1960 Topps Mantle PSA 9 with print mark

[russkcpa]

Was this a common flaw with the 1960 set ? I've seen several of the 1960 Topps cards with small print flaws. This example still garnered a grade of 9 and looks perfect other than print mark.

[chalupacollects]

Yes the little bullseyes were fairly common from 59-63. Don't think the TPG's view it so bad unless there are a lot of them...nice card BTW!

[russkcpa]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Yes the little bullseyes were fairly common from 59-63. Don't think the TPG's view it so bad unless there are a lot of them...nice card BTW!

As for the investor it's interesting to see how some will ignore snow or corner touches and focus only on centering and marks. This is why people are shocked when their near mint card comes back at a 5 and not an 8 or 9 !!

[glynparson]

looks like a nice card to me.

[OsFan]

Took me a minute to find it which I think helps. If it were on The Mick’s forehead that’d be another story. Though I wonder if the grading companies see it that way as well.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by OsFan

Took me a minute to find it which I think helps. If it were on The Mick’s forehead that’d be another story. Though I wonder if the grading companies see it that way as well.

I think a mark on his nose or the back of the card in a blank area pretty much counts the same. Not always, but pretty much. I am not bidding on a great looking card in an auction right now, that I need, because of a tobacco spot on the player's head... It's a fantastic card otherwise and I need it. But all I see is the dot on the head .... AND it's centered almost perfectly.....which I absolutely love. But that darned dot is all I see....

[russkcpa]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think a mark on his nose or the back of the card in a blank area pretty much counts the same. Not always, but pretty much. I am not bidding on a great looking card in an auction right now, that I need, because of a tobacco spot on the player's head... It's a fantastic card otherwise and I need it. But all I see is the dot on the head .... AND it's centered almost perfectly.....which I absolutely love. But that darned dot is all I see....

I would tend to think you are correct. It's all a matter of where the imperfection lies. Looking at this Mantle card I see tremendous colors with absolutely no snow or surface imperfections (other than the print mark) Add to that razor sharp corners and you can see why it would garner a 9. On my wish list !!

[ALR-bishop]

Anyone know if the mark is recurring ? The 67 Mantle can be found ( fairly easily ) with a red print dot at the bottom right front above the S in Yankees or along top right border. To me these are recurring print defects, or variant cards ( as opposed to variations) but they do not seem to affect the grading of the 67 card in any way.

[russkcpa]

A beautiful example with that recurring defect. I'm guessing it will not affect grade. This is a great looking PSA 9

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by russkcpa

A beautiful example with that recurring defect. I'm guessing it will not affect grade. This is a great looking PSA 9

It is true the 67 and 60 PD's noted in this thread were rather common flaws on the cards; similar issues routinely plague the other Mantle basic issues. Despite the common nature of the flaws, I couldn't give those two 9s a pass and call them nice 9s, in my opinion. On the 67, side centering is off and it has the PD above the S. One can find an example without those flaws, though it is scarce. Same for the 1960; that PD and the centering (not to mention the focus) would make it a hard pass— at that grade level for that money I need the card to look lights-out.

Many of the high-grade Mantle cards were given those grades ages ago and would not make the cut today. Card over flip.

[pokerplyr80]

I've seen them referred to as a fish eye before, but as others have mentioned they're pretty common. I've even seen a couple of PSA 10s with them. And I agree with Matt if I were to spend the kind of money a 60 Mantle in a psa 9 would go for the card would need to be nearly perfect in terms of centering and visible flaws. Otherwise I would prefer a nice 7 or 8.

[Empty77]

I both agree mostly and disagree in part with all comments so far which pretty much are spot on. I tend only to operate in high grade and so look at these a lot [not Mantle though since he sucked and his cards are overrated ].

-I also follow the term 'fish eye' for them, but 'bullseye' works just as well
-they are ubiquitous, even in 9s, and if not the high-end pops of this era would be far lower than they already are
-I personally dislike them and avoid them as much as possible, even considering the eye appeal above corners and centering as so many others prefer to focus attention--just matter of personal opinion.
-they are not recurring, like some of the colored marks referenced, as in over and over in the same spot, but rather are utterly random, coming from air or bubbles or something in the process that is not fixed.
-any year with large swaths of color in the design (usually where the name/team are printed) seem especially susceptible
-PSA had an official statement on the site at one point (which I can't find now as it seems they've revised those pages a bit at some point) of how they review them and I recall they explicitly said it is a subjective decision based on eye appeal, so that if it were a big bad one smack on the face, that would be more of a downgrading issue than off on the side where '[it doesn't take away from the overall appeal]'

[bxb]

I used to own this card. Got a 9 in spite of multiple fish eyes or print bubbles.

Interesting that PSA will not downgrade for these, or give a "PD" qualifier:

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1536927851

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Empty77

I both agree mostly and disagree in part with all comments so far which pretty much are spot on. I tend only to operate in high grade and so look at these a lot [not Mantle though since he sucked and his cards are overrated ].

-I also follow the term 'fish eye' for them, but 'bullseye' works just as well
-they are ubiquitous, even in 9s, and if not the high-end pops of this era would be far lower than they already are
-I personally dislike them and avoid them as much as possible, even considering the eye appeal above corners and centering as so many others prefer to focus attention--just matter of personal opinion.
-they are not recurring, like some of the colored marks referenced, as in over and over in the same spot, but rather are utterly random, coming from air or bubbles or something in the process that is not fixed.
-any year with large swaths of color in the design (usually where the name/team are printed) seem especially susceptible
-PSA had an official statement on the site at one point (which I can't find now as it seems they've revised those pages a bit at some point) of how they review them and I recall they explicitly said it is a subjective decision based on eye appeal, so that if it were a big bad one smack on the face, that would be more of a downgrading issue than off on the side where '[it doesn't take away from the overall appeal]'

They're from bits of debris on the rubber offset blanket. They can be anywhere from one time things to somewhat recurring, depending on how long the bit of debris stays in place.

[Johnny630]

Still sadly believe the overall grade of the card has a lot to do with whom submitted it. Volume and publicity go a long way in terms of marketing a product.

[rats60]

Probably as much as when it was graded. This was an early graded card. I doubt it would get a 9 today. I find it amusing that the print marks are a big deal on this card, but on a 52 Topps, that card was under graded and "better than a 10" despite the print marks.