T206 Wagner, Memory Lane style

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by travrosty

yeah they talked about it before. looks creased to beat heck to me, and dirty on the bottom, how can be a 2?

I am really a failure when it comes to using the 'search' function here

I just received my Memory Lane catalog, so this just caught my attention. Lots of good stuff, just not getting these recent Wagner grades.

[atx840]

You posted about it last Wed

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yes, but PSA and SGC always try to do their best to grade honestly and accurately, as with the Piedmont 150 Plank. Surely they are aware of the "Wagner" mystique and would be careful not to be influenced by it when grading.

Agreed overgraded, but I'd take it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by atx840

You posted about it last Wed



Agreed overgraded, but I'd take it.

There are just too many T206 Wagners available these days - I get them confused. I remembered that post, but remembered it as being about a different card - bad memory, inability to use search function. Think I'll go for a run and clear my brain out.

[HRBAKER]

IMO, if the "8" is an "8," then that's a "2."
In other words, I don't put much stock in the Wagner grading.

[drc]

If you ignore the grade issue, it's a nice looking card though. 'Honest wear' as they would have used to call it.

I agree (in my opinion) that the recently grading of some Wagners is sometimes getting close to offensive. There's no legitimate reason one card in a an issue should be graded using a different scale than another card-- 1988 Fleer or 1909-11 T206s.

But, as I said, I don't care about the number 2, which was literally (and some might say figuratively) applied to the label and not the card. I have nothing against the card, it's good looking and I'd enjoy owning it.

My opinion is even the buyers may soon be ignoring the grades on the labels if the graders continue in this vein. Inflationary, obvious favoritism-based grading eventually means no one trusts or takes seriously the grades.

I mean, seriously, will it some day mean that when a player is elected to the Hall of Fame or wins the Triple Crown the grading scale for his cards will change? Though I'm sure the grading companies would love another reason for collectors to mail in their cards to be regraded.

Another reason PSA is not good for the vintage industry. They just don't care.

[E93]

Originally Posted by drc

If you ignore the grade issue, it's a nice looking card though. 'Honest wear' as they would have used to call it.


.

I agree. Nice looking card.
JimB

[drc]

I'm not active at all in collecting graded cards, but I've in person looked at graded T206s belonging to my friend. Some of the 1s look so nice, I wondered if the real beaters of the world would get a -1. I mean, I've had 1933 Goudeys that looked as if they were used coasters raised from the titanic.

[t206blogcom]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

IMO, if the "8" is an "8," then that's a "2."
In other words, I don't put much stock in the Wagner grading.

+1

[CW]

While it does look like the grader was being generous giving that Wagner a "2" grade, I could see how someone would subjectively give that card such a grade. The Wagner in REA, however, should not only have an MK qualifier for having ink on both the front and rear of the card (small splotch of ink on the front border, date stamp on the reverse), but it should possibly have an MC qualifier as well for having half of Honus' name cut off at the bottom. I've seen T206's with better centering get the MC qualifier.

And, yes, I realize both cards have been discussed in several threads now.

Perhaps when it comes to T206 Wagners and people who can afford to buy one, they will buy the card, despite the numerical grade of 1, 2, 2MK, etc. I just wish the "professional graders" were consistent.

[cmcclelland]

This is just my two cents worth, but I think it is very funny how critical the hobby has become about distinguishing between what the numerical grade is for a low end card.

My opinion is that a card that is graded a "1" or "Poor" grade should be an extremely "poor" looking card that almost does not look like a card any more. To me, this means things like pieces of the card that are missing, holes in the card, very bad marks or writing on the card, extreme paper loss, etc. To me, this was always the standard back in the day.

These days, all it takes is some small, easy to miss flaw to potentially throw a card into the "1" category. I have always viewed the "2" or "Good" category as the cards that are pretty beat up but not having the horrible flaws that make you say it's one of those cards that makes you kind of say this is just a poor card that couldn't get much worse.

So, I think this PSA Wagner is very much worthy of the "2" grade based on the way I have always graded cards going back to the "olden days" before professional grading. I have always thought a heavily creased card with severely rounded corners was a "2" or a "Good" card. A "poor" or "1" card had to either be so heavily creased to render the image so poor that you couldn't make out the image, or there had to be some other major flaw such as a piece of the card missing or a hole, etc.

Again, just my two cents, but I think the hobby has become waaaaay too critical on the low end of the grading spectrum.