Micky Mantle Bancroft Tiddler card

[Mikeyddd]

I have a 1965 Bancroft Tiddlers “Mickie” Mantle card, but all I can find online is mantle front and Mathews back. My card has a Mantle Front and Mantle back and can not find any information on this card. Did they reprint this card correctly in 1965? Any info will be appreciated. Thank you

[dbrown]

PSA says it's graded 3 of them. No photos there, and I can't find an image anywhere else.

This is interesting, though, because I'm not sure those should exist. These "cards" are pages from little booklets; the reason they all have mismatched backs is because Mantle's "back" would have been printed across from the image, not on the back of it. (I would argue that, as things hand-cut from published books, these are no more cards than newspaper clippings are cards, but no one asked me.)

So if there *is* a Mantle front/back combo, it could not have been cut from an actual, correctly printed Tiddlers book.

It looks like some people have been making their own reprints with matched front/back, as seen in this Arnold Palmer:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/186326984656

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by dbrown

PSA says it's graded 3 of them. No photos there, and I can't find an image anywhere else.

Here are scans of the Mantle front/Mathews back and the Mathews front/Mantle back. That player looks nothing like Mantle and that's the furthest thing from a Yankees uniform possible.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by dbrown

I'm not sure those should exist. These "cards" are pages from little booklets; the reason they all have mismatched backs is because Mantle's "back" would have been printed across from the image, not on the back of it. (I would argue that, as things hand-cut from published books, these are no more cards than newspaper clippings are cards, but no one asked me.)

So if there *is* a Mantle front/back combo, it could not have been cut from an actual, correctly printed Tiddlers book. [/url]

Spot on! Anything matchy-matchy is a counterfeit. As for PSA, the only thing there that is consistent is their inconsistency. Some cuts grade, some don't. No rhyme or reason to it. Someone just happened to convince research to allow it for an issue. The dumbest one I know of are the 1936 Sports Stamps where PSA will grade ones from certain newspapers but not from others in the same chain:

Detroit Times, yes:



Chicago American, rejected: