Revisiting 1963 Topps Mantle Potential Color Variant
 

I purchased my SGC 2.5 years ago and asked initially whether anyone felt like the blue box on the bottom of the card, which is supposed to be green, was a variation of the card.

Nearly everyone said it was the result of natural fading due to some kind of exposure.

I moved on. Then I found a second example in another auction a year or two later. Now, I've found a third.

Here are all three examples of the blue box that I have found since I bought my own. They all have the same look to them. While I was originally happy to accept that a fade was a fade, I find it harder to accept that the same fading occurred in the same way three different times. There is almost no variation between the cards, but you'd think there would be if it was the result of natural fading under various different circumstance.

Is it still everyone's opinion that these cards are simply faded?

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5c45c6089c.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ea06e3da3f.jpg

Yes still just as faded as the never ending supply of faded 58 Blue Hank Aaron cards.

In hand if you know what to look for it is really easy to tell the difference between real missing color cards and faded ones. On real missing color cards all the rest of the colors are still nice and bright. Not so much on faded cards.

The thing is though, I've seen plenty of faded 1963 Topps cards. Here's an example. It retains the yellow and the green doesn't turn to blue, just to another shade of green:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...18e9ce8363.jpg

I haven't found other cards from the 63 set with an all blue box either. Only the Mantle.

It's not unusual that three independent cards owned by who knows how many people since 1963 all have the exact same "fade" with no variation at all? Like for example, none of the three Mantles I've found are only partially blue or even anywhere in between each other. They're the same, even though they've worn independently.

I have a Blue Aaron and this Blue Mays. But believe them to be just faded, but am no print expert. What do backs look like ?

LOL, just put it back out in the sun longer. With that card it is super easy to see the fading. Do you have one with nice color? If so just look at the color of the face. Those are way beyond obviously faded.

Here this shows different stages all in one card.

Ok I know that but wouldn't it be unusual for there to be multiple Spahns all with that color swirl? You would expect variation with something that occurs naturally and independent of itself, right? Like, unless you're a twin, you aren't going to be a twin. That kind of thing?

These are the backs of the above Mays cards

I'm glad you brought up the back. Here is the back of my card. If this card is the product of being blasted by the sun into oblivion, the back seems like nothing happened to it to me:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...264971ffe8.jpg

I have no idea what you posted means. I was showing you the different stages of fading on a single card. The Spahn is altered to get that look, there are no others like it.

LOL, it would only change the back if the back was ALSO faded.

You can believe whatever you want but all 3 are way beyond obvious faded cards.

That is why I was first excited about the Mays card. It would seems to me fading would normally only affect one side of the card unless it was erect in a holder of some kind or turned over for even tanning :). But would trust Ben and Steve on printing issues

To me the Beckett one still has an ever so slight greenish hint to it towards the left side?

I vote fading.

I'm asking you to explain your opinion is all. If there are no other Spahns like that one because that was done on purpose, how does that support the idea that three cards with the same exact issue happened naturally? Wouldn't that mean there should be variation because something wasn't done on purpose?

The cards all have the same box. If it is fading, I would expect to see other 1963 Topps cards with blue boxes. But that is not what I have found and believe me, I have been looking otherwise I wouldn't have spotted the third Mantle in this thread.

OK lets try this. If you have 3 real missing yellow 1963 Mantle cards where are all the other missing yellow cards from those 3 sheets?

I don't know. I haven't found any other blue box 1963 Topps cards while I have been looking for them. If this is the natural product of fading and the same fading occurred three separate times for these Mantles cards, I assumed I would find other cards of common players that had similarly faded. But even though I've found plenty of faded cards in general, I have only found these three that look like this, and they are of the same card and player.

After the first Blue Aarons showed up and went for a premium they started showing up more regularly ( there is a thread in here somewhere on that trend), but it does seem weird to have a 63 Mantle or 58 Aaron and intentionaly fade it on the hopes someone will think it a rare variant and pay a premium.

The brick and mortar sports card stores didn't put commons in the glass enclosed cases to get faded by exposure to sunlight for months on end, they put cards like 1958 Hank Aaron, 1959 Ernie Banks, and 1963 Mickey Mantle that would turn from green to blue often with a small rectangle area that stayed green because it was covered by a price tag. Years ago I used to go to a comic book store outside of Atlanta that had a wall full of high end comics that were ruined by exposure to sunlight day after day.

You kind of have a no-win situation here, because there's no way to actually prove beyond reason whether it's a printing issue or just some 'window toast.'

On the face of it, they all definitely have the appearance of being sun-scorched, so it's an uphill battle to convince people otherwise.
Doesn't mean that's what happened, but in the old 'think horses, not zebras' manner, it would be the simplest answer. But, who the eff knows???

On a side note, I downloaded the pic and it sure does look like there is some yellow ink in the horizontal nameplate area of the SGC 2. That sort of highlights the problem. If any of these are in fact missing ink variations, it wouldn't mean that they all are. Again, you got yourself a no-win situation. YOWZA!!

Good luck with it all!!!

I keep my blue Aaron with my set. Maybe I need a blue Banks and Mantle too. I keep one the 63 Pete Rose rookies stamped counterfiet on the back with that set .

They very well could be faded but like I said, I would expect other similarly faded cards to pop up. Not to say they won't, I'm just emphasizing that I find it unusual that the only instances I've been able to find are in the same card.

It seems like if this is a result of fading, the fading is pretty uniform. However, that does still leave doubt in my mind because like I said, I can't find it elsewhere.

In hand if you are shown what to look for it is really easy to see the difference between a missing color card and a faded one. Simple version: Put a nice full color version on the table. Then set your Mystery card beside it. If it looks dull in color it is faded. If it looks exactly the same with nice bright colors except one color is missing it is a real print error.

I love print errors and had to learn this lesson the hard very expensive way. I was beyond pissed off when I learned 99% of the cards I had paid good premiums for from supposed hobby good guys was a bunch of faded garbage from the hobby scum.

My own personal theory is the card is missing color and if it had all of the color it was meant to receive, it would pop like the cards you're used to seeing. And it would fade the same way if it were faded, i.e. not turn blue but a more tired version of green.

That's my theory anyway. I think the entire front of the card is incomplete, not just the box.

If anyone at all has a 1963 Topps card that is similar I'd love to see it. It would be easier to debate whether the cards would fade this way if they were faded. Especially if the card was from an entirely different series.

If you are paying a premium for them let me know how much and how many you would like to buy.:D

Here this thread has some pictures of how cards change color when faded.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ank+aaron+blue

Show me a 1963 Topps common that faded into a blue box. It should be simple but it’s not and that’s what I’m pointing out.

There are cards in the set issued with standard blue boxes and the green boxes clearly have blue beneath them. I don’t find this as unusual as you do. If it was an independent color not otherwise in use, sure. But it’s not out of place either.

I’d also like to point out the condition of the cards. Technical grades aside, all three cards are pretty sharp and don’t give me the impression they were cast aside or left unattended for decades in the sun.

It's weird that you would purposely misconstrue what I said.

In referring to the horizontal nameplate ("box"), that portion of the normal card is bright green. Since green is the result of mixing yellow and cyan ("blue"), pointing out that there is yellow evident there means there was undoubtedly yellow printed across the ENTIRE front of the card (skin tones, etc.) and wasn't 'missing' (on that one card, at least).
Obviously, it's just the easiest place to spot the color, seeing how green that section was supposed to be, and that's why I specifically referenced it.

OK lets make this extremely simple. YOU send me a 1963 Mantle or any other card from the set with the green bottom plus $500. If I can't turn it blue I will return the card and $1000. After I turn the green blue I will post several pics of the color change on here and return the card to you minus my $500 educational fee. We will use your card that way there is no way of you saying it is a different card. It does not take decades and yes I have done it with a 63 Topps card before.

100% fading. I can make these cards in my home easily, removing all of the green or only patterns and parts of it.

Red to Orange on T cards are faded or glue altered. Green to blue on Topps is likewise almost always fading. None of these cards shown left the factory that way and are just heavily damaged.

I'm still struggling to understand your point. You're saying you can purposely manipulate cards to mirror this wear, but how does that confirm that this type of wear is natural?

What does wear have to do with color?:confused:

I get it you want to believe you have some cool super rare card but in reality you have some faded garbage. Like I said I was really sad when I found out the same thing in my collection.

Haha I have a Mickey Mantle card either way in pretty nice shape so I don't think I have garbage. I also didn't pay very much for the ONE example I actually own. The other two were found independently because I look for them. I'm also not super active on the BST but my card has also not been offered for sale.

You're saying this wear is naturally occurring and will occur the same way for all cards because it's just the sun. Then show me another card. I have only found this issue with this one card. I would love to see others.

It seems logical to me. He is saying he can accelerate what would be a longer, natural process of sun fading, to show the effect fading can have on color.

Not to me he's not. He's saying he can match color. But that doesn't mean the sun will do the same thing. It just means he found a way to match the color.

