There are a million Henderson 9s, not really a good analogy.

Are you insinuating that a PSA 10 Mantle would bring less than $205,714,286?

Aren't there 3 PSA graded 10 Mantle's from the '52 Topps set out there? Not sure when the last one changed hands but, even if it was before '52 Mantles reached 7 figure status, those three should all be counted as million dollar cards as well.

Marginally less.

This PSA 9 is the most beautiful example I have ever seen. Congrats to the winner, and I'm pretty sure he'll have no trouble flipping it down the line (if he chooses to).

Now some of you are wondering what stopped it from getting a grade of 10 GEM MINT. Did anyone spot the red print line on the reverse side? It can be seen where it says "Switch-hitting Mickey is heralded ..." Maybe that prevented it from getting a 10? Any thoughts?

Ranjodh

If this was graded after the 3 10s I think it may just be a decision by PSA not to give any more 10s. I doubt it's anything specific on the card itself.

You're definitely not alone. I would rather the Ruth in any condition (or a number of other baseball cards) than the Mantle in any condition.

sounds ethical

I am just speculating of course, but it does stand to reason that on something so exclusive and with so low a pop in the grade PSA would be mindful of not wanting to devalue existing examples. Is there any 10 on earth that would be wrongly graded in a 9 holder? The differences to me seem minute or arbitrary. And I would bet heavily that lots of 10s in general are bumps from 9s. The 10 grade is brilliant marketing but I don't think it means much condition-wise.

So what do you mean, flipping it down the line?

Flipping it. Down the line. = Selling it. Later.

"Flipping it" = selling for a profit

"Flipping it down the line" = citing the price of what a PSA 10 supposedly sold for when trying to legitimize the asking price for your PSA 9

That's a pretty crappy thing to do, if true. I know you're just hypothesizing, Peter, but a card should be graded on its merits, alone; population should have absolutely no bearing, whatsoever.

"Your card is pretty much the embodiment of gem mint, but, I'm sorry, we've already met our quota for Gem Mint '52 Mantles. However, should you crack it, and have one of our best clients submit it for grading, who can say what might happen?"

My eye isn't as highly developed as yours, and many of our more seasoned vintage collectors. But looking at it on HA's site, at 100% magnification, and knowing what PSA objectively considers when grading (centering, corners, surface and edges), I can't see anything on the front of the card that would downgrade it from a 10 to a 9. The centering is ever so slightly to the right, but within allowance for gem mint. If you compare Evan's card to the GEM MT PSA has on its grading standards page, the centering is nearly identical. And, maybe I'm going senile, but the 10 they utilize on the standards page seems to have a slight diamond cut; the white border on the right is thinner on the top, and gets thicker as you move down. The corners and edges are about as pristine as I could imagine for a 66 year old card. The surface looks beautiful, and the borders are a nice, bright white.

It may be that the PSA example looks washed out because of a poor scan, but I think Evan's card is much more appealing.

BTW, congratulations on the hammer price, Evan!