Heritage Rosen Mantle - Greatest Card Ever Auctioned?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Some of you are getting extremely snarky and seem to be bent on trying to do some idiotic Native rain dance to diminish the luster of this dream card. Again, Mr. Mint said it was the best.

Yes, we should ignore the blatant evidence of our eyes because Mr. Mint gave a quote on a card he was selling for big money. To see the damage that does not seem, by SGC's scale, to be allowable on that grade is to be bent on performing an idiotic rain dance to diminish the luster of this card.

I get there are entrenched narratives, but being able to see is not idiotic. Denying the blatant evidence of one's eyes is idiotic.

We all know my hypothetical Coogan with the same staining would not get a 9.5.

That it will sell for a record price and is a great card does not change this.

[Exhibitman]

That's an amazing story, Ted, but wasn't it kind of awkward buying baseball cards in 1952 at age 73? Did you lie and say it was for your grandson?

I kid you, my friend. I realize you were only 58 at the time.

Does the excitement and (potential) record price of this card have an effect on lesser examples? If the 9.5 goes for $10 million, is a 1 then worth 1% of that? Discuss.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, we should ignore the blatant evidence of our eyes because Mr. Mint gave a quote on a card he was selling for big money. To see the damage that does not seem, by SGC's scale, to be allowable on that grade is to be bent on performing an idiotic rain dance to diminish the luster of this card.

I get there are entrenched narratives, but being able to see is not idiotic. Denying the blatant evidence of one's eyes is idiotic.

We all know my hypothetical Coogan with the same staining would not get a 9.5.

That it will sell for a record price and is a great card does not change this.

Greg, I do not deny there is slight staining, presumably from fingertip oils. Said oils are assuredly there, but your wording makes it sound as if it has ruined a once-pristine card. This blatant evidence assessment was what I believe is idiotic.

I just believe if this card is taken to the National, and is scrutinized by all the peons like me, they will see that it is NOT that noticeable. Good scanners throw a proverbial spotlight on the subject, and as I maintain, intensify anything that would de-grade a card from a 10. If it turns out the card at close range is as bad as the scan, then I am wrong.

I am certain when Alan Rosen wrote his letter of provenance and asserted this example was the best Mantle from his find, it was. Regardless, it seems some of us are being too quick to pronounce harsh judgement on this regal condition rarity. The National is coming up; hopefully, it will be there. If I could go, I would love to see it in person; that experience alone would be worth going to and paying to see.

--- Brian Powell

[G1911]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Greg, I do not deny there is slight staining, presumably from fingertip oils. Said oils are assuredly there, but your wording makes it sound as if it has ruined a once-pristine card. This blatant evidence assessment was what I believe is idiotic.

Where did somebody say the card is ruined? Where did somebody say this card is anything but great? Where was it implied the card is 'ruined'? Nobody said this. All that was said is that the card has damage that clearly precludes it from a 9.5 on their scale. I get that it is easier to call something other than what was actually said idiotic, but that is itself idiotic to do. Making things up to argue against is not rational.

Originally Posted by brian1961

I just believe if this card is taken to the National, and is scrutinized by all the peons like me, they will see that it is NOT that noticeable. Good scanners throw a proverbial spotlight on the subject, and as I maintain, intensify anything that would de-grade a card from a 10. If it turns out the card at close range is as bad as the scan, then I am wrong.

Heritage has a long history of doing the opposite, actually. Assuming that it will look better in hand is an assumption of faith and, frankly, irrelevant to grading. Let's just assume it anyways. It's still not a 9.5. Isn't the whole point of grading to grade the actual condition and not eye appeal? That's why a spider wrinkle nobody can see takes a 7 to a 3.

Originally Posted by brian1961

I am certain when Alan Rosen wrote his letter of provenance and asserted this example was the best Mantle from his find, it was.

We will assume his judgement is correct and that Rosen was an honest man. This is, as you surely know, utterly irrelevant even after this very generous assumption though. Rosen's opinion that it was the nicest does not make it a 9.5. The best example of a card does not make it a 10 or a 9.5 or a 9. A card does not become a 9.5 because the seller thinks it looks nicer than others; it is supposed to meet the criteria. Again, we all know me submitting a random Dale Coogan like this would not get a 9.5.

Originally Posted by brian1961

Regardless, it seems some of us are being too quick to pronounce harsh judgement on this regal condition rarity. The National is coming up; hopefully, it will be there. If I could go, I would love to see it in person; that experience alone would be worth going to and paying to see.

What does speed have to do with it? The card either does or does not have the damage. The damage either is or is not consistent with a 9.5. It takes a few seconds to observe this. I must wait until the auction is over and the hype train wrapped up before observing a fact, if it may be observed at all?





I gather many here are very emotionally invested in this card and the Mickey Mantle hype train in general. Relax, your investments aren't going to be hurt because people can see the blatant staining all over the top of this example. Mantle's will keep going up, most will pretend this 9.5 is an actual 9.5 and it will set a record price, and then we can jump back on our sanctimonious high horses to rail at the corruption and errors that are unpopular and ignoring the corruption and errors that are popular while getting upset when they are observed, just like always.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

If I submitted a 1952 Dale Coogan in this exact condition and without the backstory and provenance, does anyone honestly think I would get a 9.5?

Valid point as always, Greg. Agree completely and no you would not get the 9.5 on the Coogan. The Mantle is stunning but it appears in the scan to have a flaw that suggests it is over graded.

I am not shocked by the grade in the environment that we are in on a card of this stature. Sadly grading companies have a lot to gain by over grading this one and we have seen it routinely on T206 Wagners that are assessed at grades higher than a common from the same set would have gotten in similar condition.

While the discoloration to me is minor, in the scan, I think the more appropriate grade is NM-MT and in technical terms that could even be over graded. We all see much less valuable cards that have eye appeal that is 2 to 3 grades higher than the assigned grade. As a TPG, you have abrogated your responsibility once you stray from your own grading standards. That SGC would do that now comes as no shock given PSA's continued dominance in the TPG realm.

Anyway, matters not what we think. The card will break records and the owner will be ecstatic with their new purchase. Within 6 hours of the close of the auction will we see their fb, ig and twitter posts. Just hope they are wearing one of those super cool t-shirts and matching ball cap!

Over Under on the buyer's age: 39

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wonder why PSA, when it went to half grades, did not include a 9.5?

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I wonder why PSA, when it went to half grades, did not include a 9.5?

Because they could wait years and say OK now we will grade a 9.5 and people will send in 9's in record numbers. Easy money. Not saying it will happen, but don't be surprised if it does.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Over Under on the buyer's age: 39

Probably about right, but I'll take the over.