Some folks here actually post meaningful, erudite, insightful posts about old cards... exclusively or primarily. Some folks sit at their pc's like buzzards, waiting to swoop down on others, but they seldom if ever actually post anything that is about cards. Maybe about something tangentially associated to cards, but hardly ever about cards, for they know not about them.
Who of us have not bought something from someone who maybe didn't fully, completely understand and appreciate what they had? Many of us.
Who of us have ever seen a slab that was incorrect as to the identity of what was inside. Most of us.
So what a former owner thought isn't a slam-dunk argument-ender. Nor is a slip on a slab.
Wayne Varner is a good guy, he's quite knowledgeable about old ball cards. Ted Z knows a right smart, too. Neither are infallible. SGC certainly isn't infallible. For those of you who have total faith that SGC got it right, I wish you well. Wayne saying it's one way doesn't resolve it in my mind. It was years ago when he owned it, I don't know he was particularly looking for the paste-up aspect of it, sometimes an item's flaws and shortcomings aren't apparent to its owner... Wayne mentions proof lines, I don't see those. The proof marks I've seen on T206 proofs look like this " + ", not this " l ".
I've not seen this piece in person. It would have been a good reason to have gone to the National, but there are buzzards there (a good reason to avoid the National). I'm not certain Ted's right about it, but at this time I think similarly, but I'm not certain. I'm fairly sure it isn't a "proof", notwithstanding SGC's label. The traditional proof cross-marks aren't there.
We can go back and forth forever. Peace.
|
08-23-2010, 06:26 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode