CSG flip with '52 Topps Mantle Type 1 vs Type 2: crossover graded "8"
 

CSG just graded a '52 Topps Mantle at an "8" that someone crossed over from another slab as well as a "4.5". They say the "8" is a Type 1 and the "4.5" is a Type 2.

According CSG, and the difference is that:

a) the Mantle signature of the Type 1 has an "e" that curves up, while the Type 2 does not (because it is cut off)

b) The border around the rectangle of stars on the front is solid in Type 1 and jagged in Type 2.

c) The seams on the baseball on the back of the card in the top left corner go to the left on the Type 1, but go to the right and bolder on Type 2.

d) The alignment of the word "DiMaggio's" on the back of the card is aligned slightly more towards the edge of the card on the Typ e 2.

How Andy Broome and his team noticed all of this, I do not know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_McshAcV50

And I wonder what grade the "8" had in the previous holder and what the grading company they crossed it over from was.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...mickey-mantle/

And I wonder what a CSG 8 might go for? As Andy says in the video, the surface is close to flawless.

**WHOOPS probably should have posted this in the post-war forum**

It’s not something they noticed or found, it’s been known for many years in post war land. The 2 types are the result of the card being one of the three double prints and being designed twice to place onto the sheet twice.

Okay, so other TPGs just don't think it is worth distinguishing between the two, I guess. Kind of reminds me of the "Partial Diamond" on the '55 Jackie Robinson that SGC recognizes, but not some of the other graders. Bit of a nothingburger I guess.

One potentially valuable aspect of discerning between the Type 1 and Type 2 is that it could help people distinguish between real and fake cards. Since every Mantle is either a Type 1 or Type 2, a Mantle card that has characteristics of both Type 1 and Type 2 is fake.

I guess there was a thread about Type 1 vs Type 2 about a decade ago:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=166444

My bad for bringing it up again

Mantles
 

cgjackson222- Interesting observation about the 52 Mantles which share
Type 1 and 2 characteristics, as being fakes. The 52 Mickey continues to
enjoy a hallowed place in the hobby (despite some collectors' obvious disdain
for this monumental card). Wish I owned one:) Trent King

The 2014 SCD Standard Catalog lists the 2 Mantle versions as variations. Same for the other DPs with similar front and back differences, J Robinson and B Thompson

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...res/img126.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...res/img127.jpg

The video was very informative regarding Type 1 vs. Type 2. Thanks for sharing.

Back in my Beckett days, Andy and I discussed the Mantle (and Robinson and Thomson) variations. He is very familiar with both as we got both examples at Beckett at the same time circa 2005

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be brought up or criticizing - I’m just giving the history and that it’s not a new CSG discovery or something.

I presume the graders don’t tend to label it because it would A) tick off their master set collectors to add a second Mantle and B) since it occurs both ways exactly 50% of the time there is no rarity factor at all and C) labeling it inherently brings up the 52 Mantle double print topic that is a fact but a fact many in the hobby get very upset about.

I asked PSA to recognize the partial diamond. They declined. They said it was too easy to forge (say what!?!?!?!).

That's crazy. Especially as the Jackie is the same root thing, different slots on the sheet. Both should be extant in equal quantity, thus no real valuation difference for either one. But that's assuming the world worked logically

There was an SCD article about the Robinson. It is not a miscut. Maybe an early run defect that was corrected ? The Wehmeier card in that set has the same issue. But unlike the 52s, they are not equal in quantities. The defects are scarce which may indicate correction

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...pstkhopiiq.jpg

https://hosting.photobucket.com/albu...psxp4qqev9.jpg

What the bloody devil!!!???

How dare you mention this scurrilous falsehood!

Please don’t make me walk the plank :(

The two different Robinsons and Thompsons, also listed as variations in the 2014 Standard Catalog. Different stitching on back and different positioning of top line of stars on front
https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...-06_131119.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...-19_151033.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...-06_132735.jpg
https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...-06_132933.jpg

I agree very informative and agree with others would love to potentially own one one day

Generally Type 1 Mantle's have better color and sharpness=better eye appeal and often bring more money.

Better discussion here. These two types have been known forever. This information is critical if you're trying to assess whether a Mantle is fake, because the fakers don't always get this right, there were lots of bad ones in fake slabs in the mid 2010s and if you knew what to look for it was easy to spot. As has been pointed out above, the 311 was a double print and there are some subtle but clear differences. They are equal in number so the market doesn't really differentiate.
https://bbcemporium.com/index.php?st...=mickey_mantle

Now that's interesting. I know the two Ruth 144s differ in those qualities but I was not aware of it on Mantles.

For several years whenever we've received a '52 Topps Mantle consignment we've recognized the "laces face left" or "laces face right" version.

I'm just happy that Herman Wehmeier found his way on this thread, and I'm sure the Wehmeier family is as well, welcome to the front page Herm, it's been way too long...

So, what is the earliest reference to the two types?

The oldest I can think of was Ralph Nozakis book in I think 1975.

So it was known then, but how much before then?

If you want some interesting reading, do some research into how Mr. Wehmeier spent his final few days.

Rich

Something no one really talked about much, is the fact that a very high value card is in a CSG holder. I suspect they will gain market share over time. I have a submission for them and just need to get to the post office. This week...
.

It’s definitely an intriguing development.

And I applaud the stones on whoever made the call, because I certainly lack the stones to go there.

Hopefully CSG thrives and helps to keep the TPG market healthy and we can avoid having a complete and total monopoly from PSA.

A ballsy move for sure, I wouldn't have the cojones either.

Apparently this was a psa 7.5 crossover

Fantastic point Leon. I immediately noticed that and thought the same thing you did.

As for it necessarily being a smart (or ballsy) move, great question. I guess the biggest potential loss would be from selling it now, and realizing a lower sales prices than if it had been left in a PSA holder. Of course, someone could pay to also have the card re-graded and holdered by PSA again, in which case you're out the grading fees. There's also the risk that PSA would lower the grade from where they previously had it as well. Hearing that this Mantle card crossed from a PSA 7.5 holder certainly impacts the decision of this move. What I'm really curious to know is the motivation behind why someone would decide to make that TPG switch now in this current economy and market. I'm assuming the owner is/was not looking to flip and sell this Mantle card now, unless they were hoping to get a much higher grade, like at least a 9 or better, on the crossover.

I recall when GAI started up and some PSA dealers who were close to Baker were actively promoting them and trying to persuade guys to cross major cards. Not that I had anything that major, but even as to what I had, I was like NFW.

I'm a big fan of CSG. I crossed over my 1986 Fleer basketball set to them, which includes my Michael Jordan RC that was an SGC 9, and is now a CSG 9.

Will do, thanks for the tip Rich.

Great publicity stunt.

I havent seen any allusion to that. Source?


Figured it was min size at sgc

Csg psa
 

It certainly has been great marketing for CSG as they continue to grow their credibility. My original thought was the card was probably a 7 as the value better aligned with a full grade bump making sense for the owner.

I suppose the question would be this:

As an outsider and all things being equal; which one do you take?
For me; it would be the PSA 7.5. I understand the debate the other direction but I'd keep the PSA example.

I believe in this situation. since CSG is already considered a top 4 grading company, getting this Mantle into their holder is going to give them the positive publicity and more of the higher dollar cards. Thus, I do agree with Leon in his supposition

But, on an historical level, I start thinking of the SCD red holders when they graded a whole bunch (and very well) of Larry Fritsch's cards including his T206 Wagner. Yet, despite how well they graded cards (and they did so in the red holder days), SCD could never get any foothold into the graded card market. And when they started SCD grading, Krause was still a very important figure in the sports card collecting world.

Yup. 705K purchase out of Heritage in Aug in the PSA 7.5. https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1536226
One would have to assume this was done by one of the owners/investors in CSG.

Absolutely, as it is a money losing proposition no matter the "grade" . Could be a collector who doesnt care about the value....right

Very good points and logic Rich.

CSG has/had a definite advantage over SCD in entering the TPG card industry, just by the simple fact they are a division of a bigger company, Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) that is/was already a recognized world leader in the grading and conservation of other collectibles, such as currency and comic books, through their other divisions including NGC, NCS, PMG, CGC, CCS, ASG, and CAG. That alone gave CSG a certain level of credibility to many hobbyists right out of the gate that SCD card grading never had. And then to top that off by the further reinforcement of their financial backing and wherewithal with the acquisition of a majority interest of the CCG parent company by the Blackstone investment firms Tactical Opportunities business group just a year or so ago. In other words, CSG isn't going anywhere and is in the TPG card business for the long haul.

And unlike SCD, as you pointed out, not really doing anything big or grand to help promote their company and service, CSG somehow was able to negotiate and land the job of being Ebay's third-party authenticator of raw cards for their recently commenced card Authenticity Guarantee (AG) program. And since Ebay is arguably the largest online (or any) market for card sales in the world, CSG's selection to provide that AG program service for them is a huge boost to CSG's position and credibility in the TPG card industry throughout the entire hobby community. Though I have no specific information or evidence to back it up, I've wondered if the not long after addition to that AG program to also start looking at already graded and slabbed cards for possible tampering or other issues, which ended up going to PSA, may not have been heavily pushed (and maybe even the original idea marketed) to Ebay by PSA. Possibly in response to CSG landing the original AG service with Ebay, and PSA not wanting to possibly be viewed as being trumped by CSG somehow.

