1951 Wheaties Premiums

[Zach Wheat]

The 1951 Wheaties Test Issue "Premiums" is a set of black & white portraits issued sometime around 1951 and used later in '52 on Wheaties boxes. The set is comprised of various subjects lettered A - K. It is thought the set was issued as a test to determine popularity of the photos for later use as a redemption premium. According to info in a recent auction, contracts were never completed with 2 of the subjects - Mantle & Rosen - and printing of these 2 photo's ceased. The Test Issue Premiums have been associated with General Mills, issuer of Wheaties.

The set is lettered A - K implying there were 11 subjects. In addition to the 8 baseball players, the set also included a card of ice skater Betty Schalow ("H"). Subsequent auctions also turned up cards for Rizzuto ("B"), resulting in a total of 9 baseball players, 10 subjects in total. This essentially left 1 missing subject in the letter "I" slot. I suspect this subject was not a baseball player.

I have included a photo of my 1951 Wheaties Mantle (thanks, Phil) by way of reference.

I have corresponded a number of time with the archives center at General Mills - presumed issuer of the premiums - and they determined the only premiums they made were in 1950. They stated these premiums were actually "colored pictures" with a metal frame. They could not add any information on the history of the 1951 Wheaties Test Issue Premiums set. This is not too surprising, since the archives center was started in 1980.

Who is the last 11th subject (letter "I") in the set? Does anyone have any other information on this set?

Z Wheat

[Bestdj777]

Are you positive on the lettering or going off of PSA's site? Their lettering is off as they list Mantle as G.

I do believe these to be a Wheaties premium given the similarity between these and the 52 Wheaties.

This set is strange. Looking at the population reports for PSA, it looks like there was a stack of these stored away somewhere. There is an abundance of mid-grade cards, which is right where I would expect a card to fall that was stuck in box untouched for 60+ years. My two are posted below. One clearly shows its age/wear. I tend to believe the test issue theory, particularly given the distribution. It would not surprise me if they released a handful of these and then decided to nix the idea.

http://i1345.photobucket.com/albums/p669/debonochris/KGrHqVmEFGwu76VZvBRwfzCL6v60_57_zps8cc011b1.jpg

http://i1345.photobucket.com/albums/p669/debonochris/IMG_0519_zps0ea2064a.jpg

[Zach Wheat]

Mantle is "G".

I am not sure of the "lettering" for Rizzuto and Schalow. I compiled my information from a number of sources. I have never seen an image of Rizzuto.

Z Wheat

[Bestdj777]

Oh, okay. I was looking at the first letter, not the last. PSA has Rizzuto as B. Here is the only pic I could find of his card, courtesy of Robert Edwards. Unfortunately, it is too small to discern the letter, at least for my eyes.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2011images/Item_19067_2.jpg

[toppcat]

I think it's possible there is no "I". Due to confusion with "1" it's often not used in schemes such as this A-K one. Topps did not use "I" in the 1948-49 Magic Photos scheme and I have seen other sets without such a designation as well.

[sflayank]

i think rizzuto is b
and i think dave is right about no I
carling beer magic photos etc all eliminated I

[Zach Wheat]

Good information, guys. Thanks.

Z Wheat

[whiteymet]

I always wondered about this set. Why would Wheaties, or whoever issued the set include a Mantle in a 1951 set? His rookie year? Makes no sense!

Why include a guy who only played in 96 games, hit .267 with 13 HR's? Remember he wasn't MICKEY MANTLE yet!

I am not even convinced this is a Wheaties issue. Just because the same photos were used in a later issue, does not make it so. Some of the photos like the Ashburn were normal team stock issue photos.

I always wondered if any of the photos could be found by photo collectors who could date the photo. I bet some of them were after 1951!

Am I off base here??

Fred

[whiteymet]

Just had another thought. Did not all the 1951 uniforms have a special patch on the left sleeve with crossed bats? If I am correct, how could this Mantle photo have been taken in 1951 which it would have to have been if this is a 191 issue?

Some Mantle collector out there has a Type1 photo of this shot who can date it.

[whiteymet]

Found the photo in the Hulton archives of the Getty Images who has rights to the photo

See:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-of-new-york-yankees-outfielder-mickey-mantle-at-a-news-photo/3244119

They date it circa 1955! Thus no way the set could be from 1951. Info says date created as 1/1/55 so best guess is photo was taken in 1954.

Thoughts anyone???

[Bestdj777]

Found the photo in the Hulton archives of the Getty Images who has rights to the photo

See:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-of-new-york-yankees-outfielder-mickey-mantle-at-a-news-photo/3244119

They date it circa 1955! Thus no way the set could be from 1951. Info says date created as 1/1/55 so best guess is photo was taken in 1954.

Thoughts anyone???

I have way too much money into these cards for them to be from any year other than 1951. So, we can we just all agree that they are 1951 issues?

[pawpawdiv9]

Bestdj777- now the cat is out of the bag. How about selling yours for fraction of what you got it listed at. LOL!! You can take a few of those zero's off.

[whiteymet]

I have way too much money into these cards for them to be from any year other than 1955. So, we can we just all agree that they are 1951 issues?

Chris

I assume your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek when you said the above?

Money should have nothing to do with the truth. We should go where the evidence leads.

What is your take on what I have laid out?

Fred

[Bestdj777]

Fred,

I agree that it would be great to know more about the set even if it weren't from 1951. Although, it would obviously hurt the value if there were conclusive proof. As for what you've laid out so far, I think it is interesting but do not believe it really demonstrates anything about the actual age of the Wheaties product. There could just as easily be a mistake on the archive, etc., or it could not be a first edition photo (or whatever the photograph collectors call them)

To really figure things out, I think we would need an expert on uniforms to weigh in and determine if it is actual possible that these are 1951 uniforms for these players. I honestly just don't know enough about them myself to make a call.

And, Chris, not a chance :) At least not yet.

[whiteymet]

Gentlemen:

There is a discussion in the postwar card area regarding the 1951 Wheaties set.

The photo used for the Mantle can be found here:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...-photo/3244119

Can any of you Mantle/Type 1 photo collectors date this photo?

[whiteymet]

Chris:

I am NOT a photo collector or expert.

However I did a Google search for 1951 Mantle photos and the first ones shown in both home and away uniforms ALL show the patch I referenced on the left sleeve.

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=1951+Mickey+Mantle&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qf81UoqjAfP84AOgpoGQCw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1187&bih=549&dpr=1

Granted, the photo used in the 51 Wheaties is there as well as are many others that are obviously post 1951.

