Cards to Submit for Review...Four (4) Appear Worthy of a Second Look w/Back Scans Provided
mintonlypls
Posts: 2,015 ✭✭✭✭✭
I had been considering submitting nine (9) cards for review. After considering today's grading standards...I will only submit these five (5) for a review. I would like the board member's opinion on which five (5) cards have a decent chance for a half-grade bump?
Here are front scans...
Here are the other four (4)...I had been considering:
mint_only_pls
7
Comments
Wow, great looking cards. That 71 Clemente is stunning.
My vote for submission (in the same order as your photos):
55 Koufax
61 Mantle
66 Mantle
63 Clemente
71 Clemente
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Monte,
All of those cards are really strong for the grade. If it were me, I'd probably submit the following for review in the following order for the best chance for half grade bumps:
1955 Koufax 7
1961 Mantle 7.5
1963 Clemente 8.5
While the other cards are strong for their particular grades, I just think with the current grading standards it would be tough to get bumps on any of the others.
Just an FYI...
The 1964 Rose received a PWCC-E and the 1971 Clemente, a PWCC-S, FWIW.
That '61 Mantle is NICE. Without seeing the back it looks like a good candidate for a bump.
If they were mine I'd want to see the Koufax, Rose and Clemente higher too. Especially, that RC.
Koufax Rookie looks like a solid 8. It has everything....fantastic centering and print to go along with square/sharp corners.
1961 Mantle is as good as 99% of all 8's in the industry.
All the others are gorgeous; but will not bump in my opinion. 8.5's with flaws that can be seen are not worth it to review. Best of luck if you decide to do it.
The 1963 Maris is crossed from BVG-9 (w/subgrades all 9s or 3 9s and 1 8.5) to a PSA-8.5 w/o cracking. It is green to the tips of the corners under a loupe! If I had cracked it out (risking damage/chipping) and submitted raw...I think it would have received a PSA-9.
Saw this one in an auction today...
Tell me how this is a better grade than any of those posted above.
Agree...another early PSA (0xxxxxxx), though some cards w/0xxxxxxx are worthy of the assigned grade.
I appreciate all the comments so far. I will pull these from my safe deposit box and look closely under a loupe w/current grading standards in the back of my mind b4 coming to a decision on which to submit. I'm almost certain that I will submit the Koufax RC and 1961 Mantle as well as the Maris.
I thought the grade on the 1961 Mantle was due to the print blemish on his jersey near his left shoulder.Then...I happened to notice this PSA-10. Here is the same print blemish on a recently graded PSA-10 (6xxxxxxx). No points were deducted for the print blemish. Enter the serial # on the PSA webpage for a larger image.
2 1/2 points lower...no way. 2 points lower ...okay.
Here is my thinking on the 1961 Mantle (and I could be wrong). The only reason I can see why it would get a 7.5 instead of an 8 is that they viewed it as having several corners with a touch of wear. They may be very minor touches, but if that was their assessment, the fact that it’s otherwise so nice is why it got a 7.5. In that case I don’t think it would be likely to bump. But I can’t see the corners clearly enough from this scan to tell.
I think there’s much less likelihood of bumping FROM a half grade than TO a half grade.
I think the best chance is from the ‘71 Clemente and the ‘55 Koufax
I was going to comment on the Maris. Incredible card, looks a bit low on centering to me, but opinions differ on t/b centering on this issue.
Deserves a 9 in my opinion.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. If that card had the corners to be a 9, it would already be a 9, no?
They are all beautiful high end cards, by the way. I’m just talking about the general idea of half grades and how it impacts the likelihood of a bump. It’s almost like the 7.5/8.5 with great eye appeal has already been given the half grade bump it deserves.
Monte - I remember our discussion the 61 Mantle when you got it, and that would be my first one to sub. As nice of a 61 Mantle as you can find, and a half grade bump or not it is very difficult to beat that card in any grade.
The 58 Mantle and 60 Gibson are blazers, and going to an 8.5 on the Mantle would be tough - I think they would be picky about the upper left corner. Gibson I would give it a shot. Going from an 8.5 to a 9 is brutally tough, and the 64 Rose and 63 Clemente are monsters whether or not they are 8.5’s or 9’s. Hopefully you find a higher grade Clemente so you have to sell the 8 😉
I would send the 61 Mantle only first. IF there is a bump , mabe send more. If mantle does not bump, none of them will. Just my guess.
Do you think it's more likely to get a .5 grade bump within the same grade like 7-->7.5 or 8-->8.5, as opposed to bumping to the next grade like 7.5-->8 or 8.5-->9?
I think any one of those could be a full grade higher (or lower LOL) depending on the grader.
