Jesse, the flip is referring to and quoting Rosen's words from the letter he wrote about this very card. It's a nod to the provenance, as opposed to a reference from SGC about the card's grade. Just clarifying.

While it was eons ago, I remember well opening multiple packs of the last series '52 Topps, or as many as my meagre allowance at the time would allow, in a vain search for the Mick. My hometown growing up was Schenectady, NY, which seemed to have been blessed with an abundance of the ultimate series due to whatever geographical distribution Topps planned. I found Campy, Pee Wee, Jackie and Eddie without any trouble, but, oh, that Mantle eluded me. I already had the '51 Bowman, which I had found in a pack the prior year when the cards bug infected me (still infected) and knew i had to have the '52 Topps. Despite all the time since then, I have never owned one. Ted, you were one lucky Dude when you grabbed that mystical pack. If it couldn't be me, I am glad it was you. John

Amazed
 

Might be one of the coolest things I have ever read on this site, thanks for sharing Ted

Makes sense. Since he did see them all together he would have had the best chance to identify the finest example. Hard to imagine a better looking 52 Mantle. If I hit tonight's mega millions I will be bidding.

John, thanks for sharing this insight into what it was like back then. Truly, alongside Ted's experience, one of the coolest perspectives I've absorbed here. Many of us born in the 70s and 80s, who grew up staring at the 52T set in the likes of Beckett and CCP guides, have imagined as boys (and even as men!) opening those packs when they were the current cards out. Amazing.

Best,

MC

There appears to be a stain on the top center. Still a sharp card. 9.5....ok

I see what you're talking about.

Geez, all of the Mantles cards I've had graded come back with ("MEH") on the label.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

Definitely curious that SGC was used. I think that is a huge boost to SGC since i cannot recall a top top card like this in an SGC holder. Any others?

It's a great card, but there is toning/staining that just cant be ignored. Someone will buy the flip for the bragging rights.

Agreed about the stains and agreed this card will be about the bragging rights

Since Multiple people are brining up staining... I have one question to them, What grade would you give it?? To me, this card deserves a SGC 9.5.

Maybe the discoloration/staining is why the card is a 9.5 and not a 10? Just a thought.
I also agree it's a trivial issue and deserves the 9.5.

And then for 70 years successfully kept your mother, girlfriend, wife from throwing it out. :)

Amazing stuff...seriously. What 95% of collectors day dream about.

If I had submitted it I would have been hoping for an 8. That's what I would have graded it myself. And a fine looking 8 it would be.

Dick Towle could have got that stain out. Just sayin'.

I would imagine the bias in grading this one was huge, even for SGC. You've got to imagine that a 9.5 from them on any 1950's card is a pretty rare occurrence. Then they have this specimen, with provenance from Mr. Mint saying he thinks it's the best '52 Mantle in the world. So what do you do with that? I'm thinking the conversation between Peter and the boys was something like "Well, we sure can't give it a 10 because that would lead to criticism that we just totally bowed to the letter, etc. etc." If I'm remembering correctly, when PSA handed out their three 10's on the same card, there was no fanfare and press that followed because of an immediate sale.

I'm guessing they first all agreed that it was mint and then said, "eh, give it the 9.5 to make is special but not a 10."

Since SGC has 2 different 10s they could have give it the lower of the 2.;):D

True. SGC actually has 2 higher grades than the one they gave it.

The card itself is beautiful, and it's the letter that takes it to the next level!!

Smart Man for not only preserving the card but for preserving the letter by Rosen! That letter will probably put 2 to 5 more million in his pocket.

Ethics aside, who in their right mind would risk any damage to a card like that?

Someone who thinks he can quadruple the price of a card already worth millions of dollars for the cost of a procedure that's already been profitably performed on many other cards and is rarely, if ever, detected by TPGs

I thought the grading companies didn't know the submitter when they graded cards. At least that is what they say. Should be objective, they should never know the background of the card, but grade based on looking at it. I know I'm living in a dream world.

