Tip for anyone buying a T206 Wagner.

I was browsing one of Ted Z.'s threads on Net 54 today (love reading his threads, even though I cannot contribute to his checklists, as they are usually about back combinations - right up my alley!). He mentioned the Plank T206 was only found in the 150 Series with a SC Fact. 25 card. This, of course is not the case with Plank, as he is also found with a Fact. 30 SC back in the 150 Series and a 350 SC back. Some people also talk about the Planks being found with Piedmont 150 backs that were handcut. I proved on the Aimoo board that this Piedmont Plank came from the SAME SHEET as the PSA 8 Piedmont Wagner, so I would BE VERY CAREFUL OF IT (as I have stated for years - I am certain these were reprint sheets Gelman had printed in the 50's for his collecting friends).

Anyway, Ted probably got the Plank confused with the Wagner was all. IF you ever decide to purchase a T206 Wagner, make certain is is a Sweet Caporal 150 Fact. 25 card!!! This is simply an extra precautionary measure (besides buying a slabbed example of course), as, up until the PSA 8 Wagner was slabbed, this was the ONLY back a T206 Wagner could be found with.

Here is a scan of the Beckett Wagner in the upcoming REA auction - notice the Factory number. One could bid with confidence on this one, no matter who slabbed it!

THIS ONE looked convincing to me. But, then again, one of these is listed every day. It can't be real.

After looking at the link I found the guy was selling this also in the same lot.




This paragraph puzzled me a little:

NOW I ALSO CAME ACROSS A COPY OF THIS SEPTEMBER 4, 1909 SPORTING LIFE AD. TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE ADVERTISEMENT. HONUS WAGNERS PICTURE IS THERE WITH TEN OTHER PLAYERS BEING ADVERTISED THAT THEY WILL BE INCLUDED FREE IN ALL 5CENT PACKAGES OF SWEET CAPORAL, PIEDMONT, AND SOVEREIGN!!! NOW I ASK THE EXPERTS TO EXPLAIN WHERE ARE THE T206 HONUS WAGNER SOVEREIGNS? THEY FOUND SWEET CAPORAL AND ONLY A RARE FEW PIEDMONTS. WHY HAVE THEY NOT FOUND ANY SOVEREIGN HONUS WAGNER T206 CARDS? THIS ADVERTISMENT CLEARLY STATES THAT T206 HONUS WAGNER CARDS WOULD BE INCLUDED FREE INSIDE ALL 5CENT PACKAGES OF SOVEREIGN CIGARETTES.

Tip for anyone wanting a t206 Wagner: fuggetaboutit, unless you are willing to pay full price.

http://www.centuryoldcards.com/1909t206wagners.html

scott elkins wrote:(as I have stated for years - I am certain these were reprint sheets Gelman had printed in the 50's for his collecting friends).

Tell me this isn't so. Scott, are you saying you believe Gelman reprinted T206s and Goudeys that are almost completely indistinguishable from the ones actually printed in 1909-11 and 1933? I hope not, I hope I'm misreading your parenthetical sentence.

cmoking wrote:

scott elkins wrote:(as I have stated for years - I am certain these were reprint sheets Gelman had printed in the 50's for his collecting friends).

Tell me this isn't so. Scott, are you saying you believe Gelman reprinted T206s and Goudeys that are almost completely indistinguishable from the ones actually printed in 1909-11 and 1933? I hope not, I hope I'm misreading your parenthetical sentence.

I was wondering the same thing. Scott, are you saying you believe the PSA 8 Wagner is a reprint? "The Card"? Or did I also misread your post?

x

Wow, interesting stuff!

x

PS - the one thing about the Gellman "reprints" his friends made him is, not only are they scary, but they have some age to them now as well (printed in the 30's and 50's). So, it is really hard to tell these from originals a lot of times. I have seen one of these Piedmont Wagners up close at a card shop in TN years ago - it was setting beside a real Wagner. I, like most people who came in the card shop, picked the Piedmont Wagner to be the real one. Then, the card shop owner explained to me about the 50's reprints and the Wagner only being found with a SC 150 Fact. 25 back - this was in 1987.

scott elkins wrote:The Goudey's Gellman had "printed" - the Durocher front with the 106 back for example were all done PERIOD by his friends at the Goudey printers - so, don't worry, even though those were NOT meant to be issued or considered "Goudey" cards, they ARE PERIOD and printed by the folks at Goudey (so no great big alarm).

