Heritage Rosen Mantle - Greatest Card Ever Auctioned?

[G1911]

Pulling a Mantle was not difficult. The 51 Bowman and 52 Topps highs was the only time he was in a harder to find series and he was a DP in the Topps. With his All Star cards, combo cards, appearance in many regionals, etc. he might have been literally the easiest player to get a card of in the 50’s.

[G1911]

Shouldn’t the yellow staining at the top prevent this from being a 9.5 Mint+? Does SGC normally allow that on Mint+ cards?

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by G1911

Shouldn’t the yellow staining at the top prevent this from being a 9.5 Mint+? Does SGC normally allow that on Mint+ cards?

I think the "staining" on the first picture is probably some kind of photographic anomaly considering how bright and stain-free that same area appears on the picture to the right of it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by robw1959

I think the "staining" on the first picture is probably some kind of photographic anomaly considering how bright and stain-free that same area appears on the picture to the right of it.

It is clearly visible in both pictures on Heritage's sight of the front of the card. This exact issue, some yellow staining at the top of the card, is on some of the other Rosen find cards. Zooming in on each image, it does not appear to be a scanner defect (from Heritage, who often adjusts their scans). Further, it seems incredibly unlikely that Heritage would list a $10mm card that appears it has damage it does not have; if I was the consigner I would be outraged. A preponderance of the evidence available does not suggest to me Heritage's scanner makes cards appear to have stains they don't; though I'm happy to be corrected. Here's a close up, though the ones on Heritage are better as Net54 does not allow decent quality images to be uploaded.

If I submitted a 1952 Dale Coogan in this exact condition and without the backstory and provenance, does anyone honestly think I would get a 9.5?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is clearly visible in both pictures on Heritage's sight of the front of the card. This exact issue, some yellow staining at the top of the card, is on some of the other Rosen find cards. Zooming in on each image, it does not appear to be a scanner defect (from Heritage, who often adjusts their scans). Further, it seems incredibly unlikely that Heritage would list a $10mm card that appears it has damage it does not have; if I was the consigner I would be outraged. A preponderance of the evidence available does not suggest to me Heritage's scanner makes cards appear to have stains they don't; though I'm happy to be corrected. Here's a close up, though the ones on Heritage are better as Net54 does not allow decent quality images to be uploaded.

If I submitted a 1952 Dale Coogan in this exact condition and without the backstory and provenance, does anyone honestly think I would get a 9.5?

With a little luck you could get a PSA 9(ST).

[G1911]

https://www.gosgc.com/card-grading/submissions

A 7 allows "some print spots or speckling", though stains are never directly stated.

The description for grades above a 7 seem to preclude this sizable area of staining.

I doubt my hypothetical Coogan without hobby flex or a narrative would grade above a 7 on their scale.

[jchcollins]

While that card is undoubtedly fantastic, my impression was that the color on the Fogel PSA 10 might have been a bit better. I've never seen either card in person, so of course that opinion would be very open to interpretation.

[Brian Van Horn]

Just curious-and I am NOT accusing Heritage of this-but is anybody else having Mastro going through their mind on this lot?