Revisiting 1963 Topps Mantle Potential Color Variant

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

Ok I know that but wouldn't it be unusual for there to be multiple Spahns all with that color swirl? You would expect variation with something that occurs naturally and independent of itself, right? Like, unless you're a twin, you aren't going to be a twin. That kind of thing?

I have no idea what you posted means. I was showing you the different stages of fading on a single card. The Spahn is altered to get that look, there are no others like it.

Originally Posted by packs

I'm glad you brought up the back. Here is the back of my card. If this card is the product of being blasted by the sun into oblivion, the back seems like nothing happened to it to me:

LOL, it would only change the back if the back was ALSO faded.

You can believe whatever you want but all 3 are way beyond obvious faded cards.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have no idea what you posted means. I was showing you the different stages of fading on a single card. The Spahn is altered to get that look, there are no others like it.



LOL, it would only change the back if the back was ALSO faded.

You can believe whatever you want but all 3 are way beyond obvious faded cards.

I'm asking you to explain your opinion is all. If there are no other Spahns like that one because that was done on purpose, how does that support the idea that three cards with the same exact issue happened naturally? Wouldn't that mean there should be variation because something wasn't done on purpose?

The cards all have the same box. If it is fading, I would expect to see other 1963 Topps cards with blue boxes. But that is not what I have found and believe me, I have been looking otherwise I wouldn't have spotted the third Mantle in this thread.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm asking you to explain your opinion is all. If there are no other Spahns like that one because that was done on purpose, how does that support the idea that three cards with the same exact issue happened naturally? Wouldn't that mean there should be variation because something wasn't done on purpose?

The cards all have the same box. If it is fading, I would expect to see other 1963 Topps cards with blue boxes. But that is not what I have found and believe me, I have been looking otherwise I wouldn't have spotted the third Mantle in this thread.

OK lets try this. If you have 3 real missing yellow 1963 Mantle cards where are all the other missing yellow cards from those 3 sheets?

[packs]

I don't know. I haven't found any other blue box 1963 Topps cards while I have been looking for them. If this is the natural product of fading and the same fading occurred three separate times for these Mantles cards, I assumed I would find other cards of common players that had similarly faded. But even though I've found plenty of faded cards in general, I have only found these three that look like this, and they are of the same card and player.

[ALR-bishop]

After the first Blue Aarons showed up and went for a premium they started showing up more regularly ( there is a thread in here somewhere on that trend), but it does seem weird to have a 63 Mantle or 58 Aaron and intentionaly fade it on the hopes someone will think it a rare variant and pay a premium.

[Cliff Bowman]

The brick and mortar sports card stores didn't put commons in the glass enclosed cases to get faded by exposure to sunlight for months on end, they put cards like 1958 Hank Aaron, 1959 Ernie Banks, and 1963 Mickey Mantle that would turn from green to blue often with a small rectangle area that stayed green because it was covered by a price tag. Years ago I used to go to a comic book store outside of Atlanta that had a wall full of high end comics that were ruined by exposure to sunlight day after day.

[ALR-bishop]

I keep my blue Aaron with my set. Maybe I need a blue Banks and Mantle too. I keep one the 63 Pete Rose rookies stamped counterfiet on the back with that set .

[packs]

They very well could be faded but like I said, I would expect other similarly faded cards to pop up. Not to say they won't, I'm just emphasizing that I find it unusual that the only instances I've been able to find are in the same card.

It seems like if this is a result of fading, the fading is pretty uniform. However, that does still leave doubt in my mind because like I said, I can't find it elsewhere.

[JollyElm]

You kind of have a no-win situation here, because there's no way to actually prove beyond reason whether it's a printing issue or just some 'window toast.'

On the face of it, they all definitely have the appearance of being sun-scorched, so it's an uphill battle to convince people otherwise.
Doesn't mean that's what happened, but in the old 'think horses, not zebras' manner, it would be the simplest answer. But, who the eff knows???

On a side note, I downloaded the pic and it sure does look like there is some yellow ink in the horizontal nameplate area of the SGC 2. That sort of highlights the problem. If any of these are in fact missing ink variations, it wouldn't mean that they all are. Again, you got yourself a no-win situation. YOWZA!!

Good luck with it all!!!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

You kind of have a no-win situation here, because there's no way to actually prove beyond reason whether it's a printing issue or just some 'window toast.'

On the face of it, they all definitely have the appearance of being sun-scorched, so it's an uphill battle to convince people otherwise.
Doesn't mean that's what happened, but in the old 'think horses, not zebras' manner, it would be the simplest answer. But, who the eff knows???

On a side note, I downloaded the pic and it sure does look like there is some yellow ink in the horizontal nameplate area of the SGC 2. That sort of highlights the problem. If any of these are in fact missing ink variations, it wouldn't mean that they all are. Again, you got yourself a no-win situation. YOWZA!!

Good luck with it all!!!

In hand if you are shown what to look for it is really easy to see the difference between a missing color card and a faded one. Simple version: Put a nice full color version on the table. Then set your Mystery card beside it. If it looks dull in color it is faded. If it looks exactly the same with nice bright colors except one color is missing it is a real print error.

I love print errors and had to learn this lesson the hard very expensive way. I was beyond pissed off when I learned 99% of the cards I had paid good premiums for from supposed hobby good guys was a bunch of faded garbage from the hobby scum.

[packs]

My own personal theory is the card is missing color and if it had all of the color it was meant to receive, it would pop like the cards you're used to seeing. And it would fade the same way if it were faded, i.e. not turn blue but a more tired version of green.

That's my theory anyway. I think the entire front of the card is incomplete, not just the box.

If anyone at all has a 1963 Topps card that is similar I'd love to see it. It would be easier to debate whether the cards would fade this way if they were faded. Especially if the card was from an entirely different series.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

....there's no way to actually prove beyond reason whether it's a printing issue or just some 'window toast.'

"Window toast". Nice one