PDA

View Full Version : 1933 Goudey Ruth vs 1952 Topps Mantle


jasonc
05-09-2014, 03:48 AM
I've always wondered this. When you look at SV, Book value, value in general, the 1952 Topps Mantle is not twice as valuable as a 1933 Goudey Ruth, but approximately FIVE TIMES the value of a Ruth.

OK, it has got it be demand, and demand only cannot explain a 5x value of one card over the other when looking at these factors:

Production numbers are unknown, but I am guessing the Mantle was printed 10x more than the Ruth, which makes the Ruth more scarce (we would assume, can anybody be more accurate with production numbers ?)

The card is 20 years older (So if these cards were in the same condition, this is a huge factor)

Mantle was a Yankee, so was Babe Ruth.

and the big one, Babe Ruth is considered the greatest baseball player of all-time. For stats, it could be argued that Mantle is not in the top 10.

Do you really think demand is the cause of this, because the Mantle is the post-war holy grail, must have card?

Also, the T206 Ty Cobb, would be a whole other topic when comparing it to the 1952 topps Mantle.


because of multiple Ruth and Cobb's in their respective sets, does that hurt their value when comparing to the 1952 Mick?

the 'stache
05-09-2014, 06:15 AM
There are a lot of things you're not considering, Jason. If you were doing a comparison of Ruth vs Mantle alone, of course Ruth would win, though you'd again have to consider context, which is not easily done when considering numbers alone. Ruth is probably the greatest hitter to ever play the game. But in his time, I think Mick's numbers will surprise you.

But we're talking baseball cards, so there's a lot more to it.

The Goudey Ruths are being printed at the very end of his career (he finished up in 1935). Goudey baseball cards were printed between 1933 and 1941. Though all four of Ruth's '33 Goudey cards are very popular, and sell for a bundle, they do not represent the iconic card from the set. Napolean Lajoie's card does. It's scarcity drives its incredible price. Ruths cards would be just below Lajoie's. The '33 Lajoie is considered one of the hobby's "big 3", along with the Plank and Wagner cards from the T206 set. Pre-war collectors could probably name a handful of Babe Ruth cards that are just as popular as his Goudey cards, including the 1932 US Caramel. In short, while all four Goudey Ruths are popular, they are not the set's iconic card, nor are they Ruth's.

Topps has been printed nonstop since 1952. And therein lies one point. Mickey Mantle's 1952 Topps card is the key card in the first ever baseball card issue from Topps. And, it is printed right after his rookie season. While the Babe was easily the most popular player in America during his time, the same could be said for Mantle during his time. And where Ruth's cards in the '33 set are extremely popular, Mantle's 1952 Topps, as you alluded to earlier, is the iconic post WW II card.

Edit, I forgot to add that Mantle's #311 is the first card of the high series (311-407). Those are more difficult to find. Another card in that series, Eddie Mathews', is quite expensive as well).

glynparson
05-09-2014, 06:15 AM
That the 311 mantle was not produced at 10x the number of Rith especially factoring in that there are multiple poses of the Goudey Ruth. It is far easier to find a Ruth especially in lower grades than to find a 1952 topps Mantle.

the 'stache
05-09-2014, 06:29 AM
An interesting stat. For the 40 year period of 1950 to 1995, there were 276 Major League players with at least 5,000 at bats. Mickey Mantle had the highest OPS of all of them. Only Wade Boggs had a higher OBP, and nobody had a higher slugging percentage than Mantle.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/season_finder.cgi?type=b#gotresults&as=result_batter&offset=0&sum=1&min_year_season=1950&max_year_season=1995&min_season=1&max_season=-1&min_age=0&max_age=99&is_rookie=&lg_ID=lgAny&lgAL_team=tmAny&lgNL_team=tmAny&lgFL_team=tmAny&lgAA_team=tmAny&lgPL_team=tmAny&lgUA_team=tmAny&lgNA_team=tmAny&isActive=either&isHOF=either&isAllstar=either&bats=any&throws=any&exactness=anypos&pos_1=1&pos_2=1&pos_3=1&pos_4=1&pos_5=1&pos_6=1&pos_7=1&pos_8=1&pos_9=1&pos_10=1&pos_11=1&games_min_max=min&games_prop=50&games_tot=&qualifiersSeason=nomin&minpasValS=502&mingamesValS=100&qualifiersCareer=nomin&minpasValC=3000&mingamesValC=1000&orderby=onbase_plus_slugging&c1criteria=AB&c1gtlt=gt&c1val=5000&c2gtlt=eq&c2val=0&c3gtlt=eq&c3val=0&c4gtlt=eq&c4val=0&c5gtlt=eq&c5val=1.0&location=pob&locationMatch=is&pob=&pod=&pcanada=&pusa=&ajax=1&submitter=1

