1951 Mantle - Guess the grade

[hcv123]

No creases or other surface defects that can't be seen in the scans.

[Hxcmilkshake]

3!

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[John1941]

3.5

[SPMIDD]

I say a PSA 4 or an SGC 5.

[bobbyw8469]

Psa 5-6.

Whoops....I missed the scratch on the back....I am gonna go with '1' or '2' now......still a great card.

[Eddiez]

I think it will grade PSA 3 but will be a very nice 3.

[egri]

I’ll say 3, but with very strong eye appeal for the grade.

[maniac_73]

I would give it a 4 but wouldn't be upset if it hit 5. Beautiful card

[NiceDocter]

.

[packs]

Authentic

[Gorditadogg]

Howard, it looks like a 4 to me. Stain spot on the left, ding bottom right and scratch on the back.

Trimmed right side

[JollyElm]

I'm all in the PSA 5 camp (with a shot at a 6), seeing nothing that would put it in the 'crease-centric' neighborhood of 3 and 4. Sweet freakin' card!!!

Is that scratch through the 'A' in "Mantle" on back just a printing anomaly, or is it actually a scratch?

[hcv123]

The card came from the original owner and was 100% not altered or trimmed in any way.

The trim protrudes between Inc and Phila Its my opinon
Ron Petersen and yes opinions are like assholes everyone has one

[bobsbbcards]

4.5 or 5.

[packs]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The card came from the original owner and was 100% not altered or trimmed in any way.

Ah, nice. My guess then is 4.

[ocjack]

It looks like a reprint. Lucky for you, I collect reprints. Can I send you my address?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The card came from the original owner and was 100% not altered or trimmed in any way.

I gotta know where people find this stuff, I must be hanging around the wrong groups of older folks

As for the grade, I'll say it's a 4

[pawpawdiv9]

good to be 3-4...so i guess a 4MC

[Johnny630]

Send to SGC

[Blackie]

PSA 5.5 or SGC 70

[uniship]

5.5 is my guess

[scmavl]

I'm going with a 2.5 or 3, due to the little scratches/paper loss on the back. Nice card, hit me up when you get it graded Howard. I wouldn't mind that in my collection.

[JollyElm]

Gotta ask again, is that scratch through the 'A' in "Mantle" on back just a printing anomaly, or is it actually a scratch?
Thanks.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Gotta ask again, is that scratch through the 'A' in "Mantle" on back just a printing anomaly, or is it actually a scratch?
Thanks.

The print on the back appears a little lighter than usual and there is a scratch in the "A" as pointed out on the reverse. Hopefully have an answer on the grade soon. Thanks for all your estimates.

[JollyElm]

I was hoping it was just a printing artifact, so I have to officially drop my guesstimate into the 4 range.

[ALBB]

yea, seems like a slight trim

[JollyElm]

I drew (not perfectly aligned, mind you, but pretty damn close) a perfect rectangle around the card to help with the trimmed/not trimmed argument...

1951bowmanmantlerectangle.jpg

I took some of the "it's trimmed" claims to be directed at the right side not being straight and correctly oriented, but the card does seem to be a perfect rectangle. Do with that what you may. The bowing of the lower left corner area could mean the card isn't sitting perfectly flat??

[hcv123]

PSA's opinion is a 2.5. I appreciate all the guesses. Rather than a diatribe, I'll suffice to say I had it pegged at a 4. Thank you to Darren for your amazing "shape work" dispelling what I already 99.9% knew and stated that it is an original owner card and no funny business (trimming, etc.) going on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

AI casualty perhaps? I've been shown some absurdly low grades recently. Howard sorry you did not get the appropriate grade. What are you going to do with it, sell as is?

[ocjack]

When I was growing up, that would have easily been an ex-nm card. It's like the "completed pass" rules in the NFL. It used to be if it looked like a catch, it was a catch. Now the "grading companies" decide how long you held the ball, how many steps did you take after catching the ball, did you let the ball go after you hit the ground, etc. Damn grading is everywhere.

But I will say that's a damn fine looking 2.5.

[3-2-count]

Beautiful card Howard!

To hell with what the flip says! It's a keeper....

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

AI casualty perhaps? I've been shown some absurdly low grades recently. Howard sorry you did not get the appropriate grade. What are you going to do with it, sell as is?

Sell the card - not the holder! If I do well enough at the national, I may buy it myself (it is a private consignment)!!

Attached is a PSA 2 (not mine) - heavy vertical crease down the middle, heavy nik on the right border, something going on on Mantle's face (paper loss?), way worse corners and the one I have is only 1/2 grade better?

I would consider breaking out and selling raw, but too many collectors are uncomfortable with all the fakes floating around on this one.

