Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
Yes, we should ignore the blatant evidence of our eyes because Mr. Mint gave a quote on a card he was selling for big money. To see the damage that does not seem, by SGC's scale, to be allowable on that grade is to be bent on performing an idiotic rain dance to diminish the luster of this card.
I get there are entrenched narratives, but being able to see is not idiotic. Denying the blatant evidence of one's eyes is idiotic.
We all know my hypothetical Coogan with the same staining would not get a 9.5.
That it will sell for a record price and is a great card does not change this.
|
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.
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.
I am certain when Alan Rosen wrote his letter of provenance and asserted this example was the best Mantle from his find, it was. 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.
--- Brian Powell