Fred

[whiteymet]

Here is the photo in question:

[Bestdj777]

I took a look. Most do have the patch. On the 51 Bowman cards, there are not patches on either jersey though.

[whiteymet]

I took a look. Most do have the patch. On the 51 Bowman cards, there are not patches on either jersey though.

Chris:

True that. But the original photo used for the 51 Bowman was taken in spring training.

See:http://www.1951bowmanbaseballcards.com/Mickey%20Mantle%201951%20Team%20Photo.htm

Above has photo AND a video from the same park where the photo was taken.

Teams used last years uniforms in spring traing and unveiled new ones once the season began.

The photo used in the 51 Wheaties set was obviously taken in a big league park. So, it seems the photo was taken at a big league park, but NOT in 1951.

So how could Wheaties have printed it in 1951? And again back to my original question, WHY would they have included him in a 1951 set when he was just a rookie with rather pedestrian stats?

Fred

[BigJJ]

I love Mick and I hope he excuses the following, but I believe it can be dated by his little bit of acne if memory is correct.

[Bestdj777]

I don't know why they included Mantle. My understanding is that there were big expectations for him coming in to his rookie year. If you compare a few of the cards from the 51 set with the 52 Wheaties set, you'll see the same photos were used, particularly Feller, Musial, and Campanella.

I also came across three other athletes that were included in the set: Ben Hogan (I), Jack Kramer (H), and Bob Cousy (no letter identified):

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=117232&searchby=0&searchvalue=None&page=9&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=100&category=1&seo=Scarce-1951-Wheaties-Test-Issue-Baseball-Premium-Photos-Complete-Set-%288%29-%E2%80%93-Plus-Three-Uncatalogued-P

[Runscott]

I would go with 1951

[roarfrom34]

I would go with 1951

Wouldn't there be the Golden Anniversary patch on the sleeve in 1951?

[Runscott]

My guess is based on the signature.

[whiteymet]

I don't know why they included Mantle. My understanding is that there were big expectations for him coming in to his rookie year. If you compare a few of the cards from the 51 set with the 52 Wheaties set, you'll see the same photos were used, particularly Feller, Musial, and Campanella.

I also came across three other athletes that were included in the set: Ben Hogan (I), Jack Kramer (H), and Bob Cousy (no letter identified):

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=117232&searchby=0&searchvalue=None&page=9&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=100&category=1&seo=Scarce-1951-Wheaties-Test-Issue-Baseball-Premium-Photos-Complete-Set-%288%29-%E2%80%93-Plus-Three-Uncatalogued-P

Chris:

Just because some of the same photos were used for this purported 1951 set for the 1952 set means nothing. Turn it around. MAYBE the same photos from the 52 set were used for this set that may have been issued in 1954 or so. It can work both ways.

With the info you provided on the three non baseball players, I did some research on all those issued.

You mentioned you had not studied Mantle's stats for '51. I had listed them before, but let's look at his stats for 51 and later years:

Mantle in 1951 played in 96 games hit .267 w/ 13 HR's and 65 RBI's why put him in the set with other established stars?
1953 21 HR's ad 92 RBI's so so stats but I could them including him
1954 27 HR's and 102 RBI's
1955 EVEN BETTER 37 HR's and 99 RBI's

Ashburn led the league in hits both 1951 and 53 but won the batting title in 55 Toss up in my eyes

Berra won MVP in 51, 54 and 55 so he is no help in determining the year!

Musial was Musial great all through the 50's All Star every year

Campy: Like Berra won MVP in both 51 and 54 but led league in RBI's in 53

In my eyes all of the above would be candidates for either a 51 set or later.

However, The Indians clinch it for me:

The Indians had just been in the 1954 World Series and had the best record in all of baseball winning 111 games they finished third in 1951.

Bob Lemon had his best year in 1954 going 23 - 7 with a 2.72 era

Feller had a much better season in 1951 than 1954 or 55 But is a big name

Rosen was MVP in 53

The World Series and the fact that Lemon and Rosen are included leads me to place the set to 1954/55.

Now on to the non baseball:

Hogan: According to Wikipedia:

The "Hogan Slam" season

The win at Carnoustie was but a part of Hogan's watershed 1953 season, in which he won five of the six tournaments he entered and including three major championships (a feat known as the "Hogan Slam").

It still stands among the greatest single seasons in the history of professional golf. Hogan, 40, was unable to enter — and possibly win — the 1953 PGA Championship (to complete the Grand Slam) because its play (July 1–7) overlapped the play of the British Open at Carnoustie (July 6–10), which he won. It was the only time that a golfer had won three major professional championships in a year until Tiger Woods won the final three majors in 2000 (and the first in 2001).

Cousy Most Valuable Player of the 1954 NBA All-Star Game.

Kramer: Again according to Wikipedia:

He won NO tournaments after 1949 But RETIRED in 1954

So in retrospect Hogan had his best year(s), Cousey MVP of All Star Game and Kramer retired all in the 1954 time frame and not much if anything happened to them in 1951. The Indians winning in 1954 and not 1951 thus no reason to include them in a 1951 set is just more "proof" in my eyes that this is NOT a 1951 set.

With all that said, to me the inclusion of Mantle at all is the most damning evidence for this not to be a 51 set, especially with the arm patch missing. The rest is just inconclusive or pointing in the direction of a later issue.

I posted a question to those photo collectors in the memorabilia section to see if any of them had a Type 1 of the shot where they could definitively date it. No answers yet.

I am REALLY making a much bigger deal out of this than is probably needed, but things that do not make sense to me, bugs me! And for many years this has bugged me, so it is all coming to a head with all this reserach and conjecture.

Basically as stated I see NO REASON why a national company with a long history of using sports figures on their products would include an untested rookie in a set before he proves he is "worthy". So I can not see this being a 1951 issue.

Fred

[Bestdj777]

Haha nothing wrong with dissecting the issue. And I agree regarding player selection. I also don't really understand why you'd put some many baseball players and then one of each other athlete.

My point with the 52 photos was that we have evidence that many of these photos existed as early, if not earlier, than 52. I don't know about the lack of patch except that he could have been wearing a spring training uniform as well.

Any idea what ballpark it is?

[BigJJ]

To be more specific, I remember that those exactly placed and size pimples were on another photo which was dated to the day.

[hcv123]

An after market make up job?

[whiteymet]

To be more specific, I remember that those exactly placed and size pimples were on another photo which was dated to the day.

Jon:

That is what I am looking for. The date of the photo or one similar with the same acne as you stated. Can you help?

Fred

[whiteymet]

Haha nothing wrong with dissecting the issue. And I agree regarding player selection. I also don't really understand why you'd put some many baseball players and then one of each other athlete.

