Forgot to get to this thread although I meant to before. I vote fake. I had something similar happen to me a couple of years ago when I purchased a rare Ruth card that in the ebay listing had an Altered flip shown very similar to this Mantle. I saw the Altered, and thought that the card was Authentic, but Altered and that the submitter had chosen not to holder Authentic cards. I sent the card to PSA, and it came back as Questionable Authenticity. I wasn't completely surprised to be honest because when I received the card, I didn't think it was real. However, I had to send it to PSA to confirm that it was fake in order to log a case on ebay. I can't say in that situation if there was an authentic Ruth card where that flip was used on a counterfeit card or PSA just used an Altered flip for a card with Questionable Authenticity. However, the takeaway is if PSA does not holder the card, you can never say that the card is Authentic. PSA (or any other TPG for that matter) will only back cards under it's guarantee if the card is holdered. (Obviously autos or other memorabilia are different where they often have an invisible daub or something similar on those items and are not holdered.) So, if the card is not holdered, and you only see a flip in the ebay listing, nothing is guaranteed, not the grade nor the authenticity. I know a lot of raw card collectors crack out cards out of the holder, but they keep the flip for resale purposes. When they sell the card, they show the raw card beside the flip that is cracked out. In these situations, there is never a guarantee that the card will receive that grade if you re-submit it or even if the card is authentic at all. In the end, as in this case, you need to decide if you trust the seller and trust your experience at being able to tell if a card is authentic or counterfeit, and if it will grade to that number on the flip. If the card is not holdered, and you try to compensation for a fake or overgraded card, all TPG's will simply say that card may have been swapped, too bad. You may have even have been the original submitter, and you received back the Altered flip with the unholdered card so you assumed it was Authentic. Absolutely not, no way. Unless the card has been holdered, the TPG has not confirmed that the card is Authentic. In my ebay case, I reported this to the seller, and he threatened to sue me because I was saying that he could have swapped the cards. In the end, I won my ebay case, I sent him back his card and his flip, and got my money back.
I'm glad you have a happy ending to you story. I am also glad I could bring to light this scam for the cardboard collecting community. As always, do your "due diligence" when purchasing cards like this. Don't get carried away with the flip, and focus more on the card. This card has red flags written all over it. I have a feeling the buyer just bought the most expensive 1952 Bowman Mantle reprint ever. To quote Joe Orlando, "Never Get Cheated". Thanks go to everyone that participated in the poll. We will do more in the future.
<< <i>That person is an alt. I'm not going to argue with anyone....I'm sorry. >>
Who wants to argue? You answer no questions that are asked of you, and feel someone who asks questions is being argumentative which is ridiculous. Also, I'd be very careful who I call an alt. Just sayin.
Bobby, can you please tell me the red flags that you see all over this card. I'm just trying to educate myself a little more. I maybe see one, the washed out look, but I am definitely not an expert in this field.
To me, it's the washed out look often used by people to try to artificially "age" cards or photos. They sometimes use an iodine-like solution which give the paper stock a brownish or yellowish color.
The pictures in the 1952 Bowman listing were very poor quality. They were low quality pictures from a camera and not scanned images. The pictures were low resolution and everything in the pictures including the card, Card Saver, and PSA tag was distorted and pixelated. I don't believe initially that Bobby even looked past the first "red" picture from the listing and attempted to explain to him that what he thought he was seeing was incorrect.
His response was that the picture of the flip was crisp and clear. If you look at the enlarged pictures of the card in the listing the flip is not crisp and clear. It exhibits the same distorted pixelated dot pattern as what's affecting the card. Everybody knows what a sharp and clear picture of a PSA flip is supposed to look like. It does not look like what you see in the following pictures. This helps to make it easier to understand why the card is exhibiting the same qualities as the PSA flip in the same picture. If the picture is looked at by people not entirely understanding what they're seeing then it could easily be called a fake.
BACK PICTURE - The picture of the back is unquestionably a real 1952 Bowman. The texture of the paper, quality of print, and unquestionably period tape coloring leave no question on authenticity.
