David Hall talks about The Wagner

[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.

[Yoda]

If anybody should know about T206's, clean and messed with, it is David Hall, who made collecting them into a lifetime feast. A very bad odor coming from his camp.

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

This was a beautiful response. I'm saving this one. Thank you for that! LOL

[paul]

This may show my ignorance, but here it goes.... I assume that Bill Mastro trimmed the Wagner very carefully given its value even at the time. And I assume that that the Wagner was taken very carefully to PSA, resulting in no wear. But David Hall says the graders at PSA debated whether to give the card a 7 or an 8. But if the card is so perfect (aside from being hand cut), shouldn't the debate have been 9 vs. 10? And if the card is not that perfect, why not, given how carefully the card must have been cut and handled?

[G1911]

Mastro, as is easily proven, pled guilty to trimming the Wagner and the resulting fraud. Snowman's repeated position that it doesn't count as a conviction or a crime because he pled guilty is beyond stupid and seems to not understand the very basics of how the legal system works, but the reason he is wrong about something is not because some other poster has more money than him or a less pathetic collection. Until people want to accept that whoever the richest man in the world is at any given time is infallible, this is just as senseless.

[Balticfox]

^ I agree.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

WTF? I don't care what issues you have with any poster, those kind of statements have no place on any board.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

WTF? I don't care what issues you have with any poster, those kind of statements have no place on any board.

Shhh... don't stop him now. He was just getting started!

[brunswickreeves]

Time for a baseball card, 2 v 1 seems fitting.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Shhh... don't stop him now. He was just getting started!

Maybe you could join his card forum and talk it out. I hear it is very popular.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Maybe you could join his card forum and talk it out. I hear it is very popular.

Excuse me sir. Please don't tap on the glass. Thank you.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

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.

Travis is like the Terminator, he keeps coming back.

[campyfan39]

You have THIRTY THOUSAND more posts than him, so I would say you "keep coming around" a little more often

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis is like the Terminator, he keeps coming back.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

You have THIRTY THOUSAND more posts than him, so I would say you "keep coming around" a little more often

Never mind, high road.

[whiteymet]

The funny thing is once Mastro admitted to cutting the Wagner Hall banned him from ever being able to submit a card to be graded by PSA!