SGC’s standards seem to make it a 7 at best.

A card better than mint does not have obvious and significant staining, under any grading companies criteria.

That's what I was thinking. This elegant, perfect card is pristine, aside from the tinzie bit of finger oils when it was handled. With a scanner, that would intensify the very, very, very X 10 to the 3rd power stain. In the hand, it would hardly be noticeable.

Some of you are getting extremely snarky and seem to be bent on trying to do some idiotic Native rain dance to diminish the luster of this dream card. Again, Mr. Mint said it was the best. Even if there's really about four of these that would grade pristine, that's not very many, and would classify as RARE.

The card is going to fetch a king's ransom---whether you like it or agree with it or not.

--- Brian Powell

PS---if I was financially that well-fixed, I'd go after it in a heartbeat.

this is true...and obviously shows there is NO anonymity with some cards.

In this instance the provenance is important...although it does create a double standard.

It's an incredible card regardless of the grade...which is just an opinion, right?

I could not agree more. To my eyes, this card is one of the prettiest 311s I have ever seen, with the toning in that top border or not. I see this as a case of the card meriting the grade and not someone merely buying a flip. I think if someone is paying attention to the flip on this one, they are focusing their eyes on the wrong thing. It's a beautiful card IMO.

Also, in my experience, a flaw like the one that has been pointed out— such things seem glaring when enlarged in a scan, yet in hand, in real, daily life, they are not bothersome, at least to me. I've been on the fence about cards from something I became fixated on in a scan, and then when I received the card in hand, I was happily impressed by how what I thought could have been an issue for me was no issue at all. In short, scans and enlargements can often be distorting/misleading. My hunch is that is the case with this beauty and that in hand it would not disappoint.

In sum, I just cannot hate on this card. As a huge proponent of "buy the card" and someone who has never needed high grade to be totally satisfied, if I had the means I would buy this one in a heartbeat and love looking at it in hand every day til I croaked.

Yes, we should ignore the blatant evidence of our eyes because Mr. Mint gave a quote on a card he was selling for big money. To see the damage that does not seem, by SGC's scale, to be allowable on that grade is to be bent on performing an idiotic rain dance to diminish the luster of this card.

I get there are entrenched narratives, but being able to see is not idiotic. Denying the blatant evidence of one's eyes is idiotic.

We all know my hypothetical Coogan with the same staining would not get a 9.5.

That it will sell for a record price and is a great card does not change this.

That's an amazing story, Ted, but wasn't it kind of awkward buying baseball cards in 1952 at age 73? Did you lie and say it was for your grandson? :D

I kid you, my friend. I realize you were only 58 at the time.

Does the excitement and (potential) record price of this card have an effect on lesser examples? If the 9.5 goes for $10 million, is a 1 then worth 1% of that? Discuss.

Greg, I do not deny there is slight staining, presumably from fingertip oils. Said oils are assuredly there, but your wording makes it sound as if it has ruined a once-pristine card. This blatant evidence assessment was what I believe is idiotic.

I just believe if this card is taken to the National, and is scrutinized by all the peons like me, they will see that it is NOT that noticeable. Good scanners throw a proverbial spotlight on the subject, and as I maintain, intensify anything that would de-grade a card from a 10. If it turns out the card at close range is as bad as the scan, then I am wrong.

I am certain when Alan Rosen wrote his letter of provenance and asserted this example was the best Mantle from his find, it was. Regardless, it seems some of us are being too quick to pronounce harsh judgement on this regal condition rarity. The National is coming up; hopefully, it will be there. If I could go, I would love to see it in person; that experience alone would be worth going to and paying to see.

--- Brian Powell

The grading company has to know who submitted the card or how the f would they return it to the submitter. What stupidity. The person typing it in the system isn’t the grader. So It could easily still be anonymous. FFs I swear some people here have been beaten by the idiot stick. .