And then not long after their new Ebay gig, it was also announced that CSG agreed to work in some type of partnership arrangement with PWCC. And though PWCC does not have the best reputation in the hobby and is still supposedly under investigation by the FBI, I immediately recognized that as a somewhat good business decision by CSG in an effort to further promote and expand their TPG card business. Something SCD wasn't able to do as well. And despite PWCC's tainted reputation, they still seem to handle a significant amount of business in the hobby and maintain a large, and seemingly happy, customer base. And in CSG's decision to work with them, what's the old saying, "There is no such thing as bad publicity".

A while back in a different thread started not long after CSG's agreement to work was announced, I tried to get a civilized conversation going about CSG entering the TPG card business and how their history and promotion to that point seemed very positive and smart from a business standpoint. Also how they may be able to better compete against PSA and actually give them competition and a run for their money. As you can probably guess though, almost immediately the usual suspects, trolls, and naysayers jumped in on how terrible CSG was, and how they'd never do business with CSG because of that, and yadda, yadda, yadda. And of course, when I tried to push back and asked things like if that meant they were no longer going to do business with any other TPGs as well (since to my knowledge PWCC has likely done business with all the other TPGs, and may still be doing so as far as I know), or that they'd no longer work with or use any other businesses or people that dared to work with or for PWCC...........well I'll leave it to your imagination how I got attacked and vilified, or ignored simply because they didn't want to answer any questions and possibly show how bad or warped their logic and thinking was.

Maybe after all the time that has now passed, the topic of CSG's place and potential future in the hobby can be discussed sans the trolls and naysayers. For example, from a recent thread showing how many cards the big four card TPGs had graded that particular month, it was clearly obvious that though way behind PSA, CSG was clearly #2 on the list. And then there was further discussion in other threads about how SGC's almost zero turnaround time may be a bad sign for them, and how possibly it could lead to them being bought out. I had mentioned before then how it actually might make perfect sense for CSG's parent company to go after and try to acquire SGC as another division of their overall business. Both companies could likely benefit through a sharing of their knowledge and resources, and it would make their combined hobby footprint and presence even bigger and likely better able to compete against PSA. For example, CSG has a Registry, but they are too new and have not graded enough cards as of yet to give them anywhere the reach and impact PSA's registry has. But bring SGC into the fold and incorporate all of their cards in a combined registry, and now you've dramatically changed the story. And both companies are actually headquartered and operate out of Florida. And Rich, my apologies if you already knew most/all of this. But I assume there will often be others reading these posts that don't have the same background, knowledge and experience that you do. This way they can better follow along, and the more knowledge the better usually.

And best of luck if things do not pan out with CSG and someone wants to get that back into a PSA holder. Not suggesting the card is altered or not a 7.5 but imo, the card would not 7.5 again unless submitted through the proper channels and once you break out a card like that there is a risk it simply will not regrade.

Hopefully this was a great move for the owner or the 705K is pocket change.

Here's to health and prosperity to stones everywhere.

PSA hands down. At CSG 8.5 I suppose one would have to consider a switch but for a half grade no.

The problem for PSA is that this card is nicer than the majority of PSA 8s. They graded it as a 7.5 sometime around Feb/Mar of 2020, and the goalposts had already been moved by that time. If you look at all the PSA 8s that were graded in the years prior to this, you'll clearly see that they are inferior cards. I keep hoping that is going to matter someday...

Looks like the Mantle is in the upcoming SCP auction.

http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1952_...-LOT52543.aspx

SCP is estimating that it will sell for $1.5 million or more. If so, not a bad ROI seeing that is sold for $705K in Heritage less than 3 months ago.

A question for the lawyers. Does the auction house have any sort of obligation to disclose that the card was recently in a PSA 7.5 holder?

Auction houses, disclose things? Ha ha ha, good one.

Sells for.less than when it.was a 7.5 and psa wont reholder

Just my opinion

I back this opinion.

+1 Agreed

Unless 2 bidders with interest in promoting the CSG brand, decide to make (another) statement. Ripe for publicity here

I love the smell of market manipulation in the morning, with a heavy dose of publicity!

It’s been discussed as long as I can remember and seems somewhat silly for CSG to hang their hat on. I guess to me, this shows their inexperience as a card grader in a microscope.

I also can’t comprehend the poor decision to cross these to CSG unless they were in a KSA slab or something similar. I can’t imagine that it would not be a loss in resale if Psa or Sgc. Perhaps this was more likely a paid gimmick, in which CSG paid a master collector with both to grade the cards and make a small wave by recognizing the sheet position variant. Seems a much more logical explanation.

As for the reasoning that no other grader does this, well I think you hit all the points nicely.

So a PSA 7.5 sold for 705K by Heritage in August, 2022.

But PSA 8's sell for ~$1.5M

SCP is estimating (hoping for) $1.5M.

So I think if it gets to $1M, that could be considered added value from the crossover from the PSA 7.5 to the CSG 8.
It does seem crazy to me that a PSA 7.5 would sell for less than half of a PSA 8. Small sample sizes, obviously.