![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com Last edited by Leon; 10-13-2017 at 08:57 AM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A beautiful example with that recurring defect. I'm guessing it will not affect grade. This is a great looking PSA 9
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Many of the high-grade Mantle cards were given those grades ages ago and would not make the cut today. Card over flip. Last edited by MattyC; 09-13-2018 at 11:15 AM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Successful transactions with peter spaeth, don's cards, vwtdi, wolf441, 111gecko, Clydewally, Jim, SPMIDD, MattyC, jmb, botn, E107collector, begsu1013, and a few others. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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]' |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1960 Mickey mantle print defect | johnnyboggs | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 0 | 09-09-2016 05:51 PM |
Goodwin 1952 Topps Mantle 2 Mark with Qual | MetsBaseball1973 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 3 | 03-03-2016 07:26 PM |
FS: Ritter w/ Print Mark *SOLD* | t206blogcom | T206 cards B/S/T | 6 | 10-12-2013 07:21 PM |
Print mark on 1959 topps #317 | shprintza | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 3 | 06-06-2009 04:46 PM |
T206 - Print mark question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 09-22-2008 09:16 AM |