My point with the 52 photos was that we have evidence that many of these photos existed as early, if not earlier, than 52. I don't know about the lack of patch except that he could have been wearing a spring training uniform as well.

Any idea what ballpark it is?

Chris:

Granted some of the photos of the others could have been pre 54 or 55. You can always use older photos later. The thing I am trying to figure out of course is when the Mantle photo was taken, because while you can use older photos later you can't use later photos earlier!!:>)

As to your point of Mantle wearing a spring training uniform in the photo, that of course is not possible with the stadium shown behind Mickey in the photo. It is clearly a Major League ballpark. But I can not ID it.

Maybe someone else here can, but that will not help to date the photo unless the stadium was built post 1951 which I greatly doubt, or it is a stadium like KC or Baltimore which did not get a team until the mid 50's.

Fred

[Volod]

Could be missing the forest for the trees - Mantle and Mays were both in the 1951 Bowman set as rookies with little to support them except that they were highly touted as prospective players in New York. Were there any similarly hyped farm products for other cities in the '51 Bowmans? I dunno, but even MacDougal and Ford are in there, while players for other teams generally had to be proven vets to get a card. The card companies were biased toward major markets, just as media is today.
As for that Mantle photo, he does appear to me to be older than in most of his rookie images, so it very well could be from '53 or '54.

[whiteymet]

An after market make up job?

Hi Howard:

Who knows?? I have seen or read no difinitive proof this is a Wheaties set. I am not home to read the info in the SCD Standard catalog, but I think I recall it saying something like "purported to be by Wheaties"

Even if it is a Wheaties issue, my "problem" as noted is with the year.

Why issue Mantle in a 1951 set? Make sense to you? Not me.

Fred

[whiteymet]

Could be missing the forest for the trees - Mantle and Mays were both in the 1951 Bowman set as rookies with little to support them except that they were highly touted as prospective players in New York. Were there any similarly hyped farm products for other cities in the '51 Bowmans? I dunno, but even MacDougal and Ford are in there, while players for other teams generally had to be proven vets to get a card. The card companies were biased toward major markets, just as media is today.
As for that Mantle photo, he does appear to me to be older than in most of his rookie images, so it very well could be from '53 or '54.

Steve:

Thaks for the input. I understand Mantle and Mays being in the 51 Bowman set. But that set has 324 cards in it. Why would Wheaties include Mantle in a 8 "card" issue? Even though Yankees are major market as you say, there are plenty of other NY players they could have chosen.

I agree he looks older in the photo than in ther images from his rookie year, but until we can date the photo we will not know for sure. Hopefully someone will be able to do that conclusively.

Fred

[thecatspajamas]

I seem to remember Graig or perhaps Phil Nap (correct me if I'm wrong) doing a pimple analysis on another Mick photo once upon a time.

[BigJJ]

A recent thread covering a little -
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=168843
Craig - Frozen in Time - April May 1951
Will look for specific photos

[BigJJ]

April 10, 1951 - pimple - no pinstripes though - so in the timeframe - but not the exact date


http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE049932/mickey-mantle-posing-with-his-girlfriend?popup=1

[PhilNap]

I seem to remember Graig or perhaps Phil Nap (correct me if I'm wrong) doing a pimple analysis on another Mick photo once upon a time.

Probably Graig. Way too much time on his hands.

[BigJJ]

It is the picture from his 1951 Wheaties premium - home pinstripes are more clear here -

http://catalog.scpauctions.com/lot-12986.aspx

[BigJJ]

On certain days in April, Mantle is wearing a long sleeve underjersey - other days a short sleeve underjersey - such as the photo in question.

So we're looking for date where Mantle has the same pimple display, is wearing a home jersey, no patch on upper left arm, shortsleeve underjersey, Yankee Stadium, in April 1951.

[whiteymet]

On certain days in April, Mantle is wearing a long sleeve underjersey - other days a short sleeve underjersey - such as the photo in question.

So we're looking for date where Mantle has the same pimple display, is wearing a home jersey, no patch on upper left arm, shortsleeve underjersey, Yankee Stadium, in April 1951.

Jon:

Here is the ORIGINAL photo on the Getty site.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-of-new-york-yankees-outfielder-mickey-mantle-at-a-news-photo/3244119?esource=linkshare&cid=293621&aid=je6NUbpObpQ&lid=1&siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-QizN9pfmVItFb3Wu.xLWQQ

It says circa 1955, Created 1/1/55 Obviously the photo was not taken on New Years day, but do you know how Getty dates the photos?

note NO PINSTRIPES. They must have been added to the "Wheaties" issue.

Also ALL uniforms in 1951 had the arm patch, so my take is the shot can not be from 1951.

We are trying to determine the date of the photo to see if indeed the "Wheaties" set could have been issued in 1951. If the dates on the Getty site are correct and the photo is from 1955 then the set cannot be 1951.

Make sense? Any ideas?

Fred

[doug.goodman]

I can't date it, but here's another time it was used...

[Runscott]

You guys are making me feel huge, with all the '1951' talk. Be careful - my card ego is already too big, no need to add to my growing autograph ego.

[GKreindler]

Hey all,

I'm on vacation for the week, but a friend pointed this thread out to me.

I won't have all of my resources available until I get back, but I can assure you that this Mantle image is NOT from '51. Fred was right in mentioning the patch detail. Also worthy of note is that the photo was taken at Ebbets Field. The only time the Yanks were there was for the exhibition right before the season started, and they certainly had the patches on their sleeves then.

My first gut reaction is that the shot is from the '52 World Series, taken during one of the games in Brooklyn. Though the Yanks also had patches on their sleeves that same year, it didn't extend to the postseason (or at least, the away jerseys).

When I get home, I'll dig up the photo evidence, and even try and match up the adverts on the wall to the same year. But in summation, definitely not '51!

Graig

PS: I am familiar with the photo that you guys posted, but I have never really studied it in depth. It's hard to tell from the scan on the board, but there's no evidence of a patch being airbrushed out, right?

[thecatspajamas]

Hey all,

I'm on vacation for the week, but a friend pointed this thread out to me.

I won't have all of my resources available until I get back, but I can assure you that this Mantle image is NOT from '51. Fred was right in mentioning the patch detail. Also worthy of note is that the photo was taken at Ebbets Field. The only time the Yanks were there was for the exhibition right before the season started, and they certainly had the patches on their sleeves then.

My first gut reaction is that the shot is from the '52 World Series, taken during one of the games in Brooklyn. Though the Yanks also had patches on their sleeves that same year, it didn't extend to the postseason (or at least, the away jerseys).

When I get home, I'll dig up the photo evidence, and even try and match up the adverts on the wall to the same year. But in summation, definitely not '51!

Graig

PS: I am familiar with the photo that you guys posted, but I have never really studied it in depth. It's hard to tell from the scan on the board, but there's no evidence of a patch being airbrushed out, right?

Graig,

Since when do you get a vacation? I'm going to have to talk to Dean about this. First he lets you get married, and now this?! We will expect a full report when you get back, including what shade of red is appropriate to use for "Mickey Mantle's acne." (And don't act like you haven't already spent hours obsessing over that one. You're like the reverse of those school photographers who were always trying to get us to pay to have those blemishes removed from our photos.)

J/k. Much love to you and the Mrs., wherever you may be. I look forward to seeing what you dig up upon returning to home base.

[Frozen in Time]

Hey all,

I'm on vacation for the week, but a friend pointed this thread out to me.

I won't have all of my resources available until I get back, but I can assure you that this Mantle image is NOT from '51. Fred was right in mentioning the patch detail. Also worthy of note is that the photo was taken at Ebbets Field. The only time the Yanks were there was for the exhibition right before the season started, and they certainly had the patches on their sleeves then.

My first gut reaction is that the shot is from the '52 World Series, taken during one of the games in Brooklyn. Though the Yanks also had patches on their sleeves that same year, it didn't extend to the postseason (or at least, the away jerseys).

When I get home, I'll dig up the photo evidence, and even try and match up the adverts on the wall to the same year. But in summation, definitely not '51!

Graig

PS: I am familiar with the photo that you guys posted, but I have never really studied it in depth. It's hard to tell from the scan on the board, but there's no evidence of a patch being airbrushed out, right?





Hi Guys,

So this is all I know about this photo. The original photo (without facsimile auto) was taken by Don Wingfield at Ebbets Field. The original image is exactly what was used for the 1951 Wheaties series (they added the pinstripes and enhanced the uniform folds editorially).

Now the date. Having over 150 Type I prints of the Mick as a rookie, I can tell you that the facial characteristics (including the much discussed acne) and what I can see of his body all shout 1951.

Support for 1952 comes from a Type I print with a 1952 date stamp (which if I remember correctly was from October supporting Graig's contention). It is also possible that this print was used for something else in 1952 and reflects that and not when it was taken.

I have a Type I of the original negative and there does not appear to be any evidence of editorial removal of a '51 nor '52 patch. Moreover, I have several Type I's of Mickey in spring training of 1952 and in all of them he is wearing a 1951 top where you can clearly see an outline of the '51 patch that has been removed on his left sleeve.

This photo was used for at least 3 premium photo issues that I am aware of (all with slightly different styles of facsimile autos) in addition to several PM-10 pins.

Finally, one definitive way to date the photo would be some hard evidence as to when the 1951 Wheaties series was created - Feb, March, April of '51 or after September 1952?

Hope this helps more than confuses.

Cheers,

Craig

[Volod]

You have a point there, Fred, which kind of supports your theory that the photos are from a later year. I think there were a number of articles in the media about the Yankees' and Giants' young phenoms in 1951, however. So, it still seems feasible to me that Mantle might have been in an eight-card set based on nothing more than his early celebrity status in NY in that year. Look at it from the perspective of card issuer trying to maximize profit - do you want a good-looking kid that everyone (in NY anyway) is raving about as the next Joe D., or do you want Hank Bauer? In that discussion, stats and experience don't really matter. On the other hand, I agree with you that other factors point to a later year for the set.

[hcv123]

Found the photo in the Hulton archives of the Getty Images who has rights to the photo

See:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-of-new-york-yankees-outfielder-mickey-mantle-at-a-news-photo/3244119

They date it circa 1955! Thus no way the set could be from 1951. Info says date created as 1/1/55 so best guess is photo was taken in 1954.

Thoughts anyone???

It seems like this is the best lead as far as dating. Getty is a stock photo agency. They sell the use rights for thousands of photographers and photographs. They list a "date created" as Jan 1, 1955. Worth a phone call checking how they arrived at that date. What is the Hutton archive etc.

[hcv123]

When do any of you first remember seeing these available for sale/auction? When were they added to the standard catalog? Not a stretch to think someone "created these" in the past 20 years. Anyone have one who is or knows a photo paper expert?

[sflayank]

these have been in the book a long time
they were listed as general mills and booked for $10ea

[whiteymet]

Hi Craig and Graig

Thanks for all the info! We are finally getting down to the gist of my question.

But I am seeing conflicting thoughts/theories/info from the both of you.

Graig says " definitely not '51!" and Craig says "and what I can see of his body all shout 1951.

Support for 1952 comes from a Type I print with a 1952 date stamp (which if I remember correctly was from October supporting Graig's contention)"

Graig: GREAT info on the patches extending into the WS in 51 and not 52. Dating with the ads will really help. Looking forward to it, but enjoy your vacation until then!

Craig:

You go on to say " one definitive way to date the photo would be some hard evidence as to when the 1951 Wheaties series was created - Feb, March, April of '51 or after September 1952?"

This is actually what I am trying to ascertain. IF the photo is from the 52 World Series then the Wheaties set can not be from 1951, but rather has to be later. Of course even if the photo is from 1951 does not mean the Wheaties set was issued in 1951 or even 1952 for that matter. It could have been issued any year later! This goes back to my argument of why Wheaties would include Mantle in a 1951 set. More on this an comparing other players in the set can be found in the postwar section discussion found here:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=175675

where one of the issues is, it is dated circa 1955 in the Getty archives!

I hope one of you EXPERTS will be able to come up with a definitive answer on when the photo was taken, and we will be able to answer at least if the set was issued in 1951 or not. Then the question is, is it a Wheaties issue and we start all over again!! :>)

Thanks again for all your help/research/thoughts!

Fred

[whiteymet]

Gentlemen:

I opened this up for discussion in the memorabilia section to see if any of the photo collectors would be able to date the photo in question.

There is some VERY INTERESTING information and comments over there.

You can read it here:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=175818

I have in kind, "invited" them over to our discussion here. After reading some of the later posts there I feel we are getting closer to an answer.

Fred

[whiteymet]

When do any of you first remember seeing these available for sale/auction? When were they added to the standard catalog? Not a stretch to think someone "created these" in the past 20 years. Anyone have one who is or knows a photo paper expert?

Howard:

I first came across one of these at the old Willow Grove show in PA during the 1980's. So these were "out" long before the SCD Standard catalog was issued.

