Some of the mysteries and myths surrounding the most famous card in the hobby.

[Pat R]

I had forgot that there was talk of a ghost on this Wagner on here but the images are gone now. It's an upside down ghost of Doolin.

PD150-3.jpg

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would not assume the card is authentic though, and suspect that eventually our hobby will be ruined by correct ink and correct stock reprints.

We already have the correct stock. Making paper is easy. Just take some T206 commons, peel off the faces, and any places with ink, and keep the rest of the paper. Toss it in a blender with some water and make new paper with it. I'm pretty sure this is how the card doctors are rebuilding bad corners to get higher grades at PSA.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

We already have the correct stock. Making paper is easy. Just take some T206 commons, peel off the faces, and any places with ink, and keep the rest of the paper. Toss it in a blender with some water and make new paper with it. I'm pretty sure this is how the card doctors are rebuilding bad corners to get higher grades at PSA.

I do think the stock is the easiest part here. However, I am not aware of any evidence that there are correct stock reprints of T206's. As is the common refrain for this thread, I would love to see any actual evidence before subscribing to a belief that a thing is true, as reason dictates.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do think the stock is the easiest part here. However, I am not aware of any evidence that there are correct stock reprints of T206's. As is the common refrain for this thread, I would love to see any actual evidence before subscribing to a belief that a thing is true, as reason dictates.

I would think that anyone who succeeds in making a counterfeit Plank or Wagner that passes grading would be highly motivated to do it again. That said, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a hair stylist several years back that was talking about hair transplants. I had mentioned something about them looking bad and not wanting one for my receeding hairline, and she said, "only a bad hair transplant looks bad. You've seen good ones, you just didn't know it."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I would think that anyone who succeeds in making a counterfeit Plank or Wagner that passes grading would be highly motivated to do it again. That said, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a hair stylist several years back that was talking about hair transplants. I had mentioned something about them looking bad and not wanting one for my receeding hairline, and she said, "only a bad hair transplant looks bad. You've seen good ones, you just didn't know it."

Again, I am more than happy to believe any credible evidence that Wagner and Plank are fakes, and people have been fooled. I do not care if the card is legit, or if it or another copy has passed grading and is not legit. My interest is purely one of knowledge, there is much we can learn about printing and/or distribution out of this saga if any evidence was presented. Again, I am not willing to subscribe to a belief, without any evidence presented whatsoever, because someone has heard gossip. It would be absurd and stupid to do so. If I followed that path I would believe a huge number of crazy things. That is patently unreasonable, to place gossip in front of evidence.

Let us follow actual facts, if there is any evidence at all to support these conclusions, let those facts and evidence be presented, as I keep asking. So far, we have multiple claims being made about high quality fakes and NY discoveries, and not a single shred of evidence at all for them. To follow the evidence, instead of what one hears without evidence, is not some weird standard I have made up but a foundational cornerstone of western knowledge and logic for over 2,400 years. I firmly believe we are capable of applying it.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Snowman

We already have the correct stock. Making paper is easy. Just take some T206 commons, peel off the faces, and any places with ink, and keep the rest of the paper. Toss it in a blender with some water and make new paper with it. I'm pretty sure this is how the card doctors are rebuilding bad corners to get higher grades at PSA.

But they weren't doing it 50-60 years ago. Now if a new Wagner shows up that is in question you could present that argument.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I had forgot that there was talk of a ghost on this Wagner on here but the images are gone now. It's an upside down ghost of Doolin.

Attachment 543300

Whatever the origin, it looks like the Wagner was face up and offset against the face of another card for a long time. Is this humidity and wear, or something that occurred at the printer?

On the Gretsky Wagner, and current reprints, the problem is recreating aging. If you rolled out a BSF style story with 900 Sov 150 Wagners in Gem Mint, I don't know if people would buy it.

I think if the Piedmont Wagners are not original, they were made too long ago to be nefarious reprints.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Whatever the origin, it looks like the Wagner was face up and offset against the face of another card for a long time. Is this humidity and wear, or something that occurred at the printer?

On the Gretsky Wagner, and current reprints, the problem is recreating aging. If you rolled out a BSF style story with 900 Sov 150 Wagners in Gem Mint, I don't know if people would buy it.

I think if the Piedmont Wagners are not original, they were made too long ago to be nefarious reprints.

Definitely something that occurred at the printers and I think original but not from a regular production sheet.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Whatever the origin, it looks like the Wagner was face up and offset against the face of another card for a long time. Is this humidity and wear, or something that occurred at the printer?

On the Gretsky Wagner, and current reprints, the problem is recreating aging. If you rolled out a BSF style story with 900 Sov 150 Wagners in Gem Mint, I don't know if people would buy it.

I think if the Piedmont Wagners are not original, they were made too long ago to be nefarious reprints.

It's not reversed, so not an offset.

Dual offsets may be possible, but are so rare I've only ever seen one item that I believe is a double offset. (I own it, and the only other possibility is that it's an item printed on the wrong side of the stock in a totally different alignment than the other presumed unique example. To me it's a coin toss, so I won't call it either.

Water absolutely will not create an offset on a T206. I tried, under fairly extreme circumstances and it did absolutely nothing towards an offset.

[RCMcKenzie]

Steve, I was using "offset" as a generic term, or layman's language. I certainly am not an expert on printing or T206 Wagner's. I thought Pat's point about an image appearing on the non-Gretsky Piedmont Wagner, made the card less likely to be a reprint. It's possible I misunderstood or misinterpreted the significance of the ghost-like image on the Wagner.

[steve B]

Ok, I may have misread things a bit too.

The added image does make it less likely to be fake, as that sort of extra image is hard to duplicate convincingly. It would also require a faker to choose an image that could have been in production around the same time as the Wagner, and most aren't that clever.

