Opinions on my '56 Mick...

[jchcollins]

Hi all,

What I am going to detail below is something that has bugged me mildly when I think about it off and on for years. The attached pics of the card in the screw case are of my '56 Topps Mantle #135 gray back. I've had it since I was about 14 years old (1991) when I walked into a card shop in the mall in Hickory, NC and saw it under the glass, my eyes about to bug out of my head - eventually persuading the guy running the shop that day to take everything I had with me (various vintage including a fairly nice '61 Mantle - and at least one '89 UD Griffey RC...) in trade for it. First of all, nice centering huh? Though it is just a tad bit diamond cut if you look very closely. The card itself is in the VG range overall due to the corners, although there are no creases or wrinkles. In general for the last 24 years, I have considered this card among my most very prized possessions. It's still amazing to me in retrospect what a legend Mantle was even to kids like me who grew up in the 1980's...

The 2nd attachment is a bit of a confession, and what I want to ask you all about. What you see in the corner there is where some of the original gloss has worn off along with some paper loss to expose some of the underlying card stock (still white, but a bit more off-white). I'd love to tell you the card has been this way all along for the time that I've had it, but alas - when I first got the card, this area was covered by a very small - but very noticeable - grayish black stain. As a kid (ok, I was actually about 23 years old when this happened) sometime later, I decided that the card, given the fact it was not mint otherwise anyway - would look more....er, eye-appealing without this very noticeable grayish black stain. So with some ingenuity and a little bit of mild (as I remember it anyway) scratching - I removed the stain, leaving the card as it is now. If memory serves, I touched up the rough area with an eraser.

Even to this day I can't say I'm totally upset with myself because 1) I had and have no plans to sell the card or be dishonest about it and 2) uh... it really does look better than it did with the stain!! In fact upon casual inspection, the bottom right corner does not look markedly different than the other corners on the card because they are worn and have areas where this cardboard stock shows through too. It should be pointed out that when I did this was before the advent of professional grading, and honestly I did not think of it as any type of "tampering" with the card at the time. I get that this practice in general is not kosher to say the least now, but that being what it is, it's pretty much water under the bridge - and there is of course nothing I can do about it.

Fast forward another 5 years or so (this brings us up to 2005 maybe?) to a time when I was buying and selling a lot of cards on eBay. I had some really nice 1957 Topps commons that I wanted to get graded to turn around, so I sent them in to SGC. (One of them wound up coming back an 8, which was very satisfying). Almost as a whim at the last minute, I threw the '56 Mantle into the package to send off to SGC to be graded just to see what it would come back as. Many of you now probably will not be surprised as I was at the time to know the card came back as unable to be slabbed due to "questionable color" (I still have the tag) on where else... but that bottom right corner.

My questions: First, what do you think of me, horrible card doctor person?!? Second question will be asked in a follow-up post.

Thanks.

[jchcollins]

2nd post and 2nd question: The attached picture is NOT of my '56 Mantle, but of a card out on eBay right now. Look closely at the top right corner of this card. Now tell me, is this not the same type of paper loss (worse, actually) than what appears on my card in the original post ?!?!?! I guess maybe SCG could detect my "tampering" (if indeed I used an eraser) whereas maybe this card got the paper loss more honestly?

What are your opinions (grading and dispicable card-tampering practices aside...) as to eye appeal and how these types of things affect them?

Thanks.

[bnorth]

As a card doctor you done a horrible job. On a serious note I doubt what you done really changed the value much. You had a stained card before and now you have one missing paper.

EDIT: WOW PSA gives way higher grades with paper loss. I had a solid NrMint Ruth that got a SGC 40/3 because of a piece of paper loss in the border the size of 2 pin heads beside each other. Your card looks to have much more damage because of the loss of ink and gloss.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Your card looks to have much more damage because of the loss of ink and gloss.

Thanks. Yeah mine wouldn't be in the PSA 5 range to begin with, but hard to say. The enlarged scan of the paper loss of that 5 out on eBay I think looks just as bad as what I did, LOL. I suppose beauty (and damage vs. patina vs. character) is all in the eye of the beholder...

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Thanks. Yeah mine wouldn't be in the PSA 5 range to begin with, but hard to say. The enlarged scan of the paper loss of that 5 out on eBay I think looks just as bad as what I did, LOL. I suppose beauty (and damage vs. patina vs. character) is all in the eye of the beholder...

I am with you on it looking nicer without the stain and a little paper loss. You will notice the loss of gloss more if you tilt the card and reflect light off it. Your card also looks to have a little more dirty/old look to it.

If you want to play doctor a little more a good wash, a little exposure, and a hint of gloss would fix it right up.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am with you on it looking nicer without the stain and a little paper loss. You will notice the loss of gloss more if you tilt the card and reflect light off it. Your card also looks to have a little more dirty/old look to it.

If you want to play doctor a little more a good wash, a little exposure, and a hint of gloss would fix it right up.

All valid points. Besides the paper loss, I've always thought of my Mantle as pretty much a VG card without creases, which is what I go for when I can find them from the 1950's and earlier. It's difficult to find VG cards without creases or wrinkles though, (I do have a '53 Topps Reese that falls into that category) and especially graded ones. I also have a '56 Ted Williams which based on corners and other attributes would be a solid EX-MT - if not for one small spider crease on the right side. It was graded an SGC 40.

