Quote:
Originally Posted by brian1961
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian1961
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian1961
I am certain when Alan Rosen wrote his letter of provenance and asserted this example was the best Mantle from his find, it was.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian1961
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.
|
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.