I collected extensively in the late 60's into the mid 70's and would have picked these up then if I had ever seen them. So, what you are saying is very possible, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

Maybe someone has some old SCD's or other old collector issues and can determine when the "1951 Wheaties" first showed up on the scene.

Anyone?????

As for photo/paper experts, it is well above my paygrade! ;>)

Fred

[Bestdj777]

Definitely an interesting discussion over on that end. Glad to see some photo experts weigh in. It is amazing what they know about photos.

I am still leaning towards 1951. New York had very high expectations for Mantle, and I cannot think of a reason why he would not be included in a 1951 issue.

[Frozen in Time]

Hi Craig and Graig

Thanks for all the info! We are finally getting down to the gist of my question.

But I am seeing conflicting thoughts/theories/info from the both of you.

Graig says " definitely not '51!" and Craig says "and what I can see of his body all shout 1951.

Support for 1952 comes from a Type I print with a 1952 date stamp (which if I remember correctly was from October supporting Graig's contention)"

Graig: GREAT info on the patches extending into the WS in 51 and not 52. Dating with the ads will really help. Looking forward to it, but enjoy your vacation until then!

Craig:

You go on to say " one definitive way to date the photo would be some hard evidence as to when the 1951 Wheaties series was created - Feb, March, April of '51 or after September 1952?"

This is actually what I am trying to ascertain. IF the photo is from the 52 World Series then the Wheaties set can not be from 1951, but rather has to be later. Of course even if the photo is from 1951 does not mean the Wheaties set was issued in 1951 or even 1952 for that matter. It could have been issued any year later! This goes back to my argument of why Wheaties would include Mantle in a 1951 set. More on this an comparing other players in the set can be found in the postwar section discussion found here:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=175675

where one of the issues is, it is dated circa 1955 in the Getty archives!

I hope one of you EXPERTS will be able to come up with a definitive answer on when the photo was taken, and we will be able to answer at least if the set was issued in 1951 or not. Then the question is, is it a Wheaties issue and we start all over again!! :>)

Thanks again for all your help/research/thoughts!

Fred

Hi Fred,

Well, I believe I've solved the date issue for the Wheaties Mantle photo. In my previous post I mentioned that the photo was definitely taken by Yankee photographer Don Wingfield at Ebbets Field. I checked with Henry Yee and he confirmed both statements. We also both agreed that the photo was from either 1951 or 1952.

I finally found the photo I mentioned that had an Oct 1952 date on the back. Indeed it was taken by Wingfield on Oct. 6, 1952 at the WS at Ebbets Field as Graig had suggested. So if this is true the chances of the Wheaties Mantle "card" being produced in 1951 is not looking good.

Hope all this helps.

Cheers,

Craig

[Bob Lemke]

Maybe it's just me, and maybe it's because I'm only looking at scans, but that looks to me like the Mantle image was superimposed on the stadium background.

[Frozen in Time]

Maybe it's just me, and maybe it's because I'm only looking at scans, but that looks to me like the Mantle image was superimposed on the stadium background.

No Bob, this image is unaltered and printed from the original negative.

Craig

[whiteymet]

Hi Fred,

Well, I believe I've solved the date issue for the Wheaties Mantle photo. In my previous post I mentioned that the photo was definitely taken by Yankee photographer Don Wingfield at Ebbets Field. I checked with Henry Yee and he confirmed both statements. We also both agreed that the photo was from either 1951 or 1952.

I finally found the photo I mentioned that had an Oct 1952 date on the back. Indeed it was taken by Wingfield on Oct. 6, 1952 at the WS at Ebbets Field as Graig had suggested. So if this is true the chances of the Wheaties Mantle "card" being produced in 1951 is not looking good.

Hope all this helps.

Cheers,

Craig

Hey Craig:

GREAT detective work! Thanks for confirming my thoughts on the year of issue. Now we know it can not be a 1951 set!

As I mentioned over on the postwar section my belief is it is much more likely to be a 1954/55 issue due to the inclusion of three of the 1954 AL Champion Indians. Maybe Bob Lemke can shed some light on the origins of this set and how it came to be known (now erroneously) as a 1951 Wheaties set.

Thanks again for your hard work.

Fred

[whiteymet]

Hey Craig:

GREAT detective work! Thanks for confirming my thoughts on the year of issue. Now we know it can not be a 1951 set!

As I mentioned over on the postwar section my belief is it is much more likely to be a 1954/55 issue due to the inclusion of three of the 1954 AL Champion Indians. Maybe Bob Lemke can shed some light on the origins of this set and how it came to be known (now erroneously) as a 1951 Wheaties set.

Thanks again for your hard work.

Fred

Hey Bob:

How about it? Do you have any recollection of when this set showed up in the hobby? How did it get the designation of 1951 and as a Wheaties issue?

I understand that SOME of the same photos were used in the 1952 Wheaties set, and some thought it to be a test for that set. But now that we know it can't be a 1951 issue I am wondering how it all started.

Any light you can shed would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Fred

[whiteymet]

Definitely an interesting discussion over on that end. Glad to see some photo experts weigh in. It is amazing what they know about photos.

I am still leaning towards 1951. New York had very high expectations for Mantle, and I cannot think of a reason why he would not be included in a 1951 issue.

Hi Chris:

SORRY to burst your bubble. But Craig over on the memorabilia forum has proved beyond a doubt that the Mantle photo is from Oct. 6, 1952

See:http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=175818&page=3

Thus it could not have been issued in 1951.

So now we know that the 1951 Wheaties set is NOT from 1951, it is time to wonder if it is a Wheaties set at all or issued by another company.

I have reached out to Bob Lemke to see if he has any recollections of the genesis of the set over on the memorabilia forum. You may want to follow over there to see what his response is.

Next we have to contact those at SCD who put out the Standard Catalog to make some kind of revision on the listing for the set.

Fred

[Bestdj777]

I don't think Craig has proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt--that is a very high standard and I still have my doubts. Pretty strong evidence that it is not from 1951 though. Owell. Still one of the most attractive cards made of him.

[pawpawdiv9]

Hey Chris, you start erasing some of those 0's of that asking price yet?
This discussion has become very interesting and i have been digging thru and researching myself proving whether or not it is 'Wheaties'.
Great Stuff!!!

[Bestdj777]

Hey Chris, you start erasing some of those 0's of that asking price yet?
This discussion has become very interesting and i have been digging thru and researching myself proving whether or not it is 'Wheaties'.
Great Stuff!!!

Hahah, the price is perfectly fair Chris!

[pawpawdiv9]

The 51 wheaties premium photo might be just mis-represented.

