1951 Bowman Mantle PSA 7(OC) on PWCC tonight

[ullmandds]

nothing to see here...just a skipping record.

[steve B]

Not one comment on how loose it is in the holder?

I know the card size isn't always about trimming, but it's small both ways.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by steve B

Not one comment on how loose it is in the holder?

I know the card size isn't always about trimming, but it's small both ways.

I saw it, and found it rather alarming. Wasn't going to say anything, since it's been said so many times now.

But if I were to shell out, this would not be one I'd ever touch. I don't see any evidence of trimming, but why on earth chance it? Waaaaaaay too much extra air space in that slab.

[samosa4u]

The people who submitted their collections to PSA twenty years ago must be laughing. Most of their cards would get two grades less if submitted today.

Anyways, I see that four 51' Bowman Mantles were sold by PWCC last night. I want to comment on a few of them below:

PSA 7(OC) - $11,500 US sale price (plus tax)

The back of this card clearly shows that it was once in an album. If I had been the grader, I would have given it a PSA 2. Now I'm not sure what the winning bidder is going to do with it. Will he try to remove the crap on the back? I'm pretty sure the previous owner attempted it but failed. When stains get absorbed deep into the paper, then you're screwed.

PSA 6 - $16,100 US sale price (plus tax)

Like the card above, this one too was graded long time ago. The centering is off and the corners look weak. On the back, I see what appears to be a corner ding (see PWCC scan - top left corner). This card would never get a PSA 6 if submitted today.

PSA 3.5 - $10,299 US sale price (plus tax)

Over ten grand for a VG card?

[pawpawdiv9]

^^^^ I was looking at that 3.5 mantle. It looked awesome (to me) as a 3.5 upgrade from my 2's. But i under-estimated its worth by a ton!!!!

[JeremyW]

The BVG3 had paper-loss on the back, right?

[investinrookies]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

^^^^ I was looking at that 3.5 mantle. It looked awesome (to me) as a 3.5 upgrade from my 2's. But i under-estimated its worth by a ton!!!!

That 3.5 was a very nice example, it looked better than 80-90% of the examples Ive seen over the years in any grade. Its a tuff card to get centered like that with clean registration and being in focus like that one was. Its more about eye appeal than the grade....

[samosa4u]

Check out the attachment*

If you compare this PSA 7(OC) to the PSA 2.5 below it, you can clearly see that the PSA 2.5 has bigger top and bottom borders.

Now there is one thing I want to point out here: according to Ted Zanidakis, the Mantle was printed on the uppermost left corner on its 72-card sheet. Therefore, some Mantle cards may be slightly narrower than 2 1/16, while others may be slightly wider than 2 1/16.

Now it's a bit difficult to tell if this PSA 7(OC) is undersized left-to-right due to the centering issues. I did compare it to a couple of off-centered examples and I didn't see anything.

So, is this PSA 7(OC) trimmed? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Leon]

I would rather have the 2.5

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Check out the attachment*

If you compare this PSA 7(OC) to the PSA 2.5 below it, you can clearly see that the PSA 2.5 has bigger top and bottom borders.

Now there is one thing I want to point out here: according to Ted Zanidakis, the Mantle was printed on the uppermost left corner on its 72-card sheet. Therefore, some Mantle cards may be slightly narrower than 2 1/16, while others may be slightly wider than 2 1/16.

Now it's a bit difficult to tell if this PSA 7(OC) is undersized left-to-right due to the centering issues. I did compare it to a couple of off-centered examples and I didn't see anything.

So, is this PSA 7(OC) trimmed? Maybe. Maybe not.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by steve B

Not one comment on how loose it is in the holder?

I know the card size isn't always about trimming, but it's small both ways.

Plus 1, this too as well....If I, as a grader, was completely confident of this card NOT being trimmed, I would have given a grade of PSA 5 or 6 (ST) or (MK)

[JollyElm]

In general, it is absolutely amazing how many cards are so obviously small one or both ways in the holder. It's almost come to the point where every single card I look at (lower to moderately expensive) could've been trimmed. It is truly mind numbing. And I'm not talking about accepted minimal standard deviations in size, I mean very noticeable thinning side to side or top to bottom (like the card at the heart of this thread). I wonder if I investigated real cheap, common cards, would I find the same size differences everywhere (meaning it was just a universal result of the printing/cutting process from the last 50 or 60 years)?? Highly, highly doubtful. Something is clearly up.

If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder.

Ive heard and read over the years this is not always an accurate assessment. Holders have evolved over the years. However, if a standard card does not fit into a 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 holder, I do question that. They should be able to get that right.

What are others thoughts on this statement? I’d love it if it were that straightforward.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Ive heard and read over the years this is not always an accurate assessment. Holders have evolved over the years. However, if a standard card does not fit into a 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 holder, I do question that. They should be able to get that right.

What are others thoughts on this statement? I’d love it if it were that straightforward.

All I know for sure is cards vary in size from the factory.I still have insane amounts of cards I pulled from packs myself. Over the last few years I have been slowly organizing them. When I put them into 800(example size) count boxes you can clearly see slight size differences in them. I have noticed the width is almost always exactly the same but there is a difference in the height of many of them.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

All I know for sure is cards vary in size from the factory.I still have insane amounts of cards I pulled from packs myself. Over the last few years I have been slowly organizing them. When I put them into 800(example size) count boxes you can clearly see slight size differences in them. I have noticed the width is almost always exactly the same but there is a difference in the height of many of them.

Exactly Ben. I also have cards that I pulled from packs, and easily recall the same card from one particular set was cut to three different sizes.

Hence my question. Is this really a defined and accepted test?
"How well does the card fit in the holder?"

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Ive heard and read over the years this is not always an accurate assessment. Holders have evolved over the years. However, if a standard card does not fit into a 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 holder, I do question that. They should be able to get that right.

What are others thoughts on this statement? I’d love it if it were that straightforward.

It's important to read my quote precisely:
"If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder."

My point wasn't "If it fits inside snugly, it's good," or "If it doesn't fit snugly, it's bad." (Besides other methods card doctors use) The point is to pay a helluva lot of attention to how well it fits and make your determination from there. For instance, two sets I am always looking at are 1972 Topps and 1962 Topps green tints. With the former, it would seem well over 98% of the cards (this is an invented statistic and not based on actual research) would/should basically touch all 4 sides of the holder, whereas a huuuuge percentage of '62 GT's are naturally short one way or both ways. So, in general, if I see a high grade 1972 card that's a bit short, I would most likely move on from it. The card 'should' fit nicely, so there might be some deception involved (people's opinions may vary). If a 1962 greenie is a little short, I would be much more open to buying it. Still hesitant, of course, but it's pretty obvious that there were all sorts of problems with the cutting of those cards way back when. But...if I follow my own logic, it could still be very problematic. Say a GT was originally 'normal' sized. A serious card doctor would know that the vast majority of them were cut short, so he could do a trim job and get away with it, because it would then look identical to many of the ones already out there. Ca-ching!!! And on and on it goes...

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's important to read my quote precisely:
"If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder."

My point wasn't "If it fits inside snugly, it's good," or "If it doesn't fit snugly, it's bad." (Besides other methods card doctors use) The point is to pay a helluva lot of attention to how well it fits and make your determination from there. For instance, two sets I am always looking at are 1972 Topps and 1962 Topps green tints. With the former, it would seem well over 98% of the cards (this is an invented statistic and not based on actual research) would/should basically touch all 4 sides of the holder, whereas a huuuuge percentage of '62 GT's are naturally short one way or both ways. So, in general, if I see a high grade 1972 card that's a bit short, I would most likely move on from it. The card 'should' fit nicely, so there might be some deception involved (people's opinions may vary). If a 1962 greenie is a little short, I would be much more open to buying it. Still hesitant, of course, but it's pretty obvious that there were all sorts of problems with the cutting of those cards way back when. But...if I follow my own logic, it could still be very problematic. Say a GT was originally 'normal' sized. A serious card doctor would know that the vast majority of them were cut short, so he could do a trim job and get away with it, because it would then look identical to many of the ones already out there. Ca-ching!!! And on and on it goes...

Ahhh, got it. I was trying to better understand your comment. Thanks for clarifying.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder.

you build a smaller mousetrap, they build a smaller mouse

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

you build a smaller mousetrap, they build a smaller mouse

This pretty much sums it up. Brilliant!

[1880nonsports]

simple and to the point.

"you build a smaller mousetrap, they build a smaller mouse"