Like you said...it depends on the grader. In July 2022...I bumped a 1986 Fleer Jordan from a PSA-9 to a PSA-10. When submitting it for review...I thought it had a 50/50 chance of bumping to Gem Mint.
Your ‘61 Mantle is nicer than the 8 I bought at The National and I chose the best one I could find at the show. Should bump for sure.
I think the bottom right corner keeps the ‘71 Clemente from bumping.
Think the ‘58 Mantle is doubtful but could bump.
All the others have a chance.
2 out of 10 for me this year getting better grades.
All crack outs though after getting autographs .
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
After retrieving the nine (9) cards from my safe deposit box and looking under a loupe...I have decided to submit the following cards for review. The easiest to exclude was the 1958 Mantle due to minor touches on the corners. The toughest were the 1960 Gibson and the 1966 Mantle...both had one corner on the back w/miniscule touch! Here are the four (4) making the cut for a review:
I agree. I thought the 58 Mantle probably had the least shot. Lower right corner.
The picture and uniformity of the orange background are just awesome though.
For the 71 Clemente, it probably needs to be dead centered for the .5 bump, and it's not.
Question is can it then achieve a 9? I do see white dot touches on the lower corners so maybe no?
I think that one probably stays as an 8.
And I don't think I said before, but truly amazing cards. Ones I never have a chance of owning.
Good luck Monte! I'll be interested to hear how it turns out. I cant get over that 61 mick! What a great card!
I appreciate everyone’s input. I will post when I receive the results…Fed Ex overnight tomorrow.
Question for the board when there is an undefined border i.e., 1963 Topps (bottom) and 1971 Topps (top), I use the percentage of the total defined borders to measure the undefined border. For example…a perfectly centered card w/undefined border would have 5 tick marks left, 5 tick marks right and 5 tick marks on the bottom or top undefined border. Aesthetically…this centering would be most pleasing to the eye. Am I correct with undefined borders?
I measured the 1971 Clemente again using a 1/100 inch ruler, and I measure 55/45 side to side and 52/48 top to bottom.
I may reconsider the 1971 Clemente per Ron Sportscards comment. The other three will definitely be submitted for review.
All beautiful cards! Just going off some previous subs I've had with 71's, they are brutal compared to what they were years ago. Not saying that it couldn't get a bump but I would guess if it was submitted raw today, it's getting no better than a 7.5. Maybe that was just my luck but even getting 8's on 71's and 62's from cards fresh out of a pack has been super difficult.
Best of luck on the review, whichever you decide to send in.
And btw... I'm drooling over that 61 Mick!
I would say the border for the 71s is to the top of 'Pirates' and of course the white frame.
I measure the top/bottom as avg 57/43, counting pixels using your pic.
Side to side, it measured better than what my eye was telling, 55/45.
Of course I've seen higher graded cards in old holders not as nice as yours, so who knows and don't go by me. LOL
Just checked the price for reviews. $75. Yikes, but not much to lose with your caliber of cards, plus you've had success before, so go with your gut.
All smokin cards several are definitely upgrades
I wish I could help. I have no clue and no idea these days. I haven't done reviews lately but my crossover rate is absolutely abysmal. They aren't crossing anything, even with a half grade lower min grade. I've been batting about .100 on crossovers lately. I've submitted my last one until I hear there's a structural change in how conservative they are being.
I just submitted 42 cards for reviews. 5 were upgraded from 9's to 10's and 2 were upgraded from 8's for 8.5's, about what I expected - one in 6 upgraded.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
Smallstocks…
Were these cards pre-1980?
I ended up with a 3-card submission: 1955 Koufax RC, 1961 Mantle and 1963 Maris. After further thought and examination…I decided not to submit the 1971 Clemente.
Here are my reasons for holding the Clemente:
I will leave it reside in an 8 holder and save myself review fees…no matter the grade as pointed out on this thread…it is a gorgeous card.
The 1958 Topps Mantle is correctly graded and IMO there is no chance of an upgrade. The 1971 Clemente all day long could be bumped. The 1961 Mantle should be in a PSA 8-that card is really nice.
Yes. The new 10's were 1959 Stooges cards. The 2 8.5's 1955 Topps All-American football cards.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
I think they’re all beautiful and worthy of a bump except for the 58 Mantle for the reasons cited above.
Out of curiosity, did you obtain the Rose 8.5 from PWCC in 2017?
I purchased the Rose PSA-8.5 on PWCC in December 2018.
Good Luck Monte!! Beautiful Cards.
I attached a pic of the most recent bumps I have gotten. Mainly trees. Decals are slightly worn....lots of surface issues....