That SCP T206 Wagner

[Exhibitman]

I looked at it on the web site. No. I'd take it if someone offered it to me for a hundred bucks, but it is just too far gone to have any real appeal for me.

[pherbener]

Already over $300K!!

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/1909...-LOT50061.aspx

[Ray Van]

Granted there are many folks on this board with more knowledge than me, and some have seen this card in person, but a couple things with the slab raise red flags for me. Again, recognizing that PSA grading was in its infancy this could have happened, but ...
1) The card is identified as "Genuine" rather than "Authentic". I don't know of any other PSA slabs with the "Genuine" qualifier.
2) The Zeros on the PSA serial number have slashes through them. In contrast, the first card that PSA graded does not have these slashes. I find it hard to believe that PSA would change their "number fonts" from card #1 to card #2, and I don't believe any other PSA serial numbers have these slashes through the zeroes.

I can reconcile the first part as being down to a new company deciding on grading language, but it's a bit of a leap for me to believe the second part.

[ncinin]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

Granted there are many folks on this board with more knowledge than me, and some have seen this card in person, but a couple things with the slab raise red flags for me. Again, recognizing that PSA grading was in its infancy this could have happened, but ...
1) The card is identified as "Genuine" rather than "Authentic". I don't know of any other PSA slabs with the "Genuine" qualifier.
2) The Zeros on the PSA serial number have slashes through them. In contrast, the first card that PSA graded does not have these slashes. I find it hard to believe that PSA would change their "number fonts" from card #1 to card #2, and I don't believe any other PSA serial numbers have these slashes through the zeroes.

I can reconcile the first part as being down to a new company deciding on grading language, but it's a bit of a leap for me to believe the second part.

Even though the SCP Wagner has serial number of 2 it was graded some years after the T206 PSA 8 with serial number of 1.

Most scans of the PSA 8 Wagner was after it was reslabbed at some point. There is a scan of the original slab with the same slashes in the zeroes in this link.....https://www.sportscardradio.com/aler...by-psa-or-bgs/

Most likely the reason it is in a genuine holder instead of authentic holder is that PSA would not slab it today and will not reholder it.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by ncinin

Even though the SCP Wagner has serial number of 2 it was graded some years after the T206 PSA 8 with serial number of 1.

Most scans of the PSA 8 Wagner was after it was reslabbed at some point. There is a scan of the original slab with the same slashes in the zeroes in this link.....https://www.sportscardradio.com/aler...by-psa-or-bgs/

Most likely the reason it is in a genuine holder instead of authentic holder is that PSA would not slab it today and will not reholder it.

Interesting - thanks for sharing the insight!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ncinin

Even though the SCP Wagner has serial number of 2 it was graded some years after the T206 PSA 8 with serial number of 1.

Most scans of the PSA 8 Wagner was after it was reslabbed at some point. There is a scan of the original slab with the same slashes in the zeroes in this link.....https://www.sportscardradio.com/aler...by-psa-or-bgs/

Most likely the reason it is in a genuine holder instead of authentic holder is that PSA would not slab it today and will not reholder it.

Soooooooo, has anyone ever asked PSA what THEIR meanings and differences are between the grades of "Authentic" and "Genuine"? I would think this should be a legitimate question to ask of them, and for which they should easily be able to answer. Unless there's no one still working there from when this card was originally graded to remember why it was slabbed as "Geniune". I'd love to hear their official answer, rather than just speculating.

[chriskim]

Originally Posted by BobC

Soooooooo, has anyone ever asked PSA what THEIR meanings and differences are between the grades of "Authentic" and "Genuine"? I would think this should be a legitimate question to ask of them, and for which they should easily be able to answer. Unless there's no one still working there from when this card was originally graded to remember why it was slabbed as "Geniune". I'd love to hear their official answer, rather than just speculating.

^^^ we need to ask David Hall!!

[chriskim]

Originally Posted by BobC

Soooooooo, has anyone ever asked PSA what THEIR meanings and differences are between the grades of "Authentic" and "Genuine"? I would think this should be a legitimate question to ask of them, and for which they should easily be able to answer. Unless there's no one still working there from when this card was originally graded to remember why it was slabbed as "Geniune". I'd love to hear their official answer, rather than just speculating.

I think the other important question to ask is, why SCP does not re-holder the card. I have no doubt it is a real Wagner. But is that because it cost $50k to re-holder a Wagner?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by chriskim

I think the other important question to ask is, why SCP does not re-holder the card. I have no doubt it is a real Wagner. But is that because it cost $50k to re-holder a Wagner?

And there is a clear example of a potential issue with a TPG having a possible conflict of interest, and why they should not be allowed to charge grading fees on a contingent basis, based solely on the perceived value of the card/item being graded. It is in the TPG's interest to grade something like this as at least being authentic, so it has value and they can charge an exorbitant fee. But what if there was a serious question as to the authenticity, if they say it isn't authentic, then the value is basically nothing and they shouldn't be entitled to charge and collect such a huge grading fee. And there's the potential conflict of interest.

Same reason it may be in a TPG's interest to not be so strict in grading trimmed and altered cards, and let them go through with numerical grades. The higher grades mean more card value, and therefore more grading fees for the TPG.