I just gave you a heads up on a nice 52 #311 coming up soon. Depsite a nice 2 on ebay, but claims it their grandpas --go figure?? going for now just under 5k with 1 hour left
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Mickey-Mantle-Psa-2-topps-311-/111172483328?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item19e2657900 by angela.momberger
Has a front/back pic, but unable to zoom on the front.

[Bestdj777]

The 51 wheaties premium photo might be just mis-represented.

I just gave you a heads up on a nice one coming up soon. Depsite a nice 2 on ebay, but claims it their grandpas --go figure?? going for now just under 5k with 1 hour left

Yea, also selling a 52 Wax Pack and a Babe Ruth auto ball... I made one bid on that card then realized it was not worth the risk.

[Zach Wheat]

Steve:

Thaks for the input. I understand Mantle and Mays being in the 51 Bowman set. But that set has 324 cards in it. Why would Wheaties include Mantle in a 8 "card" issue? Even though Yankees are major market as you say, there are plenty of other NY players they could have chosen.

I agree he looks older in the photo than in ther images from his rookie year, but until we can date the photo we will not know for sure. Hopefully someone will be able to do that conclusively.

Fred

Fred,

Thanks for the input. Mantle was considered a rookie phenom by most of the sportswriters of that day as evidenced by this article in the NY Times from April 6, 1951 (partial copy of headline):

MICKEY CHARLES MANTLE, the new 19-year-old right fielder for the New York Yankees, is, in the opinion of most sports writers, the most promising young man to enter big-league baseball since the ascension of Joe DiMaggio, who thinks, without any editorial equivocation at all, that Mantle is the greatest rookie he has ever seen. "Greatest" is a word used....

Great info & very good discussion guys. One of the reason I love this board.

Z Wheat

[Zach Wheat]

When do any of you first remember seeing these available for sale/auction? When were they added to the standard catalog? Not a stretch to think someone "created these" in the past 20 years. Anyone have one who is or knows a photo paper expert?

Howard,

I had contacted General Mills archives and they stated they were not aware that they issued these. It is not altogether surprising since they archives had started in 1980 and the person I spoke with was certain that they did not have all available knowledge. However, they did have knowledge of issuing a set of color pictures with a metal frame as a separate mail in redemption. You can find these on eBay.

One of the earlier auctions suggested the '51 Wheaties Premiums were "liberated" along with some perfect examples of the boxes, from the issuing company. I do not remember the exact wording, but with some digging I am sure I can find the exact phrasing. This really doesn't pin down the year any better, but it does leave open the possibility that this may not be a General Mills issue.

Z Wheat

[nolemmings]

I know little about these issues, which of course doesn't stop me from giving my two cents. First, there is always the possibility that these premiums were issued over multiple years- 3 or 4 per year. We as collectors are often so adamant about making sure a particular year fits our needs that we are close-minded to the prospect of multiple-year issues.

Second, it is possible that these were issued in 1952. Maybe the idea was hey, if you like the drawings/illustrations on the '51 mini boxes (scarce until a hoard of unused was found in mid-1990s) and '52 regular boxes, you'll love the photos on which some of these were based. The Legendary auction site showing the 11 cards says that there were contract problems with Rosen and Mantle, which could explain why those were issued later than others. Also, the regular '52 cards apparently issued in series running through at least series "L" (see ads below, pulled from current ebay auctions)--maybe one premium was associated with each series of the cereal box cards and they were released at different times throughout the year. Also note that they advertised 60 cards, and L is the 12th letter of the alphabet. Maybe there were 5 cards per series?--I'll let the Wheaties experts chime in on that.

Just food for thought (pun unintended).


http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1952-Wheaties-Cereal-Panel-from-Box-Bob-Lemon-Cleveland-Indians-NICE-3-2x4-8-/00/s/NzY4WDEwMjQ=/z/B8EAAOxyY3ZRuRtn/$T2eC16JHJHsFGljIoO+eBRuRtng+e!~~60_57.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1952-Wheaties-Cereal-Box-Card-Panel-George-Mikan-Doak-Walker-Detroit-Lions-/00/s/NzY4WDEwMjQ=/z/FDgAAOxykVNRuRtV/$(KGrHqR,!rQFGtVSq-mSBRuRtVMqG!~~60_57.JPG

[pawpawdiv9]

i was researching ads and photos and found some info worth passing on to those that collect mantle photos:
http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/mantle12

and found this site on Wheaties:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1125385/5/index.htm
Wheaties' performance peaked in the early '40s. Then World War II caused a temporary wheat shortage. After the war came television and supermarkets and, as a result, newer and jazzier cereals. The costs of commercials started to increase. Wheaties stopped sponsoring sports broadcasts and began relying on athletes' testimonials, which inexplicably lost their effectiveness when they hit the TV screen. Even Jack Armstrong began to lose his appeal, and his switch to the Scientific Bureau of Investigation didn't help. Jack died in 1951.

Wheaties' early TV commercials featured the likes of Ted Williams, Sam Snead, Bob Feller and basketball star Bob Davies, the model for Clair Bee's Chip Hilton. The theme was "What sparks a champion, sparks you," and there was always the reminder that there's a whole kernel of wheat in every Wheaties flake. In another set of early commercials, Mel Allen would say, "One of the things I like to do is talk about Wheaties. The other is to eat them." In 1954 Wheaties signed up the Yankee rookie Mickey Mantle.

But sales continued to dwindle, and General Mills decided to change direction. It made the monumental blunder of pulling Wheaties out of sports. The cereal went from Mickey Mantle to Mickey Mouse in hopes of capturing the children's market. The traditional silhouette of an athlete was replaced on the box by one of a child. Wheaties signed on The Lone Ranger and Wyatt Earp. The result was that while more kids were eating the stuff, many more adults were abandoning the Breakfast of Mouseketeers. In one year, 1956, sales dropped more than 10%. Even the revelation in that May's issue of Confidential magazine that Frank Sinatra was the "Tarzan of the Boudoir" because "he eats Wheaties" didn't help.

I always thought this A2623 newspaper ad premium 1954 Wheaties premium was something of resemblance:
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/A2623-newspaper-ad-premium-1954-MICKEY-MANTLE-baseball-cereal-box-WHEATIES-7X14-/00/s/NjQwWDM4OQ==/z/o9cAAMXQ4YtSN68z/$(KGrHqR,!qgFI,4hmc+6BSN68zN0iQ~~60_3.JPG

[pawpawdiv9]

Found this photo dating to October 5-7th 1952 from the World Series
http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=38183
http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000038/caabe618-1b92-4340-9f27-e99825c441e6_lg.jpeg
http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000038/63fd3d06-9ff1-43bd-a295-80901368faa7_lg.jpeg

[Frozen in Time]

Found this photo dating to October 5-7th 1952 from the World Series
http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=38183
http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000038/caabe618-1b92-4340-9f27-e99825c441e6_lg.jpeg
http://sports.mearsonlineauctions.com/ItemImages/000038/63fd3d06-9ff1-43bd-a295-80901368faa7_lg.jpeg

Hi Guys,

Hope you don't mind me invading your thread for a moment. Don't know anything about the '1951" Wheaties series but would like to try to underscore the significance of the dated Type I photo that I posted for Fred in evaluating the date of the photo used for his Wheaties "card".

