lying to you. That's what they get paid to do.

Clown lawyers indeed. Right up there with clown data scientists perhaps? Anyhow, I don't think Mark's post had anything to do with the Mastro case, he's simply saying as I have said that the card already was at best an AUTH due to it being sheet cut so the focus by the hobby on any further trimming is misplaced. But I am sure Mark will correct me if I misinterpreted.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's not. As I've maintained over and over again, he wasn't convicted for trimming the Wagner. Don't let the clown lawyers around here convince you that someone agreeing to a plea deal that mentions the Wagner trimming among a laundry list of a dozen other far more serious offenses equates to him having actually committed a crime with respect to trimming that card. "Obtaining a conviction" via a plea deal and being "convicted" by a judge and jury are not the same thing. I don't care what your hobby lawyer friends tell you. Even if they're the best lawyers on the planet. They're lying to you. That's what they get paid to do.

It’s almost impossible to believe how dumb you are — except when I look at your pathetic collection, the value of which reflects your IQ and low earning ability.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's not. As I've maintained over and over again, he wasn't convicted for trimming the Wagner. Don't let the clown lawyers around here convince you that someone agreeing to a plea deal that mentions the Wagner trimming among a laundry list of a dozen other far more serious offenses equates to him having actually committed a crime with respect to trimming that card. "Obtaining a conviction" via a plea deal and being "convicted" by a judge and jury are not the same thing. I don't care what your hobby lawyer friends tell you. Even if they're the best lawyers on the planet. They're lying to you. That's what they get paid to do.

I must admit that I’m a bit puzzled about this quest you keep coming back to on this issue. While I get your argument, it seems like an odd battle to keep fighting, and an even odder hill to choose to die on.

But maybe you’re convinced that Mastro didn’t actually trim the card?

If he did trim the card, then the precise details of how the legal system adjudicated it seems like a rather picayune element to spend so much time fighting over.

I suppose it’s possible that you don’t think that Mastro actually trimmed the card? If so, then I guess this quest makes a little more sense.

[doug.goodman]

Every thread needs a card, and this is what would have happened if Dmitri Young had submitted it...

[calvindog]

LOL Doug, that is funny. Anytime I see a card with his pedigree on the flip, I run. He wasn’t exactly shy about his actions.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Leon

No, and I would believe about 80% of what O'keefe ever said. He lied about something I had said before, so he could easily lie again. He totally changed a sentence told to him and made it look like something else was said, which to me, is a lie.
.

This was put in print by Harper Collins, one of the biggest publishing houses in the world. Their legal department would have wanted interviews recorded to protect themselves from lawsuits. If this was false, Bill Hughes would be able to sue the authors and the publisher.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wasn't Bill Hughes in the room? Hasn't he said that he knew the card had been cut from a sheet?

https://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_62.html

Yes he has:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 2005, PSA Grader Bill Hughes, a grader of the T206 Honus Wager card, admitted in an interview with New York Daily News reporter Michael O'Keeffe that he knew the card had been trimmed when he graded the card.

I'm not buying David Hall's story.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wasn't Bill Hughes in the room? Hasn't he said that he knew the card had been cut from a sheet?

https://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_62.html

Ok. I stand corrected on that. I was told something else but will just leave it as my apparent misunderstanding.
I can't imagine they would put a quote in print, like that, if they didn't have firsthand knowlege of the conversation...or an irrefutable source.
.