What year do you think Gellman reprinted the Goudeys? 1950? If so, I find it very very difficult to believe that he could duplicate everything exactly 17 years after the fact. So I don't consider them "period" at all.

scott elkins wrote:Gellman had these guys print tons of "dream cards" and things for him (both his friends at Goudey from the 30's and his printing friends from the 50's). Bill Heitman mentioned this on Net 54 and was attacked - in fact, I don't think he has posted on Net 54 since. And, Bill Heitman has handled more T206's than almost anyone in the Hobby and definitely knows more about the T206 set than ANYONE ON NET 54 - PERIOD! Personally, I am too smart to even attempt to question anything Bill Heitman says about T206's - that guy IS THE T206 GURU that many wish they were!!! I will be the first to admit he knows more about T206's, Woody Gellman, 1930's and 50's reprints, and the Hobby in general than I do!

Having conversed with Bill Heitman via email, I can say this : he had nothing conclusive to say about the reprints except something along the lines of "that's what my father told me". He wasn't there, he didn't see it. He has no other reason to believe it except that his dad told him when he was a kid. Now, that still may mean it is true, but my dad told me Santa Clause was real when I was 8, I don't believe him anymore though.

Regarding my emails with Mr. Heitman, the more I asked, the more details I wanted...the less he responded, until poof, he was gone. The bottom line is when asked serious questions, he disappears. He makes occassional appearances to spout some stuff, but he can't give any basis for his comments.

You can call it "attacks" or simply what it really is - real questions. He can't answer real questions. That's why he no longer posts in online forums. But you can sure find him on ebay trying to sell cards. Yes, that is true. His feedback is rather high too, so he's no newbie nor did he just sell for a short-period of time.

In my opinion based on everything I have gathered, it is tough to believe what Heitman has to say about Goudey reprints made in the 50s (he never mentioned anything about reprints made in the 30s...he mentioned reprints made in the 50s that his dad told him about). I can't say anything about the T206 reprints since I didn't care much about that story nor did I investigate further.

Regarding the Goudeys - again, only the Goudeys and not T206s - I'll add also that Lionel Carter never heard of reprints made in the 30s, nor has he heard of reprints made in the 50s that are indistinguishable from the real thing. If there was a tight group making reprints for fun, I'd imagine he would have been part of it or at least heard about it.

I think Carter's first-hand response trumps Heitman's second-hand stories.

The Goudey reprints WERE made in the 30's BY GOUDEY EMPLOYEES For Gellman. Mastro even stated this in their catalog a few years back when selling a 106 Durocher (for those that don't know, the Goudey 106 card is the Lajoie that wasn't issued until 1934). Supposedly, these cards were made with the 106 on the back for Gellman and his friends to fill the holes in their sets BEFORE the 106 Lajoie came out in 1934. SO, these WERE printed in 1933 by Goudey employees for Gellman (of course, Gellman gave some to his friends). BTW - his name might be spelled Gelman - I fogot if there is one or two l's (and am too lazy to look up the articles at the moment). These Goudey reprints were printed in 1933 by Goudey employees - not in the 1950's by others.