This contingent fee billing has been, and always will be, a very real potential conflict of interest for any TPG that uses that billing practice. If a TPG is truly honest, unbiased, and with absolutely no conflicts of interests, they should be examining each and every card/item they are grading the exact same way, using the exact same methods and procedures, and therefore taking about the same amount of time to examine each and every card, whether it's a '52 Mantle or an '87 Donruss common. And as a result, the grading fee for both should be about the same, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the value of either card. Anything else just shows and promotes the inherent bias and potential conflict of interest that absolutely exists in every TPG that conducts business this way in regards to contingent billing. This is not a debatable question, it is an absolute and irrefutable fact........period!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by BobC

And there is a clear example of a potential issue with a TPG having a possible conflict of interest, and why they should not be allowed to charge grading fees on a contingent basis, based solely on the perceived value of the card/item being graded. It is in the TPG's interest to grade something like this as at least being authentic, so it has value and they can charge an exorbitant fee. But what if there was a serious question as to the authenticity, if they say it isn't authentic, then the value is basically nothing and they shouldn't be entitled to charge and collect such a huge grading fee. And there's the potential conflict of interest.

Same reason it may be in a TPG's interest to not be so strict in grading trimmed and altered cards, and let them go through with numerical grades. The higher grades mean more card value, and therefore more grading fees for the TPG.

This contingent fee billing has been, and always will be, a very real potential conflict of interest for any TPG that uses that billing practice. If a TPG is truly honest, unbiased, and with absolutely no conflicts of interests, they should be examining each and every card/item they are grading the exact same way, using the exact same methods and procedures, and therefore taking about the same amount of time to examine each and every card, whether it's a '52 Mantle or an '87 Donruss common. And as a result, the grading fee for both should be about the same, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the value of either card. Anything else just shows and promotes the inherent bias and potential conflict of interest that absolutely exists in every TPG that conducts business this way in regards to contingent billing. This is not a debatable question, it is an absolute and irrefutable fact........period!

Well, since you don't want to debate it, let's just agree to disagree.

[mrreality68]

That is odd. I always thought we all always agreed with each other

This is such an oddity

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Well, since you don't want to debate it, let's just agree to disagree.

Al,

If you truly don't understand what makes up and can cause a conflict of interest, and how that can be considered a potential problem when you are supposedly paying someone to give you their HONEST AND TOTALLY UNBIASED opinion, you really are better off saying nothing!!!

When dealing with someone that is supposed to be independent and unbiased, that independence should be in both fact AND appearance. So how does a company giving their subjective opinion on the condition of something that directly affects that items value, and therefore how much they can charge for giving that opinion, not in this or any parallel universe you could ever invent be anything other than a potential conflict of interest?!?!?!

Now if you were just trying to be sarcastic or funny, try making that a bit more obvious next time please.

[babraham]

Up to $360k with over 5 days remaining.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

When dealing with someone that is supposed to be independent and unbiased, that independence should be in both fact AND appearance. So how does a company giving their subjective opinion on the condition of something that directly affects that items value, and therefore how much they can charge for giving that opinion, not in this or any parallel universe you could ever invent be anything other than a potential conflict of interest?!?!?!

Agree. I'd put it this way: When you refinance your home and get an appraisal, would it be legal and ethical to offer the appraiser a bonus if she comes in with a high appraisal?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Agree. I'd put it this way: When you refinance your home and get an appraisal, would it be legal and ethical to offer the appraiser a bonus if she comes in with a high appraisal?

Mark,

It would certainly not be ethical. Not as sure about legality as it would likely vary by state, but can imagine it some type of fraud it they purposely inflated a valuation.

[chriskim]

sold for $475,960. Reasonable price.

[LincolnVT]

Was watching some of the historically significant photos in this auction, WOW! It won't be long now before photos are unreachable.

[mrreality68]

Agreed on both points the price was reasonable for that piece and those photo prices are started to gain pricing momentum

[Rhotchkiss]

A fair price for the card, although I would have liked to see it go over $500k.

Regarding photos, I am not ready to dive into sports photos. But I did pick this type 1 photo up last night, largely because of the subject and the fact the negative was included

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by chriskim

sold for $475,960. Reasonable price.

+1. Extremely so, I'm guessing this will prove to be a great investment.

[LincolnVT]

I was looking at that MLK photo as well Ryan...it's beautiful. Some big prices on some of those baseball related photos last night.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

A fair price for the card, although I would have liked to see it go over $500k. Regarding photos, I am not ready to dive into sports photos. But I did pick this type 1 photo up last night, largely because of the subject and the fact the negative was included

Wonderful portrait of an iconic American.

[Bpm0014]

Baseball Type I photos are the next thing to explode I believe. They’ve been fairly reasonable for the past couple of years. But as people can no longer afford a decent Green Cobb or decent Goudey Ruth, they will scramble for pictures of the next best thing.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Restorers work on artwork all the time. If I had the card, I would do some research and have it restored by the best I could find, for my own amusement, because WTF.

Great!

[LincolnVT]

Exactly! And in most cases the photo images are larger, clearer and much more rare.

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

Baseball Type I photos are the next thing to explode I believe. They’ve been fairly reasonable for the past couple of years. But as people can no longer afford a decent Green Cobb or decent Goudey Ruth, they will scramble for pictures of the next best thing.

[mrreality68]

It is not just photos people are jumping to. It is also happening with scorecards, tickets, and other items that are related to those players or have pictures on it.