LOL on the further doctoring. I have no such interests any longer in my old age. Although I've read some of the articles on how people soak pre-war cards and all that stuff and the intricacies are fascinating. I'd faint trying to do something like that. Much less what Bill Mastro did putting a copy of the world's most desirable card into a paper cutting machine...

Bottom line, I look at my Mantle as an "altered" card, but that's ok. You know what else is altered by those same standards? The aforementioned PSA-8 Wagner, and technically - the Mona Lisa. Which has been cleaned and repaired many, many times in it's history. Yeah ok, I know that's a little different maybe. :-)

[KCRfan1]

Nice card John!

Personally, the first thing I would do is get the card out of the screw down holder. I have seen cards get a little wavy in those things and that may hurt grading if you choose that route, and can certainly damage the card.

Keep in mind those new PSA holders are going to be a BEAR to bust a card out of if you do not like the grade your Mantle gets.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Nice card John!

Personally, the first thing I would do is get the card out of the screw down holder. I have seen cards get a little wavy in those things and that may hurt grading if you choose that route, and can certainly damage the card.

Keep in mind those new PSA holders are going to be a BEAR to bust a card out of if you do not like the grade your Mantle gets.

I don't have the screws too tight on it, but good point just the same. Most of my other pre-57 cards that are not graded are in Card Saver I's.

Don't have plans to send this off for grading really because of my experience with SGC. Do you think they would slab it or tell me that it was altered again? PSA does seem to go easier on paper loss, but with this card I'm wondering if they see something else on that corner under the black light. In any event, this card is from a time in my collecting past when I was much less concerned with condition, so I will probably be inclined to leave it as-is and enjoy it for what it is. Back when I was a kid if a card was roughed-up some, that was just more proof that it was old, LOL. (And you should have seen the '65 Mantle I once had that was so waterlogged it couldn't be taken out of it's top loader without disintegrating...) I will admit that though I see the point in professional grading now (and prefer to buy graded cards online for peace of mind...) when I first heard of the practice, I did think it was pretty ridiculous for a good long while. Grading even today remains very subjective. And a quick glance at some other PSA graded '56 Mantle's out for sale right now confirms again what I've seen before: My card even with the paper loss is still a very decent example for the grade. :-)

[KCRfan1]

John, I don't believe PSA goes easier on paper loss. It's a bit of a coin flip, but generally count on a 2 grade deduction for paper loss. So what may appear as a 5 could grade as a 3. An eraser could come back as altered or certainly mk ( mark ) qualifier.

[CW]

I would agree that the EX 5 you showed is overgraded. PSA definitely misses things on occasion. As far as what you did to your card... hey, if you like the way it looks and it's for your collection, more power to you. Even with the minor bit of paper missing that is still a great Mantle!

[cammb]

You didn't doctor anything. You removed something on the card that wasnt put there to begin with. Second of all, if you want a true grading of your cards, then SGC is the company. PSA is a joke with their grading.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by cammb

You didn't doctor anything. You removed something on the card that wasnt put there to begin with. Second of all, if you want a true grading of your cards, then SGC is the company. PSA is a joke with their grading.

I like the way you think. PSA and SGC aside (I like SGC better too...) I have my own grading standards that I've been comfortable with for years. I may be in the minority but I actually think it's fun to grade cards and be able to explain why a card is a certain grade.

[nebboy]

Im showing my 56 Mantle with the same corner chipping problems but my was from being in a screw down holder that was to tight or so I was told by the guy I bought it from. Its has never been graded because Im not getting rid of it. I have been told in a past thread that PSA would be the company to sent it to for the would be more forgiving on the corner chipping or SGC. My best guess is that both of are cards would grade a 3. All of this has been brought up in this tread already but its maybe help to others to know how fragile the corner can be on the 56 set.

[KCRfan1]

Nice card John.

[ls7plus]

[QUOTE=jchcollins;1478092]I don't have the screws too tight on it, but good point just the same. Most of my other pre-57 cards that are not graded are in Card Saver I's...

My experience over 25+ years is that if the screws are only tightened finger tight, you will almost never have a problem insofar as damaging the card is concerned, and the card won't fall out. Screwdowns, especially 1/2 inch lucites, were how we did it prior to TPG slabbing--they are very protective. I say "almost never" because my one exception just happened to be a '62 Maris in NrMt-Mt. The inner holder surface was uneven, leaving a slight wrinkle in the card's surface. I spooned that out as best I could, but it still got downgraded to a "7" by PSA due to that flaw.

Happy collecting,

Larry

[jchcollins]

Sorry again to ressurect an old thread, but as I've said before - I'm prone to do that at times.

(Yes, this is my card - I still have it). Question:

If I were to entertain getting this graded and was looking for just "Authentic" from either PSA or SGC - what would the deal be with the corner discussed in this post? I should know this - but would you have to note it when sending in for PSA and then it gets an "Authentic Altered"? Or if you were to say don't evaluate it for anything other than authenticity - i.e. I'm not looking for a number grade - would it just get A and not the Altered? Does SGC handle differently?

I'm more curious than anything. On the whole still a pretty remote chance I'm going to send it anyway - as it's a card with sentimental value that I will not be getting rid of.

-John

[swarmee]

PSA will first determine if the card deserves a number grade; if so, they'll compare it to the minimum grade you list on your submission form. If they deem it Altered Stock or Altered, you would have to write on the order form "SLAB IF AUTHENTIC", otherwise they'll return it to you ungraded.

If it would get a number grade and you only want it slabbed AUTHENTIC instead, you'd have to write that instruction on the form.