Just got my sub back. 1952 Hodges 2.5--move over.

Mickey71 · September 13, 2010 9:18AM

The 52 Hodges was referring to the card that jumped 3.5 grades........I subbed 3 Mantles. 1 1961 that is the best 6 known to mankind, 1 1964 that received an 8 and a 1964 that is the best 5 in the galaxy. I have looked these over under magnification and nothing to downgrade whatsoever. They both look like 8's and the 1961 has it all--centering, clear picture, almost no snow, clean borders and an almost perfectly centered back. The 64 has booming color and tremendous focus, razor sharp corners, better than 65-35 and a bright orange back with not a speck of stray print in sight. Not 1 speck of snow in the black.

Let me know what you guys think.

Mickey71

SidePocket · September 13, 2010 9:20AM

You know what to do. Beautiful Mantles!

bobbyw8469 · September 13, 2010 9:22AM

I agree...2nd opinion in order....

SDSportsFan · September 13, 2010 9:24AM

The '61 does have a ton of fisheyes in the black border all around the card. It also has maybe some wax/gum residue in the red box at the bottom.

I can't find anything on the '64 that would warrant anything near a 5.

Steve

HeritageAddict · September 13, 2010 9:25AM

Beautiful Mantles, do you think all the print dots on the black border of the 61 got it the 6? Maybe an 8(PD)?

Hallco · September 13, 2010 9:26AM

Not disagreeing with anything you have said....but could the multiple fisheyes around the card just inside the border be the reason for the grade?

itzagoner · September 13, 2010 9:27AM

5 is the new 10.

slaphappy · September 13, 2010 9:29AM

<< <i>Beautiful Mantles, do you think all the print dots on the black border of the 61 got it the 6? Maybe an 8(PD)? >>

Would say that is the reason.

The 64 must have a surface wrinkle.

Mickey71 · September 13, 2010 9:33AM

Folks remember, I'm magnifying these like 3 times the size. The print on the 61 is ever so minor and would never warrant a qualifier. Look at the black area near Mickey's head. The black is beautiful. That's "the" area where one determines the PD on a 61 Mantle--beautiful. There are absolutely no surface wrinkles front or back on the 64 Mantle. I can not scan the reverse any more clear to show no wrinkles. I'm thinking these will get a call in and sent back for a second look.

itzagoner · September 13, 2010 9:34AM

humor me. is the '64 curving off to the right at the top, or is it just because the card is bowed and the angle of the scan?

Mickey71 · September 13, 2010 9:36AM

Itzagoner,
I believe it is sitting in the holder at ever so slight of a tilt.

itzagoner · September 13, 2010 9:38AM

dunno pardner, i'm scrolling up and down looking at those borders, particularly from the back, and i can't help but wonder if they made a 7(MC) into a 5....seems very strange.....i've seen some cuts like that typically get a 7 or 8.

Bosox1976 · September 13, 2010 9:49AM

64's exhibit some of the craziest factory cuts ever, IMHO. Were they raw to begin with?

MantleMarisFordBerra · September 13, 2010 9:54AM

Wow, beautiful cards. Yes, I think you need to get a 2nd opinion on them both. I would not be at all shocked to see them come back in 7.5 holders, maybe higher? Good luck & please keep us updated.

cwazzy · September 13, 2010 10:03AM

Nice cards but I have to be honest: I don't like the cut on the '64. The 5 may be a bit harsh but I wouldn't pay a premium for it for anything graded higher. Can you scan the '61 closer to actual size? I'm just curious how the fisheyes look at normal size.

Mickey71 · September 13, 2010 10:07AM

The history of the 64's is this: both were PSA 8's about 7 years ago and sent to GAI for and received an 8.5's. Here are the scans of them in the GAI holders. One of them I personally submitted to both companies. The other one I know was submitted to GAI when it was a PSA 8.

OAKESY25 · September 13, 2010 10:12AM

are there faint wrinkles on both.. the 64 mantle on the reverse.. on the N in mantle out to the side..

and on the 61 on the edge level with micks right error??

very nice cards..

Sportsamerica · September 13, 2010 10:17AM

<< <i>are there faint wrinkles on both.. the 64 mantle on the reverse.. on the N in mantle out to the side..

and on the 61 on the edge level with micks right error??

very nice cards.. >>

'64 What about at the (C) on the back in the orange. looks like a faint wrinkle

61 -- it didn't have gum on it did it looks like gum stain from top left across face down to bottom right..

twiley · September 13, 2010 10:29AM

They really micro scope Mantle cards so this is just a guess on my part...

on the 64 the front of the card lower left and possible right corners look like creases had been spooned out. On the left edge 1/8 way down has a notch just to the left of the bottom of the Y on Yankees. Also there is a weird spot on Mantle's left arm I don't know what that is? a dent? or a PD?

on the 61 the front of the card has at least 28 fish eyes, also there is definitely something in the lower left red field where it says Mickey Mantle.

