[ullmandds]

Calling a card a "high end 10" seems kinda superfluous? Shouldn't all 10's be...10's?

Originally Posted by ergoism

This lines up with the history I have heard about the card.
Mark Murphy consigned his 1952 Topps set to Richard Wolffers Auction House, owned by Duane Garrett. There was a $250,000 reserve on the set and it didn't sell. Bill Hughes was then in charge of brokering the set. He broke up the set to various collectors, David Hall being the one that purchased the Mantle. The card was then graded a PSA 10. It was decided that Hall owning PSA and being a collector was a conflict of interest so he auctioned his collection through Superior and that's where Fogel purchased the Mantle. The card was not from the Rosen find.
I enjoy the hobby history that goes along with cards like this and I have had some incredible conversations with Marshall Fogel. I went to his safety deposit box to look at his 52 Mantle. I brought a ruler, I brought a 40x lighted loupe, and I brought a UV flashlight. I was ready to pick the card apart. The only 2 slight imperfections I saw were a very subtle tilt and back centering that was a little off. The card is truly a remarkable specimen and a high end 10. It measures the full size of 2.65" x 3.75", the color is bold and bright, the corners and edges are sharp yet natural. Having never seen a high resolution scan of the card I was totally skeptical about was I was going to see. "David Hall bought a 1952 Mantle and graded it a 10? Uh huh. Ok Marshall, I'm sure it's great." But it is. I would think if they were cutting these from sheets they wouldn't have left a small tilt like the one on Marshall's, or a bigger tilt like the one on Kendrick's.
I also looked at Marshall's 1953 Mantle 10 with the same detail so I know which of the two in existence is superior.