'53 Topps Mantle real or fake

[PiratesWS1979]

I had to pass on this card, the seller assured it is authentic but I had too many questions. It does have a rough cut that I have not seen in counterfeits so it has that going for it. The thing that throws up the red flag is the red across the top of the back. There are sides as if it was printed alone that make a visual rectangle. All the '53s I have that are even OC are edge to edge from screening the whole sheet. Any thoughts from experts?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1953-Topps-M...p2047675.l2557

[irv]

Originally Posted by PiratesWS1979

I had to pass on this card, the seller assured it is authentic but I had too many questions. It does have a rough cut that I have not seen in counterfeits so it has that going for it. The thing that throws up the red flag is the red across the top of the back. There are sides as if it was printed alone that make a visual rectangle. All the '53s I have that are even OC are edge to edge from screening the whole sheet. Any thoughts from experts?

I thought I had something but I see this site is also a victim to photobucket.
https://sportscardinfo.wordpress.com...baseball-card/

These pics may be of some help?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=1953+...w=1280&bih=591

[Bigdaddy]

Don't like it, don't like it one bit.

[CW]

Good eye on the reverse, Larry.

Here's an uncut sheet that sold previously.

LINK

[bobbyw8469]

I actually think the card looks good....but I would get it graded quickly....like under the 5 day submission.

[irv]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I actually think the card looks good....but I would get it graded quickly....like under the 5 day submission.

I see what the OP is talking about. There should be zero white to the right or left of the red banner at the top.

My first thoughts were fake as well as the card just looks a bit off to me for some reason on the front. It's a great story/description from the seller, of course, but with only a score of 18 on E-Bay, I don't think I would have went for it even if I could afford it and was in the market for one.

[Volod]

Maybe it's hyper-caution, but a card description that tries too hard to minimize obvious counterfeiting flaws is always a dead giveaway. The red placard printing mistake is the big tipoff.

[lanco02]

Owner also mentions that he has had this card for 50 years. Not sure many 70ish year olds are going to describe their cards as "pretty sweet." Someone's trying too hard to make this look legit.
The back gives this card away. The red on the back is too bright and bold. Plus, the snow above the the dugout quiz looks fishy to me. I would never buy this card unless graded first.

[swarmee]

Are you all sure it's not just bad scanning/photography with oversaturation? That was my first thought.

[Zach Wheat]

Same issue with the front. The lower left edge of the front of the card should also have the red all the way to the edge of the border. The lower left corner obviously has some wear where the white shows through....but no the rough cut edge.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by lanco02

Owner also mentions that he has had this card for 50 years. Not sure many 70ish year olds are going to describe their cards as "pretty sweet."

I had the same exact thought, without even really looking at the card.

[MW1]

The card looks real/authentic to me. The unusual red on the back is due to an overzealous use of the contrast control in the scanning application.