One of the best forms of documentation for determining the time frame within which a photo was issued includes a vintage, first generation image with a dated byline and photographer's original, period stamping. In this case, 10/6/1952, at Ebbets Field during the WS taken by Yankee photographer Don Wingfield working for The Sporting News at that time.

If you look closely at the other 1952 photo with Reese posted in this thread you will see the same two blemishes - one on Mickey's right cheek, the other slightly below his lower lip on the right side in both photos.

So for what it may be worth, in my opinion, the photo on which the Wheaties "card" is based is absolutely from 1952.

Sorry for the intrusion and good luck with your quest for the final answers on the Wheaties issue.

Cheers,

Craig

[Bob Lemke]

Sorry, I can't remember who first brought the set to our attention, when or how it was tied to Wheaties.

Someone with a run of Standard Catalogs could date the "discovery" by its first inclusion in the big book.

[Zach Wheat]

I know little about these issues, which of course doesn't stop me from giving my two cents. First, there is always the possibility that these premiums were issued over multiple years- 3 or 4 per year. We as collectors are often so adamant about making sure a particular year fits our needs that we are close-minded to the prospect of multiple-year issues.

Second, it is possible that these were issued in 1952. Maybe the idea was hey, if you like the drawings/illustrations on the '51 mini boxes (scarce until a hoard of unused was found in mid-1990s) and '52 regular boxes, you'll love the photos on which some of these were based. The Legendary auction site showing the 11 cards says that there were contract problems with Rosen and Mantle, which could explain why those were issued later than others. Also, the regular '52 cards apparently issued in series running through at least series "L" (see ads below, pulled from current ebay auctions)--maybe one premium was associated with each series of the cereal box cards and they were released at different times throughout the year. Also note that they advertised 60 cards, and L is the 12th letter of the alphabet. Maybe there were 5 cards per series?--I'll let the Wheaties experts chime in on that.

Just food for thought (pun unintended).


http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1952-Wheaties-Cereal-Panel-from-Box-Bob-Lemon-Cleveland-Indians-NICE-3-2x4-8-/00/s/NzY4WDEwMjQ=/z/B8EAAOxyY3ZRuRtn/$T2eC16JHJHsFGljIoO+eBRuRtng+e!~~60_57.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1952-Wheaties-Cereal-Box-Card-Panel-George-Mikan-Doak-Walker-Detroit-Lions-/00/s/NzY4WDEwMjQ=/z/FDgAAOxykVNRuRtV/$(KGrHqR,!rQFGtVSq-mSBRuRtVMqG!~~60_57.JPG

Todd,

I don't mean to be pedantic here but the wording Legendary used suggested that the issuer produced the cards prior to actually signing a contract and then after they could not consummate an appropriate contract, halted production, thus the rarity.

Their wording in the auction also seems to suggest they know more than detailed in the auction description as they suggest the images were used in
'51 & '52 Wheaties boxes from the same Wheaties Premium set. The distinction is subtle but suggests the images were lifted out of archives of the issuing company. Other auctions date the emergence of pristine examples "...to the early '90's."


Z Wheat

[Zach Wheat]

There is some great info on the Memorabilia side and I think without their help, we will never solve this issue.

Accordingly, I have asked Leon to combine the two 2 threads....so the answers/responses might be a little jumbled.

Z Wheat

[Leon]

There is some great info on the Memorabilia side and I think without their help, we will never solve this issue.

Accordingly, I have asked Leon to combine the two 2 threads....so the answers/responses might be a little jumbled.

Z Wheat

done

[Bestdj777]

There is some great info on the Memorabilia side and I think without their help, we will never solve this issue.

Accordingly, I have asked Leon to combine the two 2 threads....so the answers/responses might be a little jumbled.

Z Wheat

Agreed. Their knowledge is insane.

[nolemmings]

I don't mean to be pedantic here but the wording Legendary used suggested that the issuer produced the cards prior to actually signing a contract and then after they could not consummate an appropriate contract, halted production, thus the rarity.

I didn't take it as pedantic and wouldn't care if you were. I somewhat agree with your explanation, although I took the auction description to mean not that they had halted production, but that they completed production and had to delay release pending a signed contract. I say this because I was not aware that the Mantle photo was conspicuously scarcer than the others--I thought they were all scarce "test" issues with only the Cousy, Kramer and Hogan (plus maybe Rizzuto) being tougher. I stand corrected if that's not the case.

Anyway, I wasn't very clear in my last post when I said they may have been issued in 1952. Since we know the Mantle could not have been even printed until October of that year at the very earliest and given the time/process of obtaining rights, etc. it was likely later, it would seem that these premiums could have been issued over multiple years, commencing in either 1951 or, more likely, IMO, beginning in 1952 and stretching into at least 1953.

I am by no means an expert on Wheaties; indeed I don't even collect them except I have four of the 6 unfolded mini-boxes from '51 and 2-3 of the cut cards from 1952. I would hope those who do collect or who are old enough to remember can help here. Seems convenient that the cards were issued in 12 series (or were there more?)--that would line up to a new series being issued each month during 1952. Maybe one premium was associated with each series, as there appear to have been 12 such premiums if you include the Hogan, Kramer and Cousy. Maybe the premiums were to be a redemption promotion that got scrapped. I do not know what evidence there is that these were ever a true "test" issue as is often acclaimed. I have far more questions than answers, but wanted to throw out some ideas.

[MikeGarcia]

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/MANTLEBIGPIC_NEW.JPG




.......lower right corner , in the border : '' MOSS PHOTO , N.Y. ''
.......the '' MICKEY MANTLE '' was put on before the final finishing step ; it's inside and under the strong gloss .
..... Neither I nor the seller knew what we were dealing with when I bought it .
...8 x 10 black and white but I had left the scanner setting on '' color photo '' and tweaked the contrast to bring out any details...... NO pinstripes .
.....you guys are awesome .