[maniac_73]

Thats insane how it only got a 2.5

[Peter_Spaeth]

A friend of mine who has been doing this for decades just showed me 4 soccer cards that he pegged as 7-8 but came back 3s and 4s. I really wonder if they are using AI and it can't process the tiny inconsequential flaws in vintage paper. His grades were truly senseless from the images and his description. And to make it worse, Nat Turner apparently has decreed that they won't reexamine grades, so the only choice is to crack out and try again.

[ASF123]

It’s grade deflation, pure and simple. PSA’s incentive is to keep “tightening” standards to keep the jackpot prices at the upper end. It’s a pure gatekeeping function that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual condition of a particular card.

Any purported grading “scale” that gives this card 25% of the possible points is completely useless in terms of actually providing information on the relative quality of the card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ASF123

It’s grade deflation, pure and simple. PSA’s incentive is to keep “tightening” standards to keep the jackpot prices at the upper end. It’s a pure gatekeeping function that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual condition of a particular card.

Any purported grading “scale” that gives this card 25% of the possible points is completely useless in terms of actually providing information on the relative quality of the card.

Maybe but that cuts the other way too, if they are too tight why the hell spend astronomical sums submitting to them just to get royally screwed? At SOME point if their grades are absurd the money is better spent on a competitor.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe but that cuts the other way too, if they are too tight why the hell spend astronomical sums submitting to them just to get royally screwed? At SOME point if their grades are absurd the money is better spent on a competitor.

Yes but next time the same exact card gets submitted it could get a 5. I got in on one of the group subs and everything came back graded a 8, from the gem mint cards to the one with the very noticeable crease. PSA is a joke at best but hey they bring the most cash so very few care how horrible they perform their job.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Yes but next time the same exact card gets submitted it could get a 5. I got in on one of the group subs and everything came back graded a 8, from the gem mint cards to the one with the very noticeable crease. PSA is a joke at best but hey they bring the most cash so very few care how horrible they perform their job.

what ben said! Beautiful mantle BTW!

[Gorditadogg]

Howard, I don't get that. I'll stop by so you can show it to me next week in Chicago.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe but that cuts the other way too, if they are too tight why the hell spend astronomical sums submitting to them just to get royally screwed? At SOME point if their grades are absurd the money is better spent on a competitor.

A lot of observers have been waiting in vain for a long time for logical consequences to apply to PSA’s business practices. But the only important thing seems to be to perpetuate the jackpot prices. That seems to be sufficient to keep demand up.

[maniac_73]

Im wondering if its new graders who are out to prove something. You have to think there is a significant amount of new employees who have just started and dont want to make a mistake of overgrading

[Johnny630]

Submitting to PSA is what I equate now to Gambling, it’s an addiction that PSA is Capitalizing on. I can’t blame them. People are passionate about cards and money. . Let’s face it some people in this hobby are addicted to that higher grade to gain more money on said card, in the back of their mind, somewhat like the gambler they always think they can get a higher better grade, crack and resubmit try again. Like the guy pouring money into that slot machine day after day waiting for that hit.

PSA could charge any price they want, honestly they could, people would still be waiting 100’s deep in line for their roll of the dice entombing their card with they monetary number of thy slab.

[Casey2296]

Great card Howard, congrats to both you and the seller, grade notwithstanding which seems crazy to me, if you don't sell it at the National or buy it yourself I would be interested in buying it at a fair price.

[Neal]

Very nice

[judgebuck]

Very nice. I had it at a 4.

[irv]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Thats insane how it only got a 2.5

I agree.

I've said for a long time now, and that is that SGC grades tough, or tougher than PSA, but they have definitely closed the gap to where it can now be said PSA is the one doing that based on this card.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A friend of mine who has been doing this for decades just showed me 4 soccer cards that he pegged as 7-8 but came back 3s and 4s. I really wonder if they are using AI and it can't process the tiny inconsequential flaws in vintage paper. His grades were truly senseless from the images and his description. And to make it worse, Nat Turner apparently has decreed that they won't reexamine grades, so the only choice is to crack out and try again.

That won't work because the card has been digitally fingerprinted now. Basically they'll know they've already seen it. That's the thing the AI is best at right now.

[tnosmoothly]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

That won't work because the card has been digitally fingerprinted now. Basically they'll know they've already seen it. That's the thing the AI is best at right now.

From what I read they have only been "digitally fingerprinting" about half of the more recent submissions with a goal to have all submissions done in the future.
I had it at a 4 when looking at your initial scans but I also wondered about some very small staining. They are no longer doing qualifiers, no? If no qualifier, would that bring the grade down?
Howard, let me know if you're still selling after national.