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

[cgjackson222]

CSG just graded a '52 Topps Mantle at an "8" that someone crossed over from another slab as well as a "4.5". They say the "8" is a Type 1 and the "4.5" is a Type 2.

According CSG, and the difference is that:

a) the Mantle signature of the Type 1 has an "e" that curves up, while the Type 2 does not (because it is cut off)

b) The border around the rectangle of stars on the front is solid in Type 1 and jagged in Type 2.

c) The seams on the baseball on the back of the card in the top left corner go to the left on the Type 1, but go to the right and bolder on Type 2.

d) The alignment of the word "DiMaggio's" on the back of the card is aligned slightly more towards the edge of the card on the Typ e 2.

How Andy Broome and his team noticed all of this, I do not know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_McshAcV50

And I wonder what grade the "8" had in the previous holder and what the grading company they crossed it over from was.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...mickey-mantle/

And I wonder what a CSG 8 might go for? As Andy says in the video, the surface is close to flawless.

**WHOOPS probably should have posted this in the post-war forum**

[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

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

CSG just graded a '52 Topps Mantle at an "8" that someone crossed over from another slab as well as a "4.5". They say the "8" is a Type 1 and the "4.5" is a Type 2.

According CSG, and the difference is that:

a) the Mantle signature of the Type 1 has an "e" that curves up, while the Type 2 does not (because it is cut off)

b) The border around the rectangle of stars on the front is solid in Type 1 and jagged in Type 2.

c) The seams on the baseball on the back of the card in the top left corner go to the left on the Type 1, but go to the right and bolder on Type 2.

d) The alignment of the word "DiMaggio's" on the back of the card is aligned slightly more towards the edge of the card on the Typ e 2.

How Andy Broome and his team noticed all of this, I do not know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_McshAcV50

And I wonder what grade the "8" had in the previous holder and what the grading company they crossed it over from was.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...mickey-mantle/

And I wonder what a CSG 8 might go for? As Andy says in the video, the surface is close to flawless.

**WHOOPS probably should have posted this in the post-war forum**

The video was very informative regarding Type 1 vs. Type 2. Thanks for sharing.

[Rich Klein]

Back in my Beckett days, Andy and I discussed the Mantle (and Robinson and Thomson) variations. He is very familiar with both as we got both examples at Beckett at the same time circa 2005

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

The video was very informative regarding Type 1 vs. Type 2. Thanks for sharing.

I agree very informative and agree with others would love to potentially own one one day

[sb1]

Generally Type 1 Mantle's have better color and sharpness=better eye appeal and often bring more money.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sb1

Generally Type 1 Mantle's have better color and sharpness=better eye appeal and often bring more money.

Now that's interesting. I know the two Ruth 144s differ in those qualities but I was not aware of it on Mantles.

[Orioles1954]

For several years whenever we've received a '52 Topps Mantle consignment we've recognized the "laces face left" or "laces face right" version.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

CSG just graded a '52 Topps Mantle at an "8" that someone crossed over from another slab as well as a "4.5". They say the "8" is a Type 1 and the "4.5" is a Type 2.

According CSG, and the difference is that:

a) the Mantle signature of the Type 1 has an "e" that curves up, while the Type 2 does not (because it is cut off)

b) The border around the rectangle of stars on the front is solid in Type 1 and jagged in Type 2.

c) The seams on the baseball on the back of the card in the top left corner go to the left on the Type 1, but go to the right and bolder on Type 2.

d) The alignment of the word "DiMaggio's" on the back of the card is aligned slightly more towards the edge of the card on the Typ e 2.

How Andy Broome and his team noticed all of this, I do not know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_McshAcV50

And I wonder what grade the "8" had in the previous holder and what the grading company they crossed it over from was.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...mickey-mantle/

And I wonder what a CSG 8 might go for? As Andy says in the video, the surface is close to flawless.

**WHOOPS probably should have posted this in the post-war forum**

Better discussion here. These two types have been known forever. This information is critical if you're trying to assess whether a Mantle is fake, because the fakers don't always get this right, there were lots of bad ones in fake slabs in the mid 2010s and if you knew what to look for it was easy to spot. As has been pointed out above, the 311 was a double print and there are some subtle but clear differences. They are equal in number so the market doesn't really differentiate.
https://bbcemporium.com/index.php?st...=mickey_mantle

[Jcosta19]

Officially over 1 million with the BP

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[cardsagain74]

The description of that Mantle is kind of obnoxious....from the mention of bank account sizes down to the multiple jabs at PSA. Including one that isn't even accurate (just because PSA has given out more high grades on the Mantle doesn't mean that they're being the most lenient....obviously it could easily be because most people don't want to send the very best ones anywhere else).

Just a clown show to promote CSG, as many have said.

[cgjackson222]

Looks like it sold for just over $1.25M with buyer's premium.

I don't see it selling for this much if it it had stayed in the PSA 7.5 slab.

The PSA 7.5 that sold for 705K by Heritage in August, 2022 was also a very well-centered, beauty of a card.

So while it didn't get to the $1.5M that SCP "estimated" (hyped) it at, which is about what PSA 8's sell for, I think it did well for the owner that had it regraded as a CSG 8.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Looks like it sold for just over $1.25M with buyer's premium.

I don't see it selling for this much if it it had stayed in the PSA 7.5 slab.

The PSA 7.5 that sold for 705K by Heritage in August, 2022 was also a very well-centered, beauty of a card.

So while it didn't get to the $1.5M that SCP "estimated" (hyped) it at, which is about what PSA 8's sell for, I think it did well for the owner that had it regraded as a CSG 8.

Assuming, of course, that the new buyer isn’t just the seller, or an associate/confederate.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by raulus

Assuming, of course, that the new buyer isn’t just the seller, or an associate/confederate.

Yea something feels off, although I hope this sale is legitimate. Given all the complaints about TPGs it couldn't hurt to have some more competition.