Why does the face look washed out?

I think it's because the card is incomplete. Just like when you see T206's that are fuzzed out and not fully printed. Those yellow and brown T206's don't seem to be the product of fading to me and I wouldn't say the images are as sharp as completed cards either.

Because it’s a faded card ;).

You can make these in under 48 hours with the right light. You can also cover areas of the card to create specific areas missing green or missing yellow, and to prevent other areas of the card from fading. There’s a reason we see more superstar cards like this every year. The flood will probably come soon, it’s not only a natural type of damage but easily mimicked.

I dunno, face looks to me like it's just faded and not missing something in the printing process.

I bought my card three or four years ago. I've been looking for similar cards since. I have found the two I posted.

But I don't just look for Mantle. I look at a lot of 63 Topps cards. If you can post another card from the set that is supposed to be green but is blue instead, I would appreciate seeing it.

If the wear is natural, it should occur the same way for other cards. I haven't been able to find them.

This all day.:D

It's a good thing we are good guys and not like those that have been selling them for decades on eBay.

Just show me another card from the set with the same issue. Any card. I would really appreciate seeing one.

Superstars are the ones that sit in dealer cases/display for years. They are also the people who can do exactly what I can (which takes little knowledge and no talent) will do if they're scammers looking to make money off people who want to believe they have/bought something special that is not.

You can just go make any green 1963 subject a blue in a day or two with the right light. I believe the full process has even been posted here before and numerous examples have been shown in other threads. You want 100 commons like this, just go make them for yourself. You'll see them occasionally, I've owned a couple I threw into my bulk lots of dupes I sell/trade off because they are just damaged cards and not in any way special or errors.

The one that really bothers me is the 69 Mantle. The White Letters is a legitimate error that was printed that way, but by using this same method and covering the other areas of the card, you can just make a white letters at home that is not readily distinguishable from the real authentic variation of that card. As a variations collector this one really bugs me because it's not obvious BS like the 58 Aaron, a 63 Mantle, or these other fade jobs.

None of the Mantles I posted were advertised as anything other than a 1963 Topps Mickey Mantle in the stated grade.

I would think if you manipulated a card because you wanted to cash in, you would advertise there was something different about it.

I didn't say these 3 were or claim to trace the ownership and sales history of these 3. These 3 are likely from display, i.e. a not fraudulent occurrence. An indica of this is the faded overall appearance, and that the blue in the insert photo is a different blue than the faded off green (it would be the same blue if it was printed that way using the blue pass). The fraud ones are usually smart enough to cover the rest of the card so the targeted light to accelerate the natural process doesn't hurt the other colors and only the green or yellow is removed to create an "error". People have been making and selling them for a very long time.

First, it was naturally occurring display damage. Now, it can be done by doing XYZ to it.

If it is natural wear and the sun will turn the box blue on any 63 Topps card, I'm just looking for another example. Please post if you have one.

This is really not difficult or a contradiction. It's how the green ink responds to light. It will happen naturally if a card gets direct sunlight for long enough. You can also easily accelerate this process to make them in less than 48 hours with the right light setup. How is this difficult to understand?

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, it's America. You have a special snowflake if that makes you happy. If you want I'll pull out my half blue 1977 Topps Star Wars I created as my test subjects on Friday when I get home from a trip. You can find examples online easily, including previous threads here.

I understand the sun and what sunlight does but what I question is whether this would be the outcome. I thought it was a good explanation for the one card I had. Then I found two more like it. But I’m having hard time finding other cards with similar wear outside of Mantle. If you have an example please share it.

Here is my half faded Ron Jackson. I threw most of the stuff I experimented on away and also like a dumb a$$ never kept notes.

Hope this link works from 5 years ago. There is an image of a "Blue" Kaline.


Mike

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ighlight=faded

You obviously really don't and that is the problem because those Mantle cards are exactly the outcome.

To make this even simpler if possible. Thake a 1963 Topps card you own with the green bottom. Put it in a card saver and put it outside in the sun. After some time(a few weeks since it is fall) you will have a card with the same exact wear/color whatever you want to call it.

Al and Ben have already both posted examples of cards with the same damage, 1 likely from 'natural' light means and 1 from artificial. I can show an example of a 77 I made myself designed to appear 'natural' I have kept in my altered card bin on Friday. You can find more examples online easily if you want too. Look up 58 Aaron's and you will find several. I don't know why you keep pretending there are none and you aren't seeing any. Here's 2 I pulled in 5 seconds - neither left the factory this way.