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.