T206 Honus Wagner SGC 5 - John D. Wagner Collection

[cgjackson222]

As I'm sure many haven noticed, SGC's website currently shows a T206 Honus Wagner SGC 5 from the "John D. Wagner Collection."

According to the Certification Number (0077560) it was graded in July 2021.

I am assuming John D. Wagner is not a relative of Honus Wagner, but rather the collector discussed in this net54 thread.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=275068

The article in the net54 thread states that John D. Wagner had two T206 Honus Wagners, and gave one to Jefferson Burdick to help fill his collection.
It also states John D. Wagner met Honus in the early 40s and Honus confirmed that he was "opposed to smoking and that he didn't want to influence kids in that direction, so he stopped them from printing that card."

The SGC website states "SGC has graded 17 Honus Wagner T206s, a large portion of the total population considering the card’s well-documented scarcity....
It feels strange to say, but this one is even more impressive than the VG 3. This one received the unbelievable grade of EX 5. It’s the highest graded example of a Wagner that SGC has ever had the pleasure of evaluating and we’d put it up against any other Honus in the entire hobby.

In order to speak a little more to the one-of-a-kind nature of the card, we felt it best to take the words directly from the mouth of SGC’s 23-year veteran and Director of Grading, Scott Hileman. When talking about the card for this article, Scott said,

“I’ve never seen one like it. The card has everything going for it: near 50/50 centering, a crisp image, even corner wear, awesome color, and a clean surface. I almost couldn’t believe what my eyes were seeing. These attributes are rare to even your average common T206, let alone a Wagner.”

As it stands, we don’t believe there are any immediate plans for the card to be sold."

Anyway, if an SGC 2 can fetch over $7M, then I can't imagine what an SGC 5 would go for.

[Lorewalker]

Does not appear to be EX to me. That is some heavy corner wear. Not shocked by the grade however. I would not expect to get anything better than a 4 from them if I submitted a T206 McBride that had corners like that.

[jingram058]

Beautiful card, and nice display frame/box too...all unobtanium.

[Bridwell]

It would be lucky to get a PSA 4, because of the corner wear. Also we can't see the back to see any possible flaws there.

[mrreality68]

I agree I do not think it is a 5. But it is a beautiful looking card (back unseen) and it would easily go for over 18 Million Dollars

[refz]

Perhaps in this case, the centering trumps corner wear? I agree with all of you on this matter. Maybe sgc is going to the next level on such an iconic card or do 3rd party graders do favors for higher end clients? Just my thoughts, on such an awesome card!!

[robertsmithnocure]

Nice looking card, but not a 5 IMHO.

[Republicaninmass]

Not a t206 expert

That t/b centering is 50/50?

[Lorewalker]

Hammer the average submitter and then it is ok when you toss a high profile client an over grade of 1 full grade point their high profile card. Love what they are doing over there.

If they had graded the card right as a 4 (based on the image of the front) it still would still be a killer card. The politics of grading.

[BobC]

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is a VG 3, maybe a VG+ 3.5 card, at best, all day long and twice on Sundays. Don't get me wrong, it is still a great card, and presents well, but all four corners show wear and obvious rounding, and it looks like there may be some surface/coloration issues. Like the print mark/dot that seems to be above Wagner's head to the viewer's right.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Does not appear to be EX to me. That is some heavy corner wear. Not shocked by the grade however. I would not expect to get anything better than a 4 from them if I submitted a T206 McBride that had corners like that.

I'm noticing a trend. I call myself a low grade collector, but I'm at least a mid grade collector by SGC's new standards for marquee cards.

[FrankWakefield]

+1 on what Bob C said.

I dislike grading, not a follower, disciple, nor student. It's a great looking card, and it's a 3.

[G1911]

“I’ve never seen one like it. The card has everything going for it: near 50/50 centering, a crisp image, even corner wear, awesome color, and a clean surface. I almost couldn’t believe what my eyes were seeing. These attributes are rare to even your average common T206, let alone a Wagner.”

I love this load of crap. "Even corner wear", they can't of course even pretend those corners are in any way nice. VG T206's with heavy corner rounding are available, dozens per day on the market and are by no means rare "to even your average common T206". Is SGC just adding +2 to any marquee card now, or do you have to pay them off to get your +2 bump?

[drcy]

I agree. Those are the biggest load of crap, cover my ass lines. They make it sound like corner wear (snuck in the middle) is a positive quality. I guess it would have been docked in grade if the corners were sharp. I'm pretty sure corner wear isn't an attribute "rare to even your average common T206, let alone a Wagner."

Originally Posted by G1911

“I’ve never seen one like it. The card has everything going for it: near 50/50 centering, a crisp image, even corner wear, awesome color, and a clean surface. I almost couldn’t believe what my eyes were seeing. These attributes are rare to even your average common T206, let alone a Wagner.”

I love this load of crap. "Even corner wear", they can't of course even pretend those corners are in any way nice. VG T206's with heavy corner rounding are available, dozens per day on the market and are by no means rare "to even your average common T206". Is SGC just adding +2 to any marquee card now, or do you have to pay them off to get your +2 bump?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm noticing a trend. I call myself a low grade collector, but I'm at least a mid grade collector by SGC's new standards for marquee cards.

To say they stretched on this one would be an understatement. Greg it might be a great time to submit those 2 Balt News Ruths you are hiding from us.

One would think that since a marquee card will garner more attention that they might want to get the grading right. Additionally over by a full grade...or more...equates to enormous amounts of money on cards of this caliber.

Poster child, imo, for Just Saying No To Slabbing.

[drcy]

The problem with the overgrading is the focus will be on the overgrade. As evidenced by this thread.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

To say they stretched on this one would be an understatement. Greg it might be a great time to submit those 2 Balt News Ruths you are hiding from us.

One would think that since a marquee card will garner more attention that they might want to get the grading right. Additionally over by a full grade...or more...equates to enormous amounts of money on cards of this caliber.

Poster child, imo, for Just Saying No To Slabbing.

I was thinking, if they’re just giving +2 for marquee cards without even being bribed, I might be able to get a 6 on one and a 7 on the other Ruth after bribing them. Guess I’m jumping on the SGC bandwagon!

This garbage is one of many reasons my cards stay raw and I crack the slabbed ones I buy. It’s a blatantly corrupt and dishonest process that isn’t about the cards at all but making money out of nothing out of an ‘opinion’ that is often bought and paid for, or abused for marketing and promotion at best. People with money invested into it or who think they could invest into it and join the pump for a profit will defend the graders no matter how many scandals (where do we even begin?), shady deals (like their big submitters getting to negotiate grades behind closed doors at their special events), altered cards (PWCC’s fraud ring just to start), fakes (from Connie Mack’s to SGC autographs), different standards for big submitters or friends of the graders (like that former Beckett grader who gets an absurd % of all black labels) and clearly dishonest grades (like this one) there are. Briefly discussed but ultimately ignored, as long as there’s profit in it.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by drcy

The problem with the overgrading is the focus will be on the overgrade. As evidenced by this thread.

Good point, though I would vary the wording slightly, as follows.

The problem with assigning a numerical grade is that the focus will be on the grade, not the card.

That Wagner is a GORGEOUS Wagner, IMO easily among the top few in the hobby. Yet the focus of this thread is the view it is over graded, and how corrupt SGC is to assign it the grade it did.

Yet if someone was to post a "properly" graded T206 Cobb 8, would there be a single post as to the probability (IMO about 100%) that the card has been worked on? Or how about an "8" that has badly toned borders and poor eye appeal, but "technically" merits an "8"?

I'll repeat a point I have made in the past and believe is worth making again -- The sole function of TPG should be to opine whether a card is genuine or counterfeit, and if genuine if it has been altered in any way. Anything other than that is a subjective assessment, which has no business being treated as some objective statement of condition.

Going back to this Wagner, IMO if we took the universe of slabbed T206s and showed how they really looked before any of the alteration/trimming been performed, I suspect people would not be so quick to opine it does not merit the accolades SGC gives it.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I'll repeat a point I have made in the past and believe is worth making again -- The sole function of TPG should be to opine whether a card is genuine or counterfeit, and if genuine if it has been altered in any way. Anything other than that is a subjective assessment, which has no business being treated as some objective statement of condition.

There is not a problem with numerical grading on it's own. Being able to categorize card quality/value based on a set of criteria is extremely useful, assuming the standards are consistent over time. The problem is that TPGs have utterly failed to enforce any standard. The fact that a group of collectors can take one look at the Wagner and dismiss it's 'professional' grade is comically sad.

It is either corruption or incompetence by SGC whose sole goal seems to be 'winning' the right to grade marquee cards. I guess they think it is good brand marketing to cater to a dozen people who can afford these cards. I'd argue they should have just invested in a strong registry.

I was talking to another collector at the National while taking a look at the Mantle. He told me that SGC probably paid the owner to grade the card - i had never thought of that , but it makes sense that TPGs would engage in a bidding war for the right to grade these types of cards. if this is truly how it works, that degrades the point of the service.

[luciobar1980]

I admit my first thought was also.. those corners look too worn for a 5. But, they make it sound like the card is damn-near perfect in every other respect. So is it not possible it still warrants the 5?

[Exhibitman]

Buncha grade fluffers over there. Explain to me like a two-year old why that is a 5 and this is a 4:



Or this is a 6:



Does that Wagner seem mid-way between these two cards??

Maybe their new marketing strategy is overgrading the big cards? PSA is regularly slammed for too harsh grading, and CSG is definitely conservative in their assessments, so maybe SGC wants to differentiate itself.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

I admit my first thought was also.. those corners look too worn for a 5. But, they make it sound like the card is damn-near perfect in every other respect. So is it not possible it still warrants the 5?

Bingo!

I have seen 7s with such horrible photo contrast that if it was the last card I needed to complete a set, I would not want to buy it. Or how about an 8 with grossly toned brown borders that make it painful to look at? Yet, it seems nobody takes issue with the correctness of the technical grades assigned to those cards. But show some minor wear on the corners, the card gets downgraded by a degree IMO grossly disproportionate to the attractiveness of the card, which is what I thought TPG is supposed to capture.

[Johnny630]

It seems SGC Grades these Key Big Major Cards not based so much on the condition, but based on the totality of the situation/story. Standards seem secondary based the on story and the caliber of the card.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is a VG 3, maybe a VG+ 3.5 card, at best, all day long and twice on Sundays. Don't get me wrong, it is still a great card, and presents well, but all four corners show wear and obvious rounding, and it looks like there may be some surface/coloration issues. Like the print mark/dot that seems to be above Wagner's head to the viewer's right.

Was hoping somebody would throw out a numerical assessment in this range..

[parkplace33]

If this card is an SGC ex card, then my entire collection must be NM.

[FrankWakefield]

Oscar Stanage, thanks for posting that. It does make sense that a TPG would like the collectors to see it in their holder instead of some other TPG slab. Good point.

For the collectors who are buying the graded plastic, and not the card, they'll be happy with the 5 grade. Seems most of the graded Wagner cards have a number that's lower.

For the collectors buying the card, not the slab, they'd be buying a very nice looking Wagner. But it's still not a 5.

Early on, when collecting the white border cards, I quickly could see that most of my better condition cards were either 350 or 460 cards, and that the ones that were more worn were from the 150 series. The 150s would have been in the grimy paws of young collector kids like I was as a kid. Those cards went through much more wear, spending more time in a kid's pocket, shuffled, handled, and such. I mention this because I don't think the 150s should be graded more leniently based on the relative condition of other 150s. And maybe that 5 is because that Wagner is better than most of the other Wagners, but it's still not a 3.

[D. Bergin]

Not to kick a dead horse.......LOL, who am I kidding, I'm gonna kick that dead horse hard.

This is a recent 4.5 I got from SGC. SGC isn't any less strict then PSA nowadays. They are just less strict with certain cards from certain clients...just like PSA.

All that said, if you've got the money to buy a T206 Honus Wagner, the number on the slip is irrelevant. The only thing really important is if it's authentic, and has it been altered (sorry PSA ). Look at the giant pictures any auction house is going to provide for you, ask a lot of questions, and decide what you want to pay for it.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Good point, though I would vary the wording slightly, as follows.

The problem with assigning a numerical grade is that the focus will be on the grade, not the card.

That Wagner is a GORGEOUS Wagner, IMO easily among the top few in the hobby. Yet the focus of this thread is the view it is over graded, and how corrupt SGC is to assign it the grade it did.

Yet if someone was to post a "properly" graded T206 Cobb 8, would there be a single post as to the probability (IMO about 100%) that the card has been worked on? Or how about an "8" that has badly toned borders and poor eye appeal, but "technically" merits an "8"?

I'll repeat a point I have made in the past and believe is worth making again -- The sole function of TPG should be to opine whether a card is genuine or counterfeit, and if genuine if it has been altered in any way. Anything other than that is a subjective assessment, which has no business being treated as some objective statement of condition.

Going back to this Wagner, IMO if we took the universe of slabbed T206s and showed how they really looked before any of the alteration/trimming been performed, I suspect people would not be so quick to opine it does not merit the accolades SGC gives it.

As nice of a card as it is the accolades SGC used to describe it only felt like a way to justify the over grade. And while it might be nicer and more genuine than many of the graded T206 Wagners that in no way should be the basis for the over grade. Had this card, like the 52 Mantle in the 9.5, been graded accurately, there would be fewer of us who would be focusing on the disappointment in SGC and more on the card. PSA is just as guilty of this BS but it makes a mockery of TPG, imo and Greg certainly illustrates the many reasons grading cannot be taken too seriously.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Oscar_Stanage

There is not a problem with numerical grading on it's own. Being able to categorize card quality/value based on a set of criteria is extremely useful, assuming the standards are consistent over time. The problem is that TPGs have utterly failed to enforce any standard. The fact that a group of collectors can take one look at the Wagner and dismiss it's 'professional' grade is comically sad.

It is either corruption or incompetence by SGC whose sole goal seems to be 'winning' the right to grade marquee cards. I guess they think it is good brand marketing to cater to a dozen people who can afford these cards. I'd argue they should have just invested in a strong registry.

I was talking to another collector at the National while taking a look at the Mantle. He told me that SGC probably paid the owner to grade the card - i had never thought of that , but it makes sense that TPGs would engage in a bidding war for the right to grade these types of cards. if this is truly how it works, that degrades the point of the service.

I do not know the provenance of this card, but my first thought was that it was submitted with the owner requesting a minimum grade of 5, maybe as a crossover, and that SGC jumped at the chance to have a graded Wagner on display in their holder. Just the cynic in me I guess.

That being said, does it really matter? For that card of that player from that set, is there really going to be a ruckus raised over the numeric grade? Is some registry hound out there thinking he needs to "upgrade" his Wagner to score big points? Another screaming foul because he just got jumped in the standings by an overgraded card? If so it just makes me wonder more about the egos of some people being unhealthily out of whack.

IMHO, the card is simply gorgeous, and should be enjoyed and valued as such. Any numeric grade as an assurance that the card is genuine and unaltered should be enough. The card speaks for itself.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I do not know the provenance of this card, but my first thought was that it was submitted with the owner requesting a minimum grade of 5, maybe as a crossover, and that SGC jumped at the chance to have a graded Wagner on display in their holder. Just the cynic in me I guess.

That being said, does it really matter? For that card of that player from that set, is there really going to be a ruckus raised over the numeric grade? Is some registry hound out there thinking he needs to "upgrade" his Wagner to score big points? Another screaming foul because he just got jumped in the standings by an overgraded card? If so it just makes me wonder more about the egos of some people being unhealthily out of whack.

IMHO, the card is simply gorgeous, and should be enjoyed and valued as such. Any numeric grade as an assurance that the card is genuine and unaltered should be enough.

It should matter, in a rational world, if value is effectively decided by the grading companies. Blatant corruption should matter. Just giving them a pass for every single fraud, lie and load of bunk doesn’t seem rational, or to promote anything but fraud, lies, and BS in the hobby. That the grade of a card is determined as much by who submits it and how much SGC is either paid off or feels they’ll get in marketing gain from a marquee card should be a cause of concern for people who do graded. If grading is not based on any objective standard but simply politics then the entire exercise is pointless, except for the people using the corrupt system to make money.

[steve B]

To me it's a classic VG. No better.
If it was a common it would get that grade, but something I've noticed for years is that Wagners almost always get a grade that's better than they are.

And that's going back before grading companies.

The one I saw auctioned in CT was p-f, and resold a few times over the next couple years via ads in SCD. Each time it was offered it got "better" ending up vg-ex despite creases and writing on the back.

[vansaad]

Maybe this one had its corners factory cut to fit in packages of bread since Hans didn't want them going into cigarette packs.

[nolemmings]

I would agree that corruption, if that's what happened here, should in no way be encouraged. What I am suggesting is that with this specific card, the grade is or should be damn near irrelevant, other than again to show that it is authentic and unaltered.

How many times have we claimed that a card "presents better"? And that the market will ignore a technical grade in view of a card's appearance? To me this is the poster child for such a position. We can all see the condition of the corners, which appears to be the card's flaw, and bid accordingly. It might be different if there are wrinkles, indentations, etc that cannot be seen and which would/should give notice to the bidder that something is amiss. Otherwise, the number is much ado about nothing, IMO. It would be interesting to ask the bidders who make a play for this card as to how much the number affected what they are willing to pay. I suspect very little, but of course I could be wrong.

I don't disagree with anyone saying this card is overgraded and making the usual gripes about how some submitters get favors. It just seems to me you should pick your battles with those arguments, and that they are insignificant here as a practical matter.

[terjung]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I would agree that corruption, if that's what happened here, should in no way be encouraged. What I am suggesting is that with this specific card, the grade is or should be damn near irrelevant, other than again to show that it is authentic and unaltered.

How many times have we claimed that a card "presents better"? And that the market will ignore a technical grade in view of a card's appearance? To me this is the poster child for such a position. We can all see the condition of the corners, which appears to be the card's flaw, and bid accordingly. It might be different if there are wrinkles, indentations, etc that cannot be seen and which would/should give notice to the bidder that something is amiss. Otherwise, the number is much ado about nothing, IMO. It would be interesting to ask the bidders who make a play for this card as to how much the number affected what they are willing to pay. I suspect very little, but of course I could be wrong.

I don't disagree with anyone saying this card is overgraded and making the usual gripes about how some submitters get favors. It just seems to me you should pick your battles with those arguments, and that they are insignificant here as a practical matter.

This.

We all want global uniformity in grading, but the fact of the matter is that it is a tool to help us evaluate a card since we can't see it in person. If the exact same card were graded a "1", we'd use that information to start looking for a pinhole or some such flaw. With the grade of a 3.5, 4, or 5, we are led to believe the corner wear is the primary flaw. As Todd indicated, the serious bidders for this card are very likely more concerned about its appearance than its number. (Although there are probably bragging rights that are above my purview... "I sold my G5 and now fly in a G6" type of stuff.) Though this particular card is likely technically overgraded, I personally couldn't care less that it is. I'm not a grade-hound though. It's an absolutely beautiful example of the card and appears to be one of the best out there.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I would agree that corruption, if that's what happened here, should in no way be encouraged. What I am suggesting is that with this specific card, the grade is or should be damn near irrelevant, other than again to show that it is authentic and unaltered.

How many times have we claimed that a card "presents better"? And that the market will ignore a technical grade in view of a card's appearance? To me this is the poster child for such a position. We can all see the condition of the corners, which appears to be the card's flaw, and bid accordingly. It might be different if there are wrinkles, indentations, etc that cannot be seen and which would/should give notice to the bidder that something is amiss. Otherwise, the number is much ado about nothing, IMO. It would be interesting to ask the bidders who make a play for this card as to how much the number affected what they are willing to pay. I suspect very little, but of course I could be wrong.

I don't disagree with anyone saying this card is overgraded and making the usual gripes about how some submitters get favors. It just seems to me you should pick your battles with those arguments, and that they are insignificant here as a practical matter.

You think this card would fetch the same price in a 2.5, 3, 4 or 5 holder?

[AndrewJerome]

Looks like a 4 to me. Beautiful card. Corners a little sharper than many 3s, assuming no wrinkles. Agree that 5 is a stretch. Also agree with Todd that nearly all T206 Wagners appear to be over graded compared to other T206s. So why are we surprised at this particular grade?

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Does not appear to be EX to me. That is some heavy corner wear. Not shocked by the grade however. I would not expect to get anything better than a 4 from them if I submitted a T206 McBride that had corners like that.

Agree.

[T206Collector]

Very proud to have a signed T206 card from this collection!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Very proud to have a signed T206 card from this collection!

Very interesting! John D. Wagner clearly had a very impressive collection. Cool that you snagged something from it.

[Leon]

Some more of John D Wagner's papers. These were mostly to Jefferson Burdick. I would imagine a few members haven't seen them. They have been shown several times but still relevant.. I know he talks about T206 Wagner's in one or more of them.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ht=john+wagner

[rand1com]

The card is a 5 only in SGC's dreams.

It is a nice looking Wagner and may be the best one discounting the trimmed PSA 8 but the card would get a 3,3.5, or maybe a 4 on a good day for a regular collector.

The corner wear is even but unfortunately way too severe to warrant a 5.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

This is way too high profile a card to grade it so favorably. Its unquestionably a 3.5 by their standards. An obvious attempt to create some buzz and or do a high profile client a solid. I'm a big SGC guy and am truly disappointed.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Dead-Ball-Hitter

This is way too high profile a card to grade it so favorably. Its unquestionably a 3.5 by their standards. An obvious attempt to create some buzz and or do a high profile client a solid. I'm a big SGC guy and am truly disappointed.

+1

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Dead-Ball-Hitter

This is way too high profile a card to grade it so favorably. Its unquestionably a 3.5 by their standards. An obvious attempt to create some buzz and or do a high profile client a solid. I'm a big SGC guy and am truly disappointed.

The #1 issue is it shows that they can be dishonest. I don't know how this particular grading could not be described as an example of corruption.

[notfast]

Fairly certain the current owner of this card is also the owner of the recently sold Baltimore News Ruth from the last year or so.

[chriskim]

The most expensive 1 numerical grade jump in sport cards history

[CurtisFlood]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Does not appear to be EX to me. That is some heavy corner wear. Not shocked by the grade however. I would not expect to get anything better than a 4 from them if I submitted a T206 McBride that had corners like that.

Based on recent items I have submitted to SGC it would be a three. Tyey are not easy on your cards.

[rats60]

The Wagner at the Hall of Fame is in better condition, in my opinion.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by rats60

The Wagner at the Hall of Fame is in better condition, in my opinion.

Agreed, it is really phenomenal. Whoever donated it was very generous.
And I hope they have a lot of security for it. I didn’t see anyone guarding when I was there a month ago.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is a VG 3, maybe a VG+ 3.5 card, at best, all day long and twice on Sundays. Don't get me wrong, it is still a great card, and presents well, but all four corners show wear and obvious rounding, and it looks like there may be some surface/coloration issues. Like the print mark/dot that seems to be above Wagner's head to the viewer's right.

+1. When a company inflates the grade on a high profile card it really hurts credibility. The PSA 8 Wagner is obviously one of the most if not the most extreme example.