Again just guessing. I would need to see them in hand to really be able to determine if my guesses are correct or not.

arex · September 13, 2010 10:39AM

what are those 3-4 dots that looks like small pin point stains on the left just a little below and on the left of the beginning of the picture?

leadoff4 · September 13, 2010 10:41AM

Really can't believe the '64 wasn't just labeled as Miscut and not even graded. As Bosox stated, '64s have some of the weirdest cuts known to man with '65 right behind. I also see the little nick/cut in the border. The '61 looks like a 7 at least...

Dboneesq · September 13, 2010 10:54AM

<< <i>on the 64 the front of the card lower left and possible right corners look like creases had been spooned out. On the left edge 1/8 way down has a notch just to the left of the bottom of the Y on Yankees. Also there is a weird spot on Mantle's left arm I don't know what that is? a dent? or a PD? >>

The notch to the left of the bottom of the "Y" on Yankees is the first thing that I saw. It does go all the way thru ... on the reverse ... look at the right side just above the "M" in Mickey. Any "cut" like this will knock the hell out of a grade ... still looks like a real nice card!

Mickey71 · September 13, 2010 11:03AM

For those who think these are questionably low grades.....do you think I should review or crack them out. I'm not really a huge fan of cracking out Mantle's. I do think the Mick is graded tougher than most cards and understandably so- I think. I will agree upon further inspection that the cut is not perfect on the 64; but most that are graded are a little funky on the cut. In regards to wrinkles: I looked at all the areas that people questioned on the 64 and no wrinkles. In regards to the 61 and the print: it looks alot better in hand than the scan and definitely no gum stains. I'm going to try and scan the 61 smaller to be more realistic with the print. This is a little bigger than the size of the card and the print is minor, at least in my opinion.

EAsports · September 13, 2010 11:20AM

On the '64, what's the spot on Mantle's arm? It looks like it goes all the way through to the 519 under the AB column on the back...

That's my guess.

OAKESY25 · September 13, 2010 11:30AM

I say crack.. cant see em coming back lower.. you are already in a worst case scenario

Tedw9 · September 13, 2010 11:40AM

On the back of the 64, right above the C in the word Mick and right below the baseball, there is what looks to me like a small indentation going from the white to the orange. Does anyone else see it?

lsutigers1973 · September 13, 2010 12:08PM

The 61 has so many fisheyes it looks like it needs a shot of penicilin.

bobbyw8469 · September 13, 2010 12:10PM

I would crack out...have you ever thought about SGC as an alternative?

SDSportsFan · September 13, 2010 12:23PM

Well, I 'm not sure about the merits of the grade, but I just found a variation on the 1964 Mantle. Don't know if it's already known, but here it is.

Take a look at this one I just found on ebay:

null

Notice at the top-right where it says "N. Y. Yankees". On the OPs card, it reads "N. Y Yankees" (no period after the Y).

It appears that some cards have the period after the Y, and others don't.

Steve

jeffcbay · September 13, 2010 2:26PM

I count about 30 fish eyes on the 1961's border.

That 1964 has a pretty obvious diamond cut. You really notice it when you scroll the back view up and down. Make your eyes follow the white edge line compared to both edges of the card. Pretty significant difference.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to own those cards, but neither are bump-worthy, in my opinion.

jeffcbay · September 13, 2010 2:29PM

<< <i>Notice at the top-right where it says "N. Y. Yankees". On the OPs card, it reads "N. Y Yankees" (no period after the Y).

It appears that some cards have the period after the Y, and others don't. >>

Wow, that's pretty cool! Makes you wonder which version was produced the most...

Stone193 · September 13, 2010 2:35PM

Beautiful card Mickey!

On the 64T - look at the back around where the #50 is...

is there some wrinkling or scuffing there?

I can't see how that got a 5?

Resub?

Pigs · September 13, 2010 3:21PM

First off Mickey great cards, anyone would gladly take those for their collection. I have to agree with a earlier comment about the '64, along with the nick on the left edge I believe the paper

imperfection on Mick's arm that seems to continue to the back could be the reason for the 5. I think once a grader sees a slight raise in the paper or break in the printing they turn it over to see if

there is one on the back that lines up. That might equal an automatic 5. The only thing I see wrong on the '61 are the fisheyes. I guess 8 or better corners and centering wasn't considered there. I

would resub the '61 first to see how it does IMO. Hope you had a good day off

Doug

Just got my sub back. 1952 Hodges 2.5--move over.

Comments