Isn't it nice when a card exeeds expectations?

1951WheatiesPremium

No, I don't have a 1952 Topps Mantle to use as an example BUT I bought this card because it looked pretty good for the price. I wanted one and figured this could be a place holder, at minimum, but it may just be a keeper. I'm posting to see if there's agreement that the card looks much better.

Photo Lisiting:

My Scan:

CW

I don't see a huge difference between the original photos and your scans, but I agree your scan is better. I also agree that it's a really nice feeling when a card's "in hand" appeal surpasses what you see in the online photo. Cool pose on that card, too.

PROMETHIUS88

The crease in the upper right hand corner looks more predominant in your scan but the bottom corners look better as well as the color. And somehow even the centering looks a tad bit better in your scan.

1951WheatiesPremium

@CW
@PROMETHIUS88

Thanks, fellas.

The blemish in the right corner (which I, like you, had assumed was a crease) is actually just a ‘straight line’ mark/print defect/stain of some kind.

I kinda thought it was a 2 or 3 and in hand I think it’s a 4, maybe 5. I’m not exactly sure because of centering but I have seen some forgiveness by PSA with respect to centering standards in ‘48 Bowman’s - even in the newest slabs. The corners look much fuller and less worn in the scans than in the photos - at least to me.

What I learned In this case is that some is probably attributable to the difference in background color choice and I have to clean the scanner bet as the white dots that appear are not on the card or black background.

Stone193

Since that may not happen as frequently than posted Tim - congratulations buddy.

Interesting. I have a 75T mini #500 that looks better in hand than I can get a scan.