About Heitman: Like him or not, the guy is a T206 genius. You are right - he has avoided questions ever since the debacle on Net 54, as he really didn't want to go into detail. What he was saying is common knowledge for those of us who have been around the Hobby since the 70's. TBH, most of the big names have kept quite about these reprints ever since the PSA 8 Wagner first started selling for so much money. Some have kept quite for their own reasons - thinking it will hurt the value of their cards. Some have kept quite not wanting to hurt the Hobby. Some have kept quite not wanting to piss people off. If you will remember (or were around back then) - When I first mentioned this information about the Wagner and these 1950's reprints on the old Full Count Board, Mastro BANNED me from their auctions!!!!!!!! I had been winning 2-3 lots EVERY auction and paid the NEXT DAY with a cashier's check. They did reinstate my bidding priv. after most everyone on the Net 54 board thought it was wrong, offered to bid on my behalf and knew that I was on to something Bill Mastro did NOT want others to be talking about!!!!! I remember I was planning on attending the National that year and was even told by Doug Allen that Bill Mastro wanted to speak with me at the National about what I was saying - everyone at the time took that as an indirect threat and I received quite a few e-mails telling me not to go to the National from friends. Needless to say, I simply stayed away that year. Then, lost interest in the Hobby shortly after and sold my collection in 2001. Sometimes, it is a big headache to mention what you know in this Hobby and I don't blame Heitman sometimes for not telling what he knows. Again, all this use to be common knowledge. However, there are too many people making BIG MONEY off these reprints now!

Two separate topics going on in this thread, the Goudeys and the t206's.
Regarding the Goudeys, I agree with King, it is pretty hard to imagine that in 1950 they were able to make exact copies of original Goudeys. Also, the fact that guys like Lionel Carter have no knowledge of 1950 reprints makes the story hard to believe. The more plausible explanation for the #106 Durocher is that a proof sheet was made up before the final printing of that series of Goudey cards, with numbers that were different than the eventual final printing numbers. It just so happens that the Durocher card received the now coveted 106 number. This explanation also accounts for other misnumbered Goudey cards that pop up from time to time (as they came from the same sheet). I believe one of these misnumbered cards is in the current REA auction. It's not surprising that Goudey would have a proof (or test) sheet as clearly there are color proofs (two types of color proofs) other cards in the 1933 Goudey issue, all of which are handcut.

pro9 wrote:Two separate topics going on in this thread, the Goudeys and the t206's.

Yes, correct. Sorry I added to (or started?) the confusion. Regarding Goudeys and only Goudeys - it looks like Scott is talking about the misnumbered Goudeys, although he has a different idea of why they were made than Elliot (and I).

scott elkins wrote:The Goudey reprints WERE made in the 30's BY GOUDEY EMPLOYEES For Gellman.

I wouldn't disagree with this, although I may disagree with why they were made. However, why are you lumping them in with supposed 1950s T206 reprints? Why are you even calling these reprints to begin with? Based on what you are saying, you don't think they were reprints. What gets me going is Heitman talking about Goudey reprints in the 1950s that are indistinguishible from the original ones in 1933. That's a fantasy. When Scott phrased it as Goudey reprints and also 1950s (I think he meant T206s in 1950 not Goudeys in 1950), that's what caused my confusion and my posts.

scott elkins wrote:SO, these WERE printed in 1933 by Goudey employees for Gellman (of course, Gellman gave some to his friends). ....These Goudey reprints were printed in 1933 by Goudey employees - not in the 1950's by others.

Good, I'm glad you said that. Can you call them something other than reprints though? Maybe something like an "employee print" or (as Elliot theorized) a "test print"? To call them a reprint suggests something fishy going on, or something not authentic.

You may wonder why I have a bug up my ass about this phrasing. The reason is that it bothers me that others are assuming Heitman is correct about Goudey reprints in the 1950s (again, I am NOT saying anything about possible T206 reprints) and passing the info to others as fact when there is no proof, logic or any other reasoning. Just in case anyone is wondering, I don't own any of these wrong numbered backs or proofs (although I wish I did) so I'm not trying to protect an investment or anything like that. The one oddity I own - a blue back Goudey - I readily admit is probably a freak accident at the printers and relegated to only one sheet. But that has nothing to do with the #106 Durocher or other wrong numbered backs.

Here is the lot that Elliot was referring to, and REA's description. The bolded, italicized text is my doing for emphasis

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=10285


Offered here is a fascinating and unique previously unrecorded 1933 Goudey early production variation. This card is almost identical to the commonly issued card of Jack Russell as appears in the 1933 Goudey set, but is numbered "No. 121" on the reverse (as opposed to #167 as issued). Walter Stewart is #121 in the issued 1933 Goudey set. A small number of similarly misnumbered 1933 Goudey cards have been seen over the years. These cards were never actually issued in packs. All were handcut from the very same early Goudey proof sheet as the famous 1933 Goudey #106 Durocher card. This sheet (actually, partial sheet, as the entire sheet of 24 cards did not survive) was part of the collection of legendary hobby pioneer Woody Gelman. All cards from this sheet had numbers which were different than those actually issued. The one card that was especially noteworthy was the Leo Durocher card, because by chance that card shared the same card number as the famous 1933 Goudey #106 Lajoie, and this one card is very well known. The other cards on the sheet were just as rare (in fact, we believe each of these misnumbered cards is unique), and rarely surface. This is a very interesting and rarely seen printing variation from the 1933 Goudey set. These misnumbered cards were obviously printed before the set was released and final numbers were assigned. The card has a few light paper wrinkles on the reverse and an obvious handcut, and is otherwise in Vg-Ex/Ex condition. Reserve $400. Estimate (open).

King - Sorry for calling the Goudeys "reprints". I guess that is the wrong word to use. However, even Mastro Auctions stated these wrong backs came from Gelman and were printed for him by his friends at Goudey in their auction description of the Durocher. These weren't Goudey Proofs and not "regular" issues. They ARE period however and were printed at Goudey (from what all I have heard). They were simply printed for Gelman by his friends at Goudey.

I never knew Heitman said these Goudeys were printed in the 50's. From what I read that Heitman posted on Net 54, he was referring to T206's that were printed in the 1950's with wrong backs (ie: Piedmont Wagners) - he IS CORRECT about these and they have been known in the Hobby for a long time. Also, these were printed for Gelman as well for his friends and him.

Regarding Mr. Carter not knowing about these, he probably didn't (or doesn't remember anyway). I doubt Mr. Carter would have wanted one to fill a hole in his collection (as he was a "purist"). Also, I don't know if Mr. Carter was friends with Gellman or not. The information I first heard about these were from a person who DIRECTLY acquired one of these Piedmont Wagners from Gelman before he acquired a REAL SC 150 Fact. 25 example. Again, most people didn't think anything about these Piedmont 50's reprints in the old days of the Hobby (b/c they knew Wagner was only available with a SC 150 Fact. 25 back), and they were never passed off as the real thing back then.

scott elkins wrote:King - Sorry for calling the Goudeys "reprints". I guess that is the wrong word to use.

Great, thanks.

scott elkins wrote:However, even Mastro Auctions stated these wrong backs came from Gelman ...

I've heard from more than one source that the wrong backs came from Gelman (including Rob Lifson - see my previous post with his description of a wrong back card), so that seems to be correct.

scott elkins wrote:...and were printed for him by his friends at Goudey in their auction description of the Durocher.

Do you still have the scan of the 106 Durocher in the Mastro auction? I remember you posted it at least once. I don't remember exactly how Mastro described it in the auction (BTW, does anyone know who owns it now? Just curious), but assuming he described it as you said, I have not heard any other source describe it that way except possibly those that read Mastro's description. Thus I'm interested in seeing how Mastro came up with that theory, or if he was just throwing out a possibility, maybe something like: "we don't know how this card came to exist with the 106 number on a Durocher card. Maybe Goudey employees printed it to fill the hole in the set for their employees." If it was phrased in that way, I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting it as fact. So, that's why I'd be interested to see how it was phrased and see the scan of the auction again.

King, I did post the description on Aimoo before (that is probably where you saw it). I have to do a few things at the moment. However, I will try and find the catalog later tonight and post the auction description for the Durocher.

x