Terminology confounds us all at times.
For instance, I and I think Pat think of "sheet" as meaning a complete sheet as it would have come off the press. I have to remind myself that to someone else, "sheet" could mean a few as 2 T206s on the same piece of paper/cardstock.
It's very possible the Sheet cut/trimmed Wagner was cut from a sheet fragment. If it was a horizontal strip, there was probably only one Wagner.

I think it's also likely that if the Wagner was pulled, most of the finished sheets that didn't already have backs would have been used for random stuff around the printers. Cardstock makes a decent dustpan, and a sheet or part of a sheet would make a nice dustcover for some finished work. And always use scrap to adjust the press.

[steve B]

The percentages by back are really interesting.

I think it appears clear that Plank and Wagner weren't on the same sheet. Or perhaps the same part of the sheet. But it's possible that isn't right.

It's very curious that for two cards that were probably pulled from production, multiple different backs are available.

That points to the different backs being produced at the same time, probably on different presses from a common stack of fronts.

Then the question is exactly how were the cards pulled from production, and is it possible they were on the same sheet for the 150 series?

I think even with the numbers being so different, we might look at the cutting. It's probable that a large number of sheets with Wagner and maybe Plank were produced with blank backs to be used as needed to fill orders for each brand and factory. So what's the best way to pull a card from production?
If you're both cheap and need to get product out the door, step one is to cut the finished sheets that already have backs in strips and simply discard the withdrawn card. But strips isn't how cutting is usually done with big sheets, as it makes for a very awkward second step, cutting a 2-4 foot long stack of strips into individual cards. So maybe after a short time, you decide that cutting the sheet essentially in half and discarding everything from the Wagner to the edge is much more cost effective especially if it's sort of near the edge and the discarded portion would also include Plank who you hear is also making a fuss about being included.

While you're working through the stack, the plate guys are resurfacing the stone and redoing it less the Wagner and Plank. Or possibly only redoing those areas, none of the references I've found get into plate repairs much if at all. With the labor to resurface a stone and start again, I think a repair is likely. With the more modern photographic plates making a new plate is the way to go.

If you're very cheap, and have little labor cost you cut down the big sheets into smaller sheets and print backs on them.

Or if labor is costly, you simply scrap the finished fronts, redo the plates and carry on.

Using scrap to make more product was absolutely done with stamps, creating some real rarities. I believe Intaglio press operators and Lithograph press operators were roughly equal at the time.

Knowing that the 150's were done 3 different times, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the less printed brands that would lead us to think that they were printed from partial sheets. Like if the remaining portions of the Wagner sheets were used up doing some Old Mills or Hindus. Or if those sheets were not cut and used for the less popular brands.

[G1911]

Reminder that we are still awaiting the research and evidence that this card was not discovered in Florida, but in New York.

If it did come from a sheet, I think it almost certain it is not a complete sheet, and we are being too literal, what is meant is surely a strip or sheet fragment.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by steve B

The percentages by back are really interesting.

I think it appears clear that Plank and Wagner weren't on the same sheet. Or perhaps the same part of the sheet. But it's possible that isn't right.

It's very curious that for two cards that were probably pulled from production, multiple different backs are available.

That points to the different backs being produced at the same time, probably on different presses from a common stack of fronts.

Then the question is exactly how were the cards pulled from production, and is it possible they were on the same sheet for the 150 series?

I think even with the numbers being so different, we might look at the cutting. It's probable that a large number of sheets with Wagner and maybe Plank were produced with blank backs to be used as needed to fill orders for each brand and factory. So what's the best way to pull a card from production?
If you're both cheap and need to get product out the door, step one is to cut the finished sheets that already have backs in strips and simply discard the withdrawn card. But strips isn't how cutting is usually done with big sheets, as it makes for a very awkward second step, cutting a 2-4 foot long stack of strips into individual cards. So maybe after a short time, you decide that cutting the sheet essentially in half and discarding everything from the Wagner to the edge is much more cost effective especially if it's sort of near the edge and the discarded portion would also include Plank who you hear is also making a fuss about being included.

While you're working through the stack, the plate guys are resurfacing the stone and redoing it less the Wagner and Plank. Or possibly only redoing those areas, none of the references I've found get into plate repairs much if at all. With the labor to resurface a stone and start again, I think a repair is likely. With the more modern photographic plates making a new plate is the way to go.

If you're very cheap, and have little labor cost you cut down the big sheets into smaller sheets and print backs on them.

Or if labor is costly, you simply scrap the finished fronts, redo the plates and carry on.

Using scrap to make more product was absolutely done with stamps, creating some real rarities. I believe Intaglio press operators and Lithograph press operators were roughly equal at the time.

Knowing that the 150's were done 3 different times, it would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the less printed brands that would lead us to think that they were printed from partial sheets. Like if the remaining portions of the Wagner sheets were used up doing some Old Mills or Hindus. Or if those sheets were not cut and used for the less popular brands.

IMO it's because the T206's were printed in phases and a % of certain backs were printed at the same time together in each different phase. The pop numbers and print flaws reflect that.

Here's an example of flaw on Tenney that was probably printed in the phase that Wagner was printed.

Tenney.jpg


I think we might eventually be able to break down the different phases by using print flaws and pop numbers for example the flaws and pop numbers show that for print group 1 the Sovereign 350's weren't printed in the phase with the PD350's, Old Mills and Sweet Caporal 350 25's and 30's. I think there was another phase where The Sovereign 350's were printed with PD350's Sweet Caporal 350 30's and 25's but not Old Mills.

Old Mill phase
Stats Killian.jpg

Stats Schlei.jpg

0Walsh Stats.jpg