Where did somebody say the card is ruined? Where did somebody say this card is anything but great? Where was it implied the card is 'ruined'? Nobody said this. All that was said is that the card has damage that clearly precludes it from a 9.5 on their scale. I get that it is easier to call something other than what was actually said idiotic, but that is itself idiotic to do. Making things up to argue against is not rational.

Heritage has a long history of doing the opposite, actually. Assuming that it will look better in hand is an assumption of faith and, frankly, irrelevant to grading. Let's just assume it anyways. It's still not a 9.5. Isn't the whole point of grading to grade the actual condition and not eye appeal? That's why a spider wrinkle nobody can see takes a 7 to a 3.

We will assume his judgement is correct and that Rosen was an honest man. This is, as you surely know, utterly irrelevant even after this very generous assumption though. Rosen's opinion that it was the nicest does not make it a 9.5. The best example of a card does not make it a 10 or a 9.5 or a 9. A card does not become a 9.5 because the seller thinks it looks nicer than others; it is supposed to meet the criteria. Again, we all know me submitting a random Dale Coogan like this would not get a 9.5.

What does speed have to do with it? The card either does or does not have the damage. The damage either is or is not consistent with a 9.5. It takes a few seconds to observe this. I must wait until the auction is over and the hype train wrapped up before observing a fact, if it may be observed at all?





I gather many here are very emotionally invested in this card and the Mickey Mantle hype train in general. Relax, your investments aren't going to be hurt because people can see the blatant staining all over the top of this example. Mantle's will keep going up, most will pretend this 9.5 is an actual 9.5 and it will set a record price, and then we can jump back on our sanctimonious high horses to rail at the corruption and errors that are unpopular and ignoring the corruption and errors that are popular while getting upset when they are observed, just like always.

Valid point as always, Greg. Agree completely and no you would not get the 9.5 on the Coogan. The Mantle is stunning but it appears in the scan to have a flaw that suggests it is over graded.

I am not shocked by the grade in the environment that we are in on a card of this stature. Sadly grading companies have a lot to gain by over grading this one and we have seen it routinely on T206 Wagners that are assessed at grades higher than a common from the same set would have gotten in similar condition.

While the discoloration to me is minor, in the scan, I think the more appropriate grade is NM-MT and in technical terms that could even be over graded. We all see much less valuable cards that have eye appeal that is 2 to 3 grades higher than the assigned grade. As a TPG, you have abrogated your responsibility once you stray from your own grading standards. That SGC would do that now comes as no shock given PSA's continued dominance in the TPG realm.

Anyway, matters not what we think. The card will break records and the owner will be ecstatic with their new purchase. Within 6 hours of the close of the auction will we see their fb, ig and twitter posts. Just hope they are wearing one of those super cool t-shirts and matching ball cap!

Over Under on the buyer's age: 39

I wonder why PSA, when it went to half grades, did not include a 9.5?

Probably about right, but I'll take the over.

Because they could wait years and say OK now we will grade a 9.5 and people will send in 9's in record numbers. Easy money. Not saying it will happen, but don't be surprised if it does.

Highest priced card -T206 Wagner SGC 3
 

SGC already has the highest priced card ever sold, the SGC 3 T206 Wagner that sold last year in REA.
With this card, SGC will have the two highest ever. Take that, PSA.

6.6 million
 

Here's the pics

Yes but it won't change the fact that 90 percent of cards in SGC holders will sell for less, and frequently much less, than the equivalent PSA.

My guess is that this guy might want it for display in New York:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen_(businessman)

He is a part owner of PSA though.

pretty good way to hedge one’s business!

In Rosen's letter he says this back is perfectly centered:confused:

His statement that the front is perfectly centered side to side and top to bottom appears to be more accurate and perhaps it's the scan but is anyone else seeing the slightest diamond cut? To me looks like top left border is larger than top right and bottom left is smaller than bottom right. Very small difference. Maybe someone could enlarge this image and measure it out.

This is from the PSA forum thread.
https://i.postimg.cc/kG1FrPbp/egdu29jsih9g.webp