Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>Robert {Bigb13}</b><p>What do you guys think about this one? Rob http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&item=300036586266&rd =1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>jackgoodman</b><p>Strange rubbing in area on back where it might have said reprint. None the less, still looks fake. My 2cents. <br /><br />Fixed the link:<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&item=300036586266&rd =1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&item=300036586266&rd =1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&rd=1</a><br />

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I think the owner was so proud he had it bronzed.

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Common reprint with the words reprint erased off the back.<br /><br />This type of 1952 Bowman reprint had the Bowman Gum Inc. copyright info on the back replaced by the word "reprint" and then it was erased.

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>Currently at $113... Poorly aged reprint. Wonder if he used Sanka or Folgers. Lotsa red flags. <br /><br />Especially like the provenence; Granpa buys in '52, granddaughter acquired it and now the new owner, which he indicates he's selling it for. But hey, he's 'Customer Oriented" (except for the no return policy that is)<br /><br />PSA 4 and 2 for comparison;<br /><a href="http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/oche16/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/oche16/</a><br /><br />

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>Rick McQuillan</b><p>Did you notice the bidder has 7 previous purchases, and 5 of the purchases are from this seller? Nothing fishy happening here!

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>Russ Bright</b><p>we know it's a fake, but in addition to obvious things... the spacing between 5'11" is 3 hyphens worth instead of one like every other 1952 Bowman i am holding in my hand.<br /><br />Juts wanted to make sure you knew I was paying attention

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Also, 1950s Bowman and Topps salesman samples had advertising literally pasted across the back, and were usually in uncut panels.

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Steve,<br /><br />So what are the signs of an artificially aged card. Usually I assume a card is legitimate when it's old and worn. If I saw that Bowman Mantle at a card show I might have bought it.<br /><br />Peter

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>First of all the entire card looks like it was soaked in tea. Natural aging would not look like that -- the boarders might have yellowed or browned a bit, but this entire card looks uniformly toned -- like the whole card got a uniform sun tan. <br /><br />If this card doesn't jump off the screen at you shouting "fake" or "reprint" then you should not be purchasing raw baseball cards for more than a few pennies. Spend a little more money on PSA/SGC and learn the difference before you invest anything in raw cards.

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Now that you mention it, the Bowman Mantle does look too dark for it to be normal aging. I'll have to be more careful in the future. Generally, I only buy from dealers I have known for a while.<br /><br />Peter

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>This card is one of the easiest of all reprints to spot. Because there is actual design differences. This card is missing 2 complete lines of print at the bottom of the back... <br /><br />"C.1952 Bowman Gum Division Haelan Labora-<br />tories Inc. Phila 44 Pa - Ptd in USA"<br /><br />When the reprint was designed they removed the last 2 lines of print then replaced it with the word "Reprint" then that was scuffed off.<br /><br />The best thing to do when in doubt is to compare the card to other cards (best are graded cards). You will start to see differences in ink color, border width, card stock, surface gloss and texture, cropping, definition, and wear and age patterns, etc. fake wear and age is usually overdone and doesnt match the way an authentic card would wear/age.

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>This is a "schizophrenic" card.....the front, obviously, looks like a 1952 Bowman Mantle,<br />but the back is printed in the style of a 1951 Bowman. The obvious tell-tale clue is the<br /> RED ink.<br />No bonafide 1952 Bowman has RED ink printing on the back.....it's a fake.<br /><br />T-Rex TED

Mantle
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>lol, it seems there's a never ending supply of reprints dippped in tea and then the area where the word reprint should appear is mysteriously erased. That card is shouting reprint as loud as it can without actually writing reprint on itself. If your gullible enough to believe these crackpot stories and ignore all the signs its a fake, then you need to find a new hobby!