Photos of my real ebay Mantle Rookie

JJman · January 3, 2005 5:54AM

Hi everyone - Here is my follow-up on my story I posted about 10 days ago about finding out I got PSA authentication on a '52 Topps Mantle Rookie card I purchased on ebay around Thanksgiving. Had I read all of the doubting commentary posted in this message board at the time the card was listed on ebay, I'm sure I wouldn't have bought the card, but I wasn't aware of this message board at that time. The seller had claimed that he removed the card from its PSA holder for display purposes. After I spoke with the gentleman on the phone, I believed his story, so I pulled the trigger after the card failed to meet reserve. I just received the card back today and took a digital picture of it, which is the second picture you see. The first picture was the seller's picture he had on ebay. This is the same card in both pictures - disregard the color shift between his picture and mine. I'll admit I was very lucky, and wouldn't recommend anyone buying an ungraded Mantle rookie card on ebay unless they feel really good vibes about it! Jay

stormsurge · January 3, 2005 5:57AM

Removed for display purposes?

Brian48 · January 3, 2005 6:03AM

Congrats. Quite a jewel for any collection.

A761506 · January 3, 2005 6:17AM

That is a very nice looking 3. Enjoy it.

koby · January 3, 2005 6:19AM

Awesome card.

It looks much better than a three from here.

DataDriven05 · January 3, 2005 7:08AM

As the one who came out and claimed your story was false in the prior thread you mentioned, my apologies. It's a beautiful card and you are one very, VERY lucky man. Congrats and Enjoy it.

Chris

WinPitcher · January 3, 2005 7:09AM

Nice card, but didnt you already tell us this last week or the week b4?

mudflap02 · January 3, 2005 7:17AM

Original Thread

Here to facilitate

pandrews · January 3, 2005 7:36AM

<< <i>Nice card, but didnt you already tell us this last week or the week b4? >>

yeah, but this time he included a picture..

hmm.. in the old thread it was called "clearly a fake".. and "certainly a much higher grade"..

my guess for the VG 3 grade is the lower right corner area..

how many authentic raw Mantle rookies have sold on eBay since May?

ctsoxfan · January 3, 2005 7:41AM

Congrats - always nice when you get one of the hobby's top cards in your collection!

JJman · January 3, 2005 9:07AM

Hi again guys. Jay here again. I picked up on my previously told story again today because I had just gotten the card back and some people requested seeing the card after grading. The card will have a good home and be well taken care of. All the best, Jay

JonB · January 3, 2005 9:36AM

for those who wanted to know what the "original" flip number was, its 03649515... maybe that lasik was worth it afterall

jaxxr · January 3, 2005 10:14AM

Fine card, and quite an addition to almost anyone's collection, but..........

The "rookie" card of Mick is the 51 Bowman, also Willie Mays' as well. It is not the 52 Bowman nor the 52 Topps, which is much more popular and a bit more pricey. A great card indeed but not his RC !!!

jrdolan · January 3, 2005 11:42AM

This is truly an incredible tale, and proof that nothing is impossible, even on eBay. 99 out of 100 times, JJman is back here by now asking how to get the police after the guy who scammed him. Hell, maybe even 999 out of 1,000 times. You hit the jackpot, JJ, when most people who went down that road before you got screwed with their pants on. I recommend you go out and buy a lottery ticket!

Slabbed · January 3, 2005 1:45PM

A great card. Congratulations and enjoy.

stevek · January 3, 2005 2:39PM

Congrats on the nice card. You were lucky though, not smart. For any newbies reading this thread thinking of attempting this same feat...here is some simple math. You certainly paid more than $4,272.33 for the card because that was the ending price from the auction in which the reserve wasn't met. As was stated, probably 999 out of 1,000 52 Mantles on ebay like this are fake. But let's take a low end of only 99 out of 100. If you bought all 100 lots to get a PSA 3 52 Mantle you would have to spend $427,000. That's a lot to pay for a PSA 3 52 Mantle.

I'll give you credit for you saying this at the end of your post...

<<< I'll admit I was very lucky, and wouldn't recommend anyone buying an ungraded Mantle rookie card on ebay unless they feel really good vibes about it! Jay >>>

But just forget about the "good vibes." Just don't ever do it period unless you have $427,000 to spend.

detroitfan2 · January 4, 2005 11:48AM

Actually, if anyone owes an apology, it is me, as I started the initial post which included my smart aleck remark about how hard top-loaders must be better than semi-rigid holders if that's what PSA is using.

I even emailed the seller telling him what I thought of his "scam". I feel like a dufus now, and I've learned a huge lesson.

I'll never understand why the original owner didn't have it re-graded, but it appears everything worked out for everyone, and I congratulate the owner on his new possession.

Again, I am truly sorry and I will be refraining from such posts in the future.

Knuckles · January 4, 2005 12:10PM

What did the auction end for?

DataDriven05 · January 4, 2005 12:15PM

I believe it never made reserve and the buyer bought it outside of EBay, which even makes it more amazing.... We never got the final price, but that is the their business unless JJMan wanted to share.

jrdolan · January 4, 2005 12:39PM

I just noticed that the freshly-graded Mantle has cert. #12079336. My '53 Topps Mantle, which I graded last spring, is #30709497. None of the dozens of '50s cards I have graded this year came back with a cert. starting with 1. Wasn't the 1-series retired at least a couple years ago? Strange that PSA would go back and use an old number! Maybe there is something about PSA's use of numbers that I don't understand.

stevek · January 4, 2005 1:47PM

Pasted from the PSA website: Is it a PSA 3 or PSA 6? Is it a 1952 or 1953? Maybe TWO "data entry errors?"

According to the PSA Certification Database, certification number 12079338 is defined as the following:

CARD INFORMATION
Year: 1953
Brand: TOPPS
Player: MICKEY MANTLE
Variety: N/A
Grade: 6

Data entry errors occasionally may occur causing the information on the card holder to differ from the PSA database. If the information listed above appears to be incorrect, please contact customer service at (800) 325-1121 or email us at info@psacard.com.

To look up another PSA graded card enter the certification number below:

PSA, Professional Sports Authenticator
P.O. Box 6180 Newport Beach, CA 92658
Tele: (800) 325-1121, (949) 833-8824
Fax: (949) 833-7660
info@psacard.com
A Division of Collectors Universe

Home | About CU | Site Map | Help | Join | Feedback
© 1999 - 2004 Collectors Universe, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Important Information

mudflap02 · January 4, 2005 1:56PM

According to the PSA Certification Database, certification number 12079336 is defined as the following:

CARD INFORMATION
Year: 1952
Brand: TOPPS
Player: MICKEY MANTLE
Variety: N/A
Grade: 3

I highly recommend LASIK.

stevek · January 4, 2005 2:50PM

<<< I highly recommend LASIK. >>>

Or at least new glasses - LOL.

JJman · January 4, 2005 10:36PM

Jay here again regarding my purchase of the Mantle card. After it failed to meet reserve, I bought it directly from the buyer for $4,900. plus $50 S&H. Maybe a little high priced for a "3" but the card looks like it's a borderline "4" to me. Detroit Fan - I don't blame you for feeling that the card seemed a little fishy when it was up on ebay and I thank you for warning me about it at the time. Only after I had a couple of conversations with the seller did I feel at ease.

jrdolan · January 4, 2005 10:56PM

stevek's need for new glasses aside, I'm still confused about the old cert. number on a newly graded card. Does anyone know if (and why) PSA still uses 1xxxxxx? That's something of a puzzler to me, since I've been getting 3xxxxxx and 4xxxxxx all year long on my submissions.

JJman · January 4, 2005 11:36PM

I submitted 5 other cards along with the Mantle, and all cert numbers began with a 1. They ran from 12079336 to 12079341

koby · January 5, 2005 12:12AM

Wow you took quite a risk. $4950 for a Mantle on ebay with no slab. I am glad that it worked out for you.

JJman · January 5, 2005 12:37AM

You're right, it was risky for me. I don't want to get into personal information about the seller, but he was telling me about how he got the card, and his long-term friendship with a former Yankee who lives in his town, and I felt a sufficient comfort level to pull the trigger. I'm glad I got it out of my system and don't have to look around for one anymore.

stevek · January 5, 2005 1:19AM

<<< I submitted 5 other cards along with the Mantle, and all cert numbers began with a 1. They ran from 12079336 to 12079341 >>>

This totals 6 cards and you submitted 5 so my mistaken #12079338 which of course is the PSA 6 53 Mantle could have been yours. If this 53 Mantle was also yours, then that was a heck of a nice submission!

stevek · January 5, 2005 1:32AM

Again - very nice submission

12079336 Topps 52 Mantle PSA 3
12079337 Bowman 52 Mantle PSA 2
12079338 Topps 53 Mantle PSA 6
12079339 Topps 56 Mantle PSA 6
12079340 Topps 55 Clemente PSA 5
12079341 Topps 63 Mantle Not Graded

JJman · January 5, 2005 3:13AM

What really surprised me was PSA stating that the 1963 Mantle card I submitted (which I bought about 6 years ago) had been somehow altered. The did not give me any explanation of what was wrong with the card - it looks great to me under a magnifying glass, and measurements look fine. I sent PSA a follow-up email asking if they could tell me exactly what they think had been done! But as long as the '52 Mantle came up legit, I didn't lose much sleep over the '63!

qualitycards · January 5, 2005 3:46AM

JJMAN - the '63 could have been touched up with a green crayon or marker on corners or edges and not graded because of this...jay

JJman · January 5, 2005 5:40AM

Good point - it's possibly a slight color touch, but if so, a heck of a good job, because I can't detect anything using a decent magnifying glass. I hope PSA can give me a specific answer. I know that they sometimes will give you an "N" designation number that explains what the problem is, but I didn't receive any such designation. Jay

stevek · January 5, 2005 10:05AM

Place the card on a "light table" or a back-lite source of some kind. The card is opaque but not completely opaque and some light will come through it. With an unaltered card the light will shine through basically equally on the card. Any dark spots in the card reveals touchups such as markers, etc. Also I've heard that a blacklight will reveal problems although I have not yet tried using a blacklight.

JJman · January 5, 2005 10:34PM

Thanks Steve -I'll do the light test to see if it reveals anything. Jay

basketballcollector · January 6, 2005 1:34AM

Jay --

A magnifying glass isn't good enough. Put it under a MICROSCOPE.
Is a psa 3 really worth that much. WOW !!!

Photos of my real ebay Mantle Rookie

Comments