NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-13-2017, 05:00 AM
russkcpa russkcpa is offline
Ru.ss Khederi@n
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 226
Default 1960 Topps Mantle PSA 9 with print mark

Was this a common flaw with the 1960 set ? I've seen several of the 1960 Topps cards with small print flaws. This example still garnered a grade of 9 and looks perfect other than print mark.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1960 mantle psa 9.jpg (67.9 KB, 335 views)
File Type: jpg 1960 mantle psa 9-1.jpg (71.4 KB, 329 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-13-2017, 05:54 AM
chalupacollects chalupacollects is offline
T!.m H.
Tim Hu,nt
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,345
Default

Yes the little bullseyes were fairly common from 59-63. Don't think the TPG's view it so bad unless there are a lot of them...nice card BTW!

Last edited by chalupacollects; 10-13-2017 at 06:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:16 AM
russkcpa russkcpa is offline
Ru.ss Khederi@n
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupacollects View Post
Yes the little bullseyes were fairly common from 59-63. Don't think the TPG's view it so bad unless there are a lot of them...nice card BTW!
As for the investor it's interesting to see how some will ignore snow or corner touches and focus only on centering and marks. This is why people are shocked when their near mint card comes back at a 5 and not an 8 or 9 !!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:19 AM
glynparson's Avatar
glynparson glynparson is offline
Glyn Parson
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blandon PA
Posts: 2,184
Default its fine

looks like a nice card to me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-13-2017, 08:51 AM
OsFan OsFan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 206
Default

Took me a minute to find it which I think helps. If it were on The Mick’s forehead that’d be another story. Though I wonder if the grading companies see it that way as well.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-13-2017, 08:57 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OsFan View Post
Took me a minute to find it which I think helps. If it were on The Mick’s forehead that’d be another story. Though I wonder if the grading companies see it that way as well.
I think a mark on his nose or the back of the card in a blank area pretty much counts the same. Not always, but pretty much. I am not bidding on a great looking card in an auction right now, that I need, because of a tobacco spot on the player's head... It's a fantastic card otherwise and I need it. But all I see is the dot on the head .... AND it's centered almost perfectly.....which I absolutely love. But that darned dot is all I see....
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 10-13-2017 at 08:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-13-2017, 09:17 AM
russkcpa russkcpa is offline
Ru.ss Khederi@n
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
I think a mark on his nose or the back of the card in a blank area pretty much counts the same. Not always, but pretty much. I am not bidding on a great looking card in an auction right now, that I need, because of a tobacco spot on the player's head... It's a fantastic card otherwise and I need it. But all I see is the dot on the head .... AND it's centered almost perfectly.....which I absolutely love. But that darned dot is all I see....
I would tend to think you are correct. It's all a matter of where the imperfection lies. Looking at this Mantle card I see tremendous colors with absolutely no snow or surface imperfections (other than the print mark) Add to that razor sharp corners and you can see why it would garner a 9. On my wish list !!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-13-2017, 10:52 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 8,946
Default Marki

Anyone know if the mark is recurring ? The 67 Mantle can be found ( fairly easily ) with a red print dot at the bottom right front above the S in Yankees or along top right border. To me these are recurring print defects, or variant cards ( as opposed to variations) but they do not seem to affect the grading of the 67 card in any way.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-13-2017, 11:07 AM
russkcpa russkcpa is offline
Ru.ss Khederi@n
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 226
Default

A beautiful example with that recurring defect. I'm guessing it will not affect grade. This is a great looking PSA 9
Attached Images
File Type: jpg mantle-1967.jpg (79.1 KB, 273 views)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:09 AM
MattyC's Avatar
MattyC MattyC is offline
Matt
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by russkcpa View Post
A beautiful example with that recurring defect. I'm guessing it will not affect grade. This is a great looking PSA 9
It is true the 67 and 60 PD's noted in this thread were rather common flaws on the cards; similar issues routinely plague the other Mantle basic issues. Despite the common nature of the flaws, I couldn't give those two 9s a pass and call them nice 9s, in my opinion. On the 67, side centering is off and it has the PD above the S. One can find an example without those flaws, though it is scarce. Same for the 1960; that PD and the centering (not to mention the focus) would make it a hard pass— at that grade level for that money I need the card to look lights-out.

Many of the high-grade Mantle cards were given those grades ages ago and would not make the cut today. Card over flip.

Last edited by MattyC; 09-13-2018 at 11:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:23 PM
pokerplyr80's Avatar
pokerplyr80 pokerplyr80 is offline
je.sse @rnot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,914
Default

I've seen them referred to as a fish eye before, but as others have mentioned they're pretty common. I've even seen a couple of PSA 10s with them. And I agree with Matt if I were to spend the kind of money a 60 Mantle in a psa 9 would go for the card would need to be nearly perfect in terms of centering and visible flaws. Otherwise I would prefer a nice 7 or 8.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:02 PM
Empty77 Empty77 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 233
Default

I both agree mostly and disagree in part with all comments so far which pretty much are spot on. I tend only to operate in high grade and so look at these a lot [not Mantle though since he sucked and his cards are overrated ].

-I also follow the term 'fish eye' for them, but 'bullseye' works just as well
-they are ubiquitous, even in 9s, and if not the high-end pops of this era would be far lower than they already are
-I personally dislike them and avoid them as much as possible, even considering the eye appeal above corners and centering as so many others prefer to focus attention--just matter of personal opinion.
-they are not recurring, like some of the colored marks referenced, as in over and over in the same spot, but rather are utterly random, coming from air or bubbles or something in the process that is not fixed.
-any year with large swaths of color in the design (usually where the name/team are printed) seem especially susceptible
-PSA had an official statement on the site at one point (which I can't find now as it seems they've revised those pages a bit at some point) of how they review them and I recall they explicitly said it is a subjective decision based on eye appeal, so that if it were a big bad one smack on the face, that would be more of a downgrading issue than off on the side where '[it doesn't take away from the overall appeal]'
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-14-2018, 06:26 AM
bxb bxb is offline
Larry P.
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 255
Default

I used to own this card. Got a 9 in spite of multiple fish eyes or print bubbles.

Interesting that PSA will not downgrade for these, or give a "PD" qualifier:

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1536927851
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 609PSA9.jpg (75.4 KB, 79 views)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-14-2018, 08:18 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Empty77 View Post
I both agree mostly and disagree in part with all comments so far which pretty much are spot on. I tend only to operate in high grade and so look at these a lot [not Mantle though since he sucked and his cards are overrated ].

-I also follow the term 'fish eye' for them, but 'bullseye' works just as well
-they are ubiquitous, even in 9s, and if not the high-end pops of this era would be far lower than they already are
-I personally dislike them and avoid them as much as possible, even considering the eye appeal above corners and centering as so many others prefer to focus attention--just matter of personal opinion.
-they are not recurring, like some of the colored marks referenced, as in over and over in the same spot, but rather are utterly random, coming from air or bubbles or something in the process that is not fixed.
-any year with large swaths of color in the design (usually where the name/team are printed) seem especially susceptible
-PSA had an official statement on the site at one point (which I can't find now as it seems they've revised those pages a bit at some point) of how they review them and I recall they explicitly said it is a subjective decision based on eye appeal, so that if it were a big bad one smack on the face, that would be more of a downgrading issue than off on the side where '[it doesn't take away from the overall appeal]'

They're from bits of debris on the rubber offset blanket. They can be anywhere from one time things to somewhat recurring, depending on how long the bit of debris stays in place.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:22 PM
Johnny630 Johnny630 is offline
Johnny MaZilli
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,145
Default

Still sadly believe the overall grade of the card has a lot to do with whom submitted it. Volume and publicity go a long way in terms of marketing a product.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-15-2018, 07:31 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Probably as much as when it was graded. This was an early graded card. I doubt it would get a 9 today. I find it amusing that the print marks are a big deal on this card, but on a 52 Topps, that card was under graded and "better than a 10" despite the print marks.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1960 Mickey mantle print defect johnnyboggs Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 0 09-09-2016 05:51 PM
Goodwin 1952 Topps Mantle 2 Mark with Qual MetsBaseball1973 Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 3 03-03-2016 07:26 PM
Print mark on 1959 topps #317 shprintza Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) 3 06-06-2009 04:46 PM
T206 - Print mark question Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 2 09-22-2008 09:16 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:52 AM.


ebay GSB