1966 O-Pee-Chee #50 Mickey Mantle SGC 9 MINT
tsalems1
Posts: 3,448 ✭✭✭✭
Up for bid in Memory Lane, this card looks to have wax stain on back
https://memorylaneinc.com/site/bids/bidplace?itemid=85618
opcbaseball.com
0
Comments
SGC missed one... it does happen.
Sad part is it wont stop the buy the flip not the cards folks!
The good news is Memory Lane stores their cards at a Best Western for safe keeping.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
oh boy, the front looks good!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It appears to have once upon a time been mounted in a photo album. The lines are from the adhesive.
Bundalay, sahvay.
Adhesive or Gum ultimately is Potato Potatoe
A 5 with a 9 flip.... again it does happen. Submitter must of felt they won the Powerball and of course like a true trading card dealer they are devoid of morals they go right ahead and sell it.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Memory Lane didn't reject the submission. They must have examined it, right? Talk about morals. Bidders have eyes and matching instincts. The hammer price will probably reflect that.
Bundalay, sahvay.
At the end of the day, if you don't look closely at a card you are buying, then the fault lies with you.
Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
I see that a lot with Comic Books!
Its probably more common with Comic Books as CGC is nowhere near as competent as PSA or SGC are with cards.
obviously shouldn't have got a 9 but a 7 looks plausible.
Someone also posted about a PSA 9 Henderson RC that PSA has flagged in the database as a known counterfeit. Both lots should be taken down ASAP.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Maybe they’re roller marks? Maybe it’s something else? I don’t think as the submitter I should be auditing the third party grader. They know more than me, that’s why I’m sending my card in. If the card had a crease and got a 9, that’s one thing. This could be anything, and them being the expert deemed it is not a detriment to the grade. Submitter should be able to sell the card with a clear conscience. A Reputable third party gave its opinion and now the market will decide the value, using that opinion and their own eyes. It’s not as if the auction is a mystery sale with no images.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
82football -- nice post, you made some good points, but SGC blew this one for sure. I would give it a 7 because the back doesn't look all that bad. At the same time, there is no chance this card is a 9 unqualified. Maybe a 9 PD. which usually equates to a 7 unqualified.
Remember all the posts about ---"buy the card, not the holder".
Having said that, your point about the third party grades will resonate with a large number of people, and may, in the end, get the price of the card to really high levels.
According to SGC’s pop report there are 2 8s & a 7.5. I’d be curious to see what those looked like.
Hint: Per grading standards throughout the industry, the card has been "ALTERED".
As I mentioned before, it appears to have been mounted in a photo album with adhesive pages or scrapbook, as it were. These things were popular in the 60s, so some of you younger folks may not even know what they were for. Storing Polaroids or other 35 mm photos for display was a big deal prior to being able to store it all in your phone. And kids used them for sports cards, too.
This auction will fetch a reasonable price from someone if allowed to be completed. Then, they might even crack it out and try to clean it up.
Bundalay, sahvay.
@ElMagoStrikeZone
If that’s so, then they did a remarkable job removing it from the album while keeping the corners & edges 9-worthy.
The albums didn't have a permanent adhesive. It would have been fairly simple to remove the card by peeling it off the page without causing further damage. But, the marks on the card reverse make it quite obvious what was done.
Bundalay, sahvay.
Agree this is the type of album all our family photos from the 70s are in. No idea if the adhesive can be removed - but either way it is an altered card now and still will be if someone can remove. This was totally misgraded by SGC. Thankfully the photo shows it clearly enough that buyers can see it and stay away.
I know most in the hobby would sell it and say SGC said it was a 9 not me - but I disclose flaws in my cards if i think they were graded wrong. I wish the auction house disclosed it or refused the card. but I doubt many (any) would
I had a PSA 7.5 ‘55 Bowman Kiner where they missed a wax stain on the back. When I sold it to a fellow collector at the National I showed them the stain on the back to make sure they knew what they were buying and we agreed upon the price with the flaw. I rarely sell anything - only if I upgrade, but a dupe by mistake or take a dupe to bundle for a better price on something I want. But if a card has a flaw like that I wouldn’t feel right not pointing it out. In this case I upgraded because I did not want the stained card in my ‘55 Bowman HOF set.
and removed decades later when most of the adhesive lost its potency.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Thanks. I had assumed the adhesive would have been stronger.
the adhesive was just strong enough to keep the cards from shifting around, as each page did have a plastic sheet on the front which you pulled over top of the photos/cards after sticking them to the adhesive..
For reference, this item also has those tell tale signs of album removal but it is considerably thinner; PSA gave it a numerical grade for an item like that (with lines) rather than call it altered. I think altered would involve a result of trying to remove them:
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
This thread caused such a wave of nostalgia for those old ‘magnetic’ albums…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest