CSG flip with '52 Topps Mantle Type 1 vs Type 2: crossover graded "8"

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

How Andy Broome and his team noticed all of this, I do not know.

It’s not something they noticed or found, it’s been known for many years in post war land. The 2 types are the result of the card being one of the three double prints and being designed twice to place onto the sheet twice.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s not something they noticed or found, it’s been known for many years in post war land. The 2 types are the result of the card being one of the three double prints and being designed twice to place onto the sheet twice.

Okay, so other TPGs just don't think it is worth distinguishing between the two, I guess. Kind of reminds me of the "Partial Diamond" on the '55 Jackie Robinson that SGC recognizes, but not some of the other graders. Bit of a nothingburger I guess.

One potentially valuable aspect of discerning between the Type 1 and Type 2 is that it could help people distinguish between real and fake cards. Since every Mantle is either a Type 1 or Type 2, a Mantle card that has characteristics of both Type 1 and Type 2 is fake.

I guess there was a thread about Type 1 vs Type 2 about a decade ago:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=166444

My bad for bringing it up again

[ClementeFanOh]

cgjackson222- Interesting observation about the 52 Mantles which share
Type 1 and 2 characteristics, as being fakes. The 52 Mickey continues to
enjoy a hallowed place in the hobby (despite some collectors' obvious disdain
for this monumental card). Wish I owned one Trent King

[ALR-bishop]

The 2014 SCD Standard Catalog lists the 2 Mantle versions as variations. Same for the other DPs with similar front and back differences, J Robinson and B Thompson

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Okay, so other TPGs just don't think it is worth distinguishing between the two, I guess. Kind of reminds me of the "Partial Diamond" on the '55 Jackie Robinson that SGC recognizes, but not some of the other graders. Bit of a nothingburger I guess.

One potentially valuable aspect of discerning between the Type 1 and Type 2 is that it could help people distinguish between real and fake cards. Since every Mantle is either a Type 1 or Type 2, a Mantle card that has characteristics of both Type 1 and Type 2 is fake.

I guess there was a thread about Type 2 vs Type 2 about a decade ago:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=166444

My bad for bringing it up again

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be brought up or criticizing - I’m just giving the history and that it’s not a new CSG discovery or something.

I presume the graders don’t tend to label it because it would A) tick off their master set collectors to add a second Mantle and B) since it occurs both ways exactly 50% of the time there is no rarity factor at all and C) labeling it inherently brings up the 52 Mantle double print topic that is a fact but a fact many in the hobby get very upset about.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

C) labeling it inherently brings up the 52 Mantle double print topic that is a fact but a fact many in the hobby get very upset about.

What the bloody devil!!!???

How dare you mention this scurrilous falsehood!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

What the bloody devil!!!???

How dare you mention this scurrilous falsehood!

Please don’t make me walk the plank

[ALR-bishop]

The two different Robinsons and Thompsons, also listed as variations in the 2014 Standard Catalog. Different stitching on back and different positioning of top line of stars on front

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be brought up or criticizing - I’m just giving the history and that it’s not a new CSG discovery or something.

I presume the graders don’t tend to label it because it would A) tick off their master set collectors to add a second Mantle and B) since it occurs both ways exactly 50% of the time there is no rarity factor at all and C) labeling it inherently brings up the 52 Mantle double print topic that is a fact but a fact many in the hobby get very upset about.

It’s been discussed as long as I can remember and seems somewhat silly for CSG to hang their hat on. I guess to me, this shows their inexperience as a card grader in a microscope.

I also can’t comprehend the poor decision to cross these to CSG unless they were in a KSA slab or something similar. I can’t imagine that it would not be a loss in resale if Psa or Sgc. Perhaps this was more likely a paid gimmick, in which CSG paid a master collector with both to grade the cards and make a small wave by recognizing the sheet position variant. Seems a much more logical explanation.

As for the reasoning that no other grader does this, well I think you hit all the points nicely.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Okay, so other TPGs just don't think it is worth distinguishing between the two, I guess. Kind of reminds me of the "Partial Diamond" on the '55 Jackie Robinson that SGC recognizes, but not some of the other graders. Bit of a nothingburger I guess.

One potentially valuable aspect of discerning between the Type 1 and Type 2 is that it could help people distinguish between real and fake cards. Since every Mantle is either a Type 1 or Type 2, a Mantle card that has characteristics of both Type 1 and Type 2 is fake.

I guess there was a thread about Type 2 vs Type 2 about a decade ago:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=166444

My bad for bringing it up again

I asked PSA to recognize the partial diamond. They declined. They said it was too easy to forge (say what!?!?!?!).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I asked PSA to recognize the partial diamond. They declined. They said it was too easy to forge (say what!?!?!?!).

That's crazy. Especially as the Jackie is the same root thing, different slots on the sheet. Both should be extant in equal quantity, thus no real valuation difference for either one. But that's assuming the world worked logically

[ALR-bishop]

There was an SCD article about the Robinson. It is not a miscut. Maybe an early run defect that was corrected ? The Wehmeier card in that set has the same issue. But unlike the 52s, they are not equal in quantities. The defects are scarce which may indicate correction