SGC 10 Counterfeit Mantle

[nwobhm]

How did this happen…?

https://picclick.com/1983-Topps-52-R...797208812.html

[Orioles1954]

It's not a counterfeit but from a legitimate boxed set that Topps released in 1983. It was produced by the company and is so indicated on the flip.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

It's not a counterfeit but from a legitimate boxed set that Topps released in 1983. It was produced by the company and is so indicated on the flip.

No it’s not. The 1983 reprint set has a Mantle but it doesn’t look like that one. The one above is the well documented counterfeit that PSA delisted scores of…..

Read here:

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1544854

[conor912]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

How did this happen…?

https://picclick.com/1983-Topps-52-R...797208812.html

If you buy your cards from a site called piclick.com, you probably have a rough road ahead. Just my 2 cents.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by conor912

If you buy your cards from a site called piclick.com, you probably have a rough road ahead. Just my 2 cents.

How so? It’s a search engine for ebay. You click the link and it takes you to the ebay listing. It allows you to see front and back from the search page too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So it's a fake of a popular reprint. What a hobby.

[jayshum]

Even if it was a real reprint, I'm surprised at the listed price of $4800. Do other high grade reprints sell for anywhere close to that? I did a quick search on eBay for a T206 Wagner reprint and found a PSA 10 listed for $375. Why would someone pay $4800 for a 1952 Topps Mantle reprint?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Even if it was a real reprint, I'm surprised at the listed price of $4800. Do other high grade reprints sell for anywhere close to that? I did a quick search on eBay for a T206 Wagner reprint and found a PSA 10 listed for $375. Why would someone pay $4800 for a 1952 Topps Mantle reprint?

HA.

Hope springs eternal. All it takes is one moron who clicks on the BIN button. My father in law talks about creating a $1M hamburger, because he'd only have to sell one.

[ullmandds]

i think this belongs in a different section?

[Rich Klein]

This is a bizarre situation. The card is properly described as a reprint as that is what Topps called their set way back in 1983

It's also not the same size as the original 52 Topps card

What makes this harder for all concerned is,, you guessed it, someone made "fakes" of the 1983 Topps reprint card at least according to the card sleuths on the Blowout forums

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1544854

Regards
Rich

[Cliff Bowman]

The biggest flaw and giveaway is the backs are printed upside on the counterfeits.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i think this belongs in a different section?

Don't even go there. Mantle always belongs on the front page. And 311 Mantle extra.

And if it's a fake of a reprint of a 311 Mantle?

Hell yes.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

The biggest flaw and giveaway is the backs are printed upside on the counterfeits.

The newer fakes fixed that. They didn’t fix the M’s in the name or the TCG Copyright sizing/spacing either.

The e in Mantle is a dead giveaway on the front.

[nolemmings]

Not really sure what the OP is asking. "How did this happen?" You linked to dozens of instances where PSA graded this fake as real, so why should/must we be surprised that SGC missed one? You claim it is well documented, yet your link shows that this was outed only a year ago. Was the SGC card graded since, and is your point they should have known?
I will reserve my comments on the grade received and the price asked for a fricking reprint, fake or not, but am just unclear as to the point of the original post.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not really sure what the OP is asking. "How did this happen?" You linked to dozens of instances where PSA graded this fake as real, so why should/must we be surprised that SGC missed one? You claim it is well documented, yet your link shows that this was outed only a year ago. Was the SGC card graded since, and is your point they should have known?
I will reserve my comments on the grade received and the price asked for a fricking reprint, fake or not, but am just unclear as to the point of the original post.

I think the point is that SGC should be able to tell what they are looking at and reliably authenticate a card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think the point is that SGC should be able to tell what they are looking at and reliably authenticate a card.

They should only authenticate real reprints, damn it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They should only authenticate real reprints, damn it.

I mean it’s fine if they don’t want to authenticate the 1983 reprint release from Topps. But since they are, they should be correct about it.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think the point is that SGC should be able to tell what they are looking at and reliably authenticate a card.

Surely so, but it is obvious the fake has made its way through grading undetected dozens of times, so I really don't see a point in asking how. The answer is it happens because SGC made a mistake, just as PSA did dozens of times over. I just don't see it as particularly noteworthy. That SGC graders should be able to tell what they are looking at before authenticating is obvious, that they did not in this case is clear but not shocking, to me anyway. There are worse mistakes made by grading companies that are highlighted here about once a week it seems.

[NiceDocter]

To finish the sublime with the ridiculous, Topps ought to issue an Authorized Reprint of the Fake Reprint card. Then let the grading companies figure out what to do with THAT.

[brianp-beme]

I am wondering who the knuckleheads were that printed the back of the sham reprints upside down. Were they that careless to make a mistake that should easily be identifiable by any reputable reprint authenticator? Or is there something else much more sinister going on here...

Brian ('sham reprints' and 'reputable reprint authenticator' should become accepted hobby terms)

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

….You claim it is well documented, yet your link shows that this was outed only a year ago. Was the SGC card graded since, and is your point they should have known?….

The Blowout discussion post #102 is saying that the card was graded by SGC 3/24.

[Exhibitman]

Wait, wait...


Nope, I tried but I just don't care.

[Republicaninmass]

There was an sgc 9.5 with a big stain, but it wasn't counterfeit.

[Section103]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Wait, wait...


Nope, I tried but I just don't care.

Admittedly, my mind is blown that a fake of some sort was made on a reprint set; but outside of that I just cant care.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Section103

Admittedly, my mind is blown that a fake of some sort was made on a reprint set; but outside of that I just cant care.

I'm in this boat.
However, now that we are here maybe there can be a best reprint of a reprint...maybe with some high-end designation. Like... 1 of 1 (TPG du jour) reprint reprint PWCC E?
.

[nwobhm]

Back up for sale:

https://picclick.com/1983-Topps-52-R...806160206.html

[nwobhm]

Seller changed ebay ID from liquidate-it to Buchanan’s Loot

[FrankWakefield]

what Doc Ullman said back up there... this misses pre-WW II by 4 decades.