[Zach Wheat]

Guys,

This side of the board has been too quiet lately and motions have been made to invite Adrian back - with the caveat that he can only post on this board. :)

I was doing some additional fact checking, etc. and came across information I thought might be useful. The inclusion of Betty Schalow, the lone non-baseball player in the set seemed a little odd and I assumed there must be a connection. It appears that Schalow was a popular skater in the early '50's with the Ice Follies. The Ice Follies was a new ice skating production that toured the US, featuring, in part, a solo skating routine of the single Ms. Schalow. At the time, the Ice Follies were competing for business with the Ice Capades. I came across an auction for one of her Wheaties Premium cards. The auction description indicated that the cards were "salesman's samples" as explained by the seller. The seller of the card, coincidentally, was a salesman from General Mills.

Although information on Schalow was not easy to come by, the Ice Follies annual programs included quite a bit of information on her. She was covered fairly extensively in the newspapers in cities where she performed. An article indicated she was born in St. Paul, MN. Coincidentally, this is close to General Mills headquarters, presumed issuer of the set.

I think this kind of brings us full circle. There seems to be too much evidence affirming the set was issued by General Mills, not only due to the inclusion of Schalow, but that this card was part of a salesman sample of cards for General Mills; further, these cards were either produced over several years or at least some of them post-Oct. 1952. I think more than likely the set was issued later than 1952.


Z Wheat

[bn2cardz]

BUMPED THREAD

With the increased prices in 1951 Mantle cards, I thought I would look into the "1951 Wheaties" Mantle.

Then I stumbled upon this thread.

There seems to be enough evidence that shows that this premium may not really date to 1951. So without any evidence dating this item to 1951 (not alone any other year) why isn't this advertised as a 1951-1955 Item or something similar to show that the actual date has not been identified?

Is this a case where money talks? That people aren't going to change the identification of the item because it would sell for less?

[orly57]

I'm glad you brought this thread back after so many years. A few months ago I almost bought one of these "1951 Wheaties." As I always do before a decent-sized purchase, I read everything I could on the subject. This very thread is the sole reason I didn't spend 4-figures on the card. After reading the arguments posted, I am extremely wary about this card. With the photo being taken in 1952 and General Mills not having any info on it, I simply will not spend that kind of money on it. The theory that these may have been "planted" in the market 20 years ago makes enough sense for me to pass on this issue.

[bn2cardz]

I'm glad you brought this thread back after so many years. A few months ago I almost bought one of these "1951 Wheaties." As I always do before a decent-sized purchase, I read everything I could on the subject. This very thread is the sole reason I didn't spend 4-figures on the card. After reading the arguments posted, I am extremely wary about this card. With the photo being taken in 1952 and General Mills not having any info on it, I simply will not spend that kind of money on it. The theory that these may have been "planted" in the market 20 years ago makes enough sense for me to pass on this issue.

Right. I take it for granted that the research has been done and the years established on items. I had been doing research and ran across this thread a few months ago. Then as I saw prices going up for 1951 items, it seemed to me that someone else may benefit from this thread. Even if in the end they felt this could have been issued in 1951, at least they have been educated.

[pawpawdiv9]

For reference reasons: Added pics of TYPE 1 PHOTO (auctioning off by SCP March 2016)

Lot #736:
10/6/1952 MICKEY MANTLE ORIGINAL PSA/DNA TYPE 1 PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY DON WINGFIELD BEFORE WORLD SERIES GAME 6 (HILLERICH & BRADSBY LOA)









Bidding



It's one of the most famous Mantle images ever shot, the work of renowned Yankees team photographer Don Wingfield, whose stamp appears on reverse. Wingfield's imagery has appeared in Life and Look magazines, innumerable team publications and even a variety of period trading cards. This particular shot, snapped at Ebbets Field during the 1952 World Series, was utilized for the Mantle representation in the 1951 Wheaties set. This apparent anachronistic impossibility would indicate that the Wheaties set was a multi-year issue, and one that utilized a bit of pre-Photoshop trickery as the Mick's road grays were lightened and pinstriped for a home field appearance, the Ebbets Field background eliminated in the process.
The black & white photo of Mantle in a batting pose was taken before Game 6 of the 1952 World Series against the Brooklyn Dodgers. Trailing 3 games to 2 in the series and nursing a 2-1 lead going into the top of the 8th, Mantle blasted a solo shot to give the Yankees the insurance run that proved to be the difference as they won the possible elimination game 3-2. The Yanks went on to defeat the Dodgers in the deciding Game 7. It's among the most iconic images of a young Mickey Mantle from the day he saved the 1952 World Series.

Short of a couple corner bends confined almost entirely to the white borders, the 8" by 10" image presents flawlessly, with secondary stamping on reverse attributing the first generation print to the collection of leading bat manufacturer Hillerich & Bradsby. A 2004 letter of provenance from John A. Hillerich IV confirms this history, and encapsulation from PSA/DNA assures Type 1 status.

LOA from Hillerich & Bradsby Co. PSA/DNA Type 1 cert# 1P04862

http://catalog.scpauctions.com/ItemImages/000034/37-0031A_med.jpeg
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/ItemImages/000034/37-0031B_med.jpeg
http://catalog.scpauctions.com/10_6_1952_MICKEY_MANTLE_ORIGINAL_PSA_DNA_TYPE_1_PH-LOT34195.aspx

[NiceDocter]

Partial set of these in the Golden Auction.... includes Mantle..... but this is not for me. Glad to hear about all the uncertainties about the dates and the more I read the more I think this is a later and not earlier issue. Hence I will pass on these ..... and thanks to all who did the research! CAVEAT EMPTOR!! or something like that..........

[Bestdj777]

Partial set of these in the Golden Auction.... includes Mantle..... but this is not for me. Glad to hear about all the uncertainties about the dates and the more I read the more I think this is a later and not earlier issue. Hence I will pass on these ..... and thanks to all who did the research! CAVEAT EMPTOR!! or something like that..........

You bumped a two year old thread to tell us about an auction you won't be bidding on? I'm assuming it's your consignment?

[TUM301]

I know it`s a loooooooooooong shot but was hoping this auction item might fly "somewhat" under the radar. Oh well..................

[AnkurJ]

Interesting read in these premiums! I bought one on eBay yesterday after doing some research but didn’t see this thread until now 🙄
So even though these aren’t form 1951, they are still eye appealing and sell for a decent amount. At the end of the day, you either love it or not, regardless of the year.

[ballpark]

I just purchased 10 of the 11 1951 Wheaties Premiums and listed them on E-Bay.
The A8491I Card in question is a Ben Hogan card. Only three have been PSA graded. A8449L Is Jack Kramer and Non have ever been PSA graded.