There is no question looking at all the pictures and understanding why the pictures look the way they do that the card is authentic. The tape/tapestain is period. It is a stained card and the poor quality picture is just making it look more suspect. They are good enough however to see that they are not "xerox" copies. If Bobby were to scan the same card using his scanning abilities the card would look completely different. It will be stained but it won't look anything like what it does compared to the seller's poor quality pictures. Here is a link to a stained 1953 Topps card in a PSA holder. http://b-lauctions.com/1953-Topps-%2382-Mickey-Mantle-PSA-3-LOT6427.aspx It is a quality scan and shows what a stained card looks like when set against a sharp clear PSA tag. If the seller of the 1952 Bowman took pictures of the 1953 it would look fake to the untrained eye just like the 1952 Bowman.
There is no doubt that switching a real card with a fake is possible, but it is not what happened here. Not that it matters whatsoever for determining authenticity, but the seller has 6000 100% feedback, and the buyer has left positive feedback for the card. So the opinion of two people who got to see the card in hand should also count for something. Depending on how old the flip is, there's a good chance the grader will remember this card. If it's important enough for Bobby to continue his quest for truth he will believe perhaps contacting Joe Orlando to ask the graders of the card if they remember seeing it would be the next step. I want to also point out that Bobby is not a bad person for not understanding what the pictures are showing. Hopefully they will be looked at closer and a better understanding of what's going on will be accepted.
I want to say fake just looking at it for 10 seconds. But then I think 80% of my vote is that it is real. After I look at it for a few moments. Looks like someone soaked it in turpentine or whatever they use to try and remove tape with. Seems like it has an oil base in it and was soaked or something. I vote real.
Edit to add.
Im saying the card has a weird shad to it which looks like a typical reprint. But I have owned a few 1948 bowmans with tape on them and someone soaked them in some type of oil base liquid and it gave them a similar shade to them. In hand I knew they were real but they did look way different in color. Its a tough card to judge by the scan. But to me its not a hands down obvious fake if it is one. It also looks properly aged. But soaked in something thick. Giving it a off color shade. Just my opinion, did the card sell?
"Votes are 17 real, 13 fake and 6 can't tell. I find it interesting that the results are so interesting."
I voted can't tell and I am surprised the results aren't 0 real, 0 fake and 36 cant tell. From these pictures I've got to believe the PSA experts would vote cant tell if they took part in Bobby's poll.
I wouldn't know how to spot a fake of this card. Typically, when I see ebay listings like these I automatically go on the defense and assume that the card is a reprint or counterfeit etc... Because why wouldn't the seller/owner have the card encapsulated "authentic" if it were in fact real? I'm not sure if psa slabs cards as authentic/altered but I know BGS does.
I kind of think it's fake just because of the circumstance but I don't know for sure so my vote is I can't tell.
<< <i>I wouldn't know how to spot a fake of this card. Typically, when I see ebay listings like these I automatically go on the defense and assume that the card is a reprint or counterfeit etc... Because why wouldn't the seller/owner have the card encapsulated "authentic" if it were in fact real? I'm not sure if psa slabs cards as authentic/altered but I know BGS does.
I kind of think it's fake just because of the circumstance but I don't know for sure so my vote is I can't tell. >>
There are some "standard" vintage/modern card issues that PSA will not holder as Authentic even if requested. Basically, it is at their discretion. I purchased a 1957 Topps set from PWCC a few months ago where the #95 Mantle was described as trimmed. I sent the card to PSA as part of a submission with the request to holder Authentic cards. The card came back as N6: Minimum Size Requirement, and the card was not encapsulated. I ended up sending the card to SGC, where it was holdered as Authentic.
<< <i>I want to say fake just looking at it for 10 seconds. But then I think 80% of my vote is that it is real. After I look at it for a few moments. Looks like someone soaked it in turpentine or whatever they use to try and remove tape with. Seems like it has an oil base in it and was soaked or something. I vote real. >>
The tape and the turpentine theory is interesting, and who knows, I am definitely not a 1953 Bowman expert, as I have never owned a card from this set before. However, I remember asking an autograph forum whether a baseball that was shellacked with a Babe Ruth signature under the shellac, whether those should be authentic (assuming it wasn't a clubhouse signature or anything else non-malicious). My reasoning was, if you wanted to fake a signature, why would you then coat the ball with shellac which would then significantly lower it's value? The answer was that you still can't depend on the shellac to assume that the auto is real because counterfeiters will still do this to try to sell even a lower value ball to get by people. Therefore, you still can't always depend on the reasoning that why would someone ruin a card like that if it were fake? To some people, just a hundred dollars or so if more than enough motivation to counterfeit a card. Again, the Bowman experts may still say that this card in question is real. However, in general, you can't always depend on the logic that if there is tape on the card, it should be authentic.
There are some "standard" vintage/modern card issues that PSA will not holder as Authentic even if requested. Basically, it is at their discretion. I purchased a 1957 Topps set from PWCC a few months ago where the #95 Mantle was described as trimmed. I sent the card to PSA as part of a submission with the request to holder Authentic cards. The card came back as N6: Minimum Size Requirement, and the card was not encapsulated. I ended up sending the card to SGC, where it was holdered as Authentic.
Just so you know, a card returned as minimum size does not mean the card was trimmed. It means the card exhibits an original factory cut but the card was cut too small for PSA to put it in a holder with a grade. If in fact it was trimmed and you sent it in requesting them to holder as Authentic Trimmed then they should have holdered it as authentic trimmed. I don't believe that PSA will put a minimum size card in an authentic holder because there has been no alteration or trimming. The card obviously did not meet SGC's minimum size requirement and it was slabbed as authentic. It is a little odd that why the card was labeled authentic wasn't put on the label. I know some people would like to have grading companies only authenticate cards and put no grade on the card. They want the grade to be determined by the buyer and seller. Unfortunately this is the way it was prior to professional grading and it would be in the seller's best interest to seek a buyer who doesn't know what they're looking at.
I voted "can't tell" because the image isn't the best, though the printing in the reverse looks right to me. If it's bogus it's a good job of aging the card. I lean towards "real but ugly".
Comments
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>That person is an alt. I'm not going to argue with anyone....I'm sorry. >>
Who wants to argue? You answer no questions that are asked of you, and feel someone who asks questions is being argumentative which is ridiculous. Also, I'd be very careful who I call an alt. Just sayin.
Thanks,
Dave
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
The pictures in the 1952 Bowman listing were very poor quality. They were low quality pictures from a camera and not scanned images. The pictures were low resolution and everything in the pictures including the card, Card Saver, and PSA tag was distorted and pixelated. I don't believe initially that Bobby even looked past the first "red" picture from the listing and attempted to explain to him that what he thought he was seeing was incorrect.
FIRST PICTURE IN LISTING
Bobby posted a thread saying the card was an obvious fake and the buyer got duped. http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=11&threadid=938122
His response was that the picture of the flip was crisp and clear. If you look at the enlarged pictures of the card in the listing the flip is not crisp and clear. It exhibits the same distorted pixelated dot pattern as what's affecting the card. Everybody knows what a sharp and clear picture of a PSA flip is supposed to look like. It does not look like what you see in the following pictures. This helps to make it easier to understand why the card is exhibiting the same qualities as the PSA flip in the same picture. If the picture is looked at by people not entirely understanding what they're seeing then it could easily be called a fake.
BACK PICTURE - The picture of the back is unquestionably a real 1952 Bowman. The texture of the paper, quality of print, and unquestionably period tape coloring leave no question on authenticity.
There is no question looking at all the pictures and understanding why the pictures look the way they do that the card is authentic. The tape/tapestain is period. It is a stained card and the poor quality picture is just making it look more suspect. They are good enough however to see that they are not "xerox" copies. If Bobby were to scan the same card using his scanning abilities the card would look completely different. It will be stained but it won't look anything like what it does compared to the seller's poor quality pictures.
Here is a link to a stained 1953 Topps card in a PSA holder.
http://b-lauctions.com/1953-Topps-%2382-Mickey-Mantle-PSA-3-LOT6427.aspx
It is a quality scan and shows what a stained card looks like when set against a sharp clear PSA tag. If the seller of the 1952 Bowman took pictures of the 1953 it would look fake to the untrained eye just like the 1952 Bowman.
There is no doubt that switching a real card with a fake is possible, but it is not what happened here. Not that it matters whatsoever for determining authenticity, but the seller has 6000 100% feedback, and the buyer has left positive feedback for the card. So the opinion of two people who got to see the card in hand should also count for something. Depending on how old the flip is, there's a good chance the grader will remember this card. If it's important enough for Bobby to continue his quest for truth he will believe perhaps contacting Joe Orlando to ask the graders of the card if they remember seeing it would be the next step. I want to also point out that Bobby is not a bad person for not understanding what the pictures are showing. Hopefully they will be looked at closer and a better understanding of what's going on will be accepted.
I voted real, btw.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Looks like someone soaked it in turpentine or whatever they use to try and remove tape with. Seems like it has an oil base in it and was soaked or something.
I vote real.
Edit to add.
Im saying the card has a weird shad to it which looks like a typical reprint. But I have owned a few 1948 bowmans with tape on them and someone soaked them in some type of oil base liquid and it gave them a similar shade to them. In hand I knew they were real but they did look way different in color.
Its a tough card to judge by the scan. But to me its not a hands down obvious fake if it is one. It also looks properly aged. But soaked in something thick. Giving it a off color shade.
Just my opinion, did the card sell?
I voted can't tell and I am surprised the results aren't 0 real, 0 fake and 36 cant tell. From these pictures
I've got to believe the PSA experts would vote cant tell if they took part in Bobby's poll.
I kind of think it's fake just because of the circumstance but I don't know for sure so my vote is I can't tell.
<< <i>I wouldn't know how to spot a fake of this card. Typically, when I see ebay listings like these I automatically go on the defense and assume that the card is a reprint or counterfeit etc... Because why wouldn't the seller/owner have the card encapsulated "authentic" if it were in fact real? I'm not sure if psa slabs cards as authentic/altered but I know BGS does.
I kind of think it's fake just because of the circumstance but I don't know for sure so my vote is I can't tell. >>
There are some "standard" vintage/modern card issues that PSA will not holder as Authentic even if requested. Basically, it is at their discretion. I purchased a 1957 Topps set from PWCC a few months ago where the #95 Mantle was described as trimmed. I sent the card to PSA as part of a submission with the request to holder Authentic cards. The card came back as N6: Minimum Size Requirement, and the card was not encapsulated. I ended up sending the card to SGC, where it was holdered as Authentic.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>I want to say fake just looking at it for 10 seconds. But then I think 80% of my vote is that it is real. After I look at it for a few moments.
Looks like someone soaked it in turpentine or whatever they use to try and remove tape with. Seems like it has an oil base in it and was soaked or something.
I vote real. >>
The tape and the turpentine theory is interesting, and who knows, I am definitely not a 1953 Bowman expert, as I have never owned a card from this set before. However, I remember asking an autograph forum whether a baseball that was shellacked with a Babe Ruth signature under the shellac, whether those should be authentic (assuming it wasn't a clubhouse signature or anything else non-malicious). My reasoning was, if you wanted to fake a signature, why would you then coat the ball with shellac which would then significantly lower it's value? The answer was that you still can't depend on the shellac to assume that the auto is real because counterfeiters will still do this to try to sell even a lower value ball to get by people. Therefore, you still can't always depend on the reasoning that why would someone ruin a card like that if it were fake? To some people, just a hundred dollars or so if more than enough motivation to counterfeit a card. Again, the Bowman experts may still say that this card in question is real. However, in general, you can't always depend on the logic that if there is tape on the card, it should be authentic.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
Just so you know, a card returned as minimum size does not mean the card was trimmed. It means the card exhibits an original factory cut but the card was cut too small for PSA to put it in a holder with a grade. If in fact it was trimmed and you sent it in requesting them to holder as Authentic Trimmed then they should have holdered it as authentic trimmed. I don't believe that PSA will put a minimum size card in an authentic holder because there has been no alteration or trimming. The card obviously did not meet SGC's minimum size requirement and it was slabbed as authentic. It is a little odd that why the card was labeled authentic wasn't put on the label. I know some people would like to have grading companies only authenticate cards and put no grade on the card. They want the grade to be determined by the buyer and seller. Unfortunately this is the way it was prior to professional grading and it would be in the seller's best interest to seek a buyer who doesn't know what they're looking at.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012