When you consider the sheer number of injuries Mantle dealt with during his career, what he was able to accomplish is pretty spectacular.

I don't think the gap between Ruth and Mantle is as big as some would lead you to believe. When you consider that Ruth didn't have to travel as much (he never had to fly cross country), he didn't face the best black players of his era, and he didn't play night games (Major League Baseball's first night game was in 1935), the advantage that he had might be diminished somewhat.

There's no doubt Ruth was a spectacular player, and I still think he's the greatest player of all-time, especially when you consider how dominant he was as a pitcher, too. And he clearly revolutionized the game.

But Mantle was the best pure power hitter for half a century. If he'd have been healthy, he'd have hit 800 home runs.

jasonc
05-09-2014, 07:02 AM
There are a lot of things you're not considering, Jason. If you were doing a comparison of Ruth vs Mantle alone, of course Ruth would win, though you'd again have to consider context, which is not easily done when considering numbers alone. Ruth is probably the greatest hitter to ever play the game. But in his time, I think Mick's numbers will surprise you.

But we're talking baseball cards, so there's a lot more to it.

The Goudey Ruths are being printed at the very end of his career (he finished up in 1935). Goudey baseball cards were printed between 1933 and 1941. Though all four of Ruth's '33 Goudey cards are very popular, and sell for a bundle, they do not represent the iconic card from the set. Napolean Lajoie's card does. It's scarcity drives its incredible price. Ruths cards would be just below Lajoie's. The '33 Lajoie is considered one of the hobby's "big 3", along with the Plank and Wagner cards from the T206 set. Pre-war collectors could probably name a handful of Babe Ruth cards that are just as popular as his Goudey cards, including the 1932 US Caramel. In short, while all four Goudey Ruths are popular, they are not the set's iconic card, nor are they Ruth's.

Topps has been printed nonstop since 1952. And therein lies one point. Mickey Mantle's 1952 Topps card is the key card in the first ever baseball card issue from Topps. And, it is printed right after his rookie season. While the Babe was easily the most popular player in America during his time, the same could be said for Mantle during his time. And where Ruth's cards in the '33 set are extremely popular, Mantle's 1952 Topps, as you alluded to earlier, is the iconic post WW II card.

Edit, I forgot to add that Mantle's #311 is the first card of the high series (311-407). Those are more difficult to find. Another card in that series, Eddie Mathews', is quite expensive as well).


One point I do agree with you Bill, is that Ruth's goudey was in fact released later in his career, and Mantle's 1952 release was the first major issue of topps and it's an iconic set, I still don't know whether that alone, or the points you make justify a 4 to 5 times value over the Ruth. This is something that can be debated.

Also, with the other point regarding number of cards made. Interesting enough, my father collected back then, and he at one time told me the 1952 topps could be easily found everywhere, and he's confident he had a couple mantles, etc. mind you it probably found it's way to the trash, like the saying "moms threw out the cards" or whatever happened to it.

In contrast, when my grandfather was around, he was a boy around the goudey gum card era, he was a big baseball fan and all that and I am pretty sure he wouldve been into cards.... but he NEVER EVEN HEARD about or seen baseball cards, packs etc., with goudey or anything.. so I really don't know about 10x the mantles made then ruths but this makes me wonder.

KCRfan1
05-09-2014, 08:01 AM
I do not believe that anyone can put a production number on how many cards were made or available back in the day. That's just random numbers being tossed about with nothng to back them up. My thought is much simpler when it comes to those two cards: Timing. The Ruth card was a 1933 issue, Mantle a 1952 issue. What the Mantle card has going for it ( nothing to do with career stats between the players ) is Mantle was THE baseball figure for the babyboom generation, hence demand. He was the last tie to Yankee lore, the last great Yankee. All of those kids born in 1944 were 8 years old when Topps produced their 1952 set. Look at the population explosion that Topps had at their fingertips to work with from there on out. No wonder the Mantle has taken on a life of its own. The boomers had kids, and told their kids about Mantle because they collected his cards, and saw him play. Television and advertising put players and celebrities in our homes and made them more real. EVERYONE knew who Mickey Mantle was. Ruth never had the exposure that Mantle did. 1933 Goudey's were issued during The Depression. It is remarkable those cards survived at all.

Leon
05-09-2014, 08:47 AM
One word is why the '52 Mantle is worth more: Demand

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards
05-09-2014, 08:52 AM
One word is why the '52 Mantle is worth more: Demand


Leon you crack me up. Everyone put lots of thought and explanation into their answers while you just kept it real.

GregC
05-09-2014, 09:49 AM
Great points already made. I think Leon nailed it in his very simple answer, demand.

Not only was Mantle the greatest baseball icon for the baby boomer generation, so many collectors coming of age during the 80's hobby boom saw the Mantle as THE card. I remember looking in the Beckett with my brother and the #311 was always the picture heading up the 1952 set. We lusted after that card and always marveled at its lofty $3500 price tag for a NM example, not even mint, lol!!!

As more collectors from that era find their way back into the hobby, demand will increase. We have guys from their 30's to their 70's wanted to add the #311 to their collections.

packs
05-09-2014, 10:03 AM
Mantle was the idol of a huge majority of the current collecting population. An ever shrinking portion of people alive today saw Ruth play.

When you're looking to connect with your childhood, Mantle is your guy.

bn2cardz
05-09-2014, 11:00 AM
An interesting stat. For the 40 year period of 1950 to 1995, there were 276 Major League players with at least 5,000 at bats. Mickey Mantle had the highest OPS of all of them. Only Wade Boggs had a higher OBP, and nobody had a higher slugging percentage than Mantle.


I already stated my opinion of Mantle being overvalued in cards in another thread so I am not going to state it all again, but I did want to point out that Willie Mays' Slugging was actually higher (barely but still higher):
Mays Slugging: .5575
Mantle Slugging: .5568

he [Ruth] didn't face the best black players of his era

This is slight misdirection. Out of the last 5 teams to allow black players, 4 of them were in the AL.
Senators - Sept 6 1954
Yankees - April 14 1955
Phillies (Only NL in the last 5) - April 22 1957
Tigers - June 6 1958
Red Sox - July 21 1959

So 8 years after his Rookie year Mantle wasn't constantly playing in a diverse league either. Even then these were the dates of the first black player and doesn't mean the team was fully integrated.


Mantle was good, there is no doubt about that, but people that support him seem to narrow down the facts to make him seem like he is the top player of all time. He wasn't, he was the top AL player during his time.

packs
05-09-2014, 11:15 AM
The pre-integration argument against Ruth is definitely valid. And it was a shame that he didn't get to play against everyone. But ultimately, in my opinion, Ruth was Ruth and he would have been Ruth against all comers. Despite not getting to prove it, I don't think it takes away from his accomplishments. Same would go for traveling and night games. Or really any other argument someone could have against Ruth's abilities.

MattyC
05-09-2014, 11:34 AM
I can name quite a few Ruth cards that precede his Goudey, and are worth more, arguably desired more, and are definitely scarcer, than his Goudey.

Basically, the Goudey Ruth is an awesome, beautiful, and valuable card from a seminal set-- but it was not the key card in its set, was issued further from the start of the player's career than was the #311 Mantle, and lastly Ruth had four cards within that set