|
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Lol
– others find possible missing periods, apostrophes, and color - not interesting, just plain stupid, and ridiculous |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Without that, there's no way of knowing when or how the Wagner was removed from production. There are a number of possibilities, but none provable. My current thinking is that there were a few sheets common to all brands in a group, and others that were specific to a brand and factory and sales area. So it's not certain that Wagner would have been on a regular production Piedmont sheet. The two that we know of argue against it. As for destruction of completed work, that depends. While nobody likes doing it, it happens. We did a huge batch of course catalogs for MIT. And delivered maybe half of them. There was no space left in the office we delivered them to after we left. We were even putting a case under each desk and under chairs. A couple months later we threw away the rest, around 25,000 of them. Printed, bound into books, packed. And I had to open the boxes and dump them all- No point in wasting the boxes. But the company was paid for them. So yes, if Wagner got ATC to stop distribution and ATC paid ALC for the sheets or even finished cards, then ALC may have decided to toss them all rather than spend the effort to remove just the Wagners. (Even with fairly low labor costs) As things stand now, I would simply consider the card to be a P150 with a miscut back. It's one I'd maybe pay a small premium for, but more like 40-50 instead of 30. Making the Wagner claim is so far outside what's currently known that there needs to be more proof. And there simply isn't. I'm familiar with this, in one of my other hobbies I wrote an article about an item that was known from records to have been produced, written about in 1932, then the 1932 article was essentially proven wrong - Until I found one that was provable. And oddly, it's only provable because of what's essentially a miscut showing a fraction of a plate number. And it's provable because the location of the plate number is different from the ones that are commonly mistaken for the one I found. (keep in mind, this is something where the sheet size, layout, method of production, exact number produced etc are all known. Steve B |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Brock, is that you?
__________________
Four phrases I nave coined that sum up today's hobby: No consequences. Stuff trumps all. The flip is the commoodity. Animal Farm grading. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brock, how long have you and the consignor been buddies?
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Isn't it bromantic?
|
![]() |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| T206 Walter Johnson Portrait /w Scarce Partial Factory 30 Number on Back PSA 3.5 | Sean1125 | T206 cards B/S/T | 12 | 08-23-2013 11:42 AM |
| Honus Wagner T206 Piedmont Back | BlueDevil89 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 30 | 01-10-2013 03:59 PM |
| t206 Wagner & 350 Piedmont Back | pirates60 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 03-11-2011 06:08 AM |
| T206 Honus Wagner with Chesterfield back? :) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 04-24-2009 07:52 PM |
| Is that freaking NASA T206 Wagner back? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 01-17-2002 11:19 AM |