![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
If you want to play doctor a little more a good wash, a little exposure, and a hint of gloss would fix it right up. ![]() |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
LOL on the further doctoring. I have no such interests any longer in my old age. Although I've read some of the articles on how people soak pre-war cards and all that stuff and the intricacies are fascinating. I'd faint trying to do something like that. Much less what Bill Mastro did putting a copy of the world's most desirable card into a paper cutting machine... Bottom line, I look at my Mantle as an "altered" card, but that's ok. You know what else is altered by those same standards? The aforementioned PSA-8 Wagner, and technically - the Mona Lisa. Which has been cleaned and repaired many, many times in it's history. Yeah ok, I know that's a little different maybe. :-)
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 12-02-2015 at 06:40 PM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nice card John!
Personally, the first thing I would do is get the card out of the screw down holder. I have seen cards get a little wavy in those things and that may hurt grading if you choose that route, and can certainly damage the card. Keep in mind those new PSA holders are going to be a BEAR to bust a card out of if you do not like the grade your Mantle gets.
__________________
My new found obsession the t206! |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Don't have plans to send this off for grading really because of my experience with SGC. Do you think they would slab it or tell me that it was altered again? PSA does seem to go easier on paper loss, but with this card I'm wondering if they see something else on that corner under the black light. In any event, this card is from a time in my collecting past when I was much less concerned with condition, so I will probably be inclined to leave it as-is and enjoy it for what it is. Back when I was a kid if a card was roughed-up some, that was just more proof that it was old, LOL. (And you should have seen the '65 Mantle I once had that was so waterlogged it couldn't be taken out of it's top loader without disintegrating...) I will admit that though I see the point in professional grading now (and prefer to buy graded cards online for peace of mind...) when I first heard of the practice, I did think it was pretty ridiculous for a good long while. Grading even today remains very subjective. And a quick glance at some other PSA graded '56 Mantle's out for sale right now confirms again what I've seen before: My card even with the paper loss is still a very decent example for the grade. :-)
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John, I don't believe PSA goes easier on paper loss. It's a bit of a coin flip, but generally count on a 2 grade deduction for paper loss. So what may appear as a 5 could grade as a 3. An eraser could come back as altered or certainly mk ( mark ) qualifier.
__________________
My new found obsession the t206! |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I would agree that the EX 5 you showed is overgraded. PSA definitely misses things on occasion. As far as what you did to your card... hey, if you like the way it looks and it's for your collection, more power to you. Even with the minor bit of paper missing that is still a great Mantle!
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
You didn't doctor anything. You removed something on the card that wasnt put there to begin with. Second of all, if you want a true grading of your cards, then SGC is the company. PSA is a joke with their grading.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Sorry again to ressurect an old thread, but as I've said before - I'm prone to do that at times.
(Yes, this is my card - I still have it). Question: If I were to entertain getting this graded and was looking for just "Authentic" from either PSA or SGC - what would the deal be with the corner discussed in this post? I should know this - but would you have to note it when sending in for PSA and then it gets an "Authentic Altered"? Or if you were to say don't evaluate it for anything other than authenticity - i.e. I'm not looking for a number grade - would it just get A and not the Altered? Does SGC handle differently? I'm more curious than anything. On the whole still a pretty remote chance I'm going to send it anyway - as it's a card with sentimental value that I will not be getting rid of. -John
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 11-28-2018 at 07:51 AM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[QUOTE=jchcollins;1478092]I don't have the screws too tight on it, but good point just the same. Most of my other pre-57 cards that are not graded are in Card Saver I's...
My experience over 25+ years is that if the screws are only tightened finger tight, you will almost never have a problem insofar as damaging the card is concerned, and the card won't fall out. Screwdowns, especially 1/2 inch lucites, were how we did it prior to TPG slabbing--they are very protective. I say "almost never" because my one exception just happened to be a '62 Maris in NrMt-Mt. The inner holder surface was uneven, leaving a slight wrinkle in the card's surface. I spooned that out as best I could, but it still got downgraded to a "7" by PSA due to that flaw. Happy collecting, Larry |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mick | jimjim | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 2 | 08-08-2013 03:57 PM |
Is this Mick or Mack | dogmechanic | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 8 | 08-07-2013 08:07 AM |
Is this Mick good? | mcgwirecom | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 4 | 08-01-2013 07:00 PM |
Joe, Mick and Ted | murphusa | Autographs & Game Used B/S/T | 0 | 05-05-2013 01:02 PM |
Joe D, Ted & Mick.. Need help | MGHPro | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 11 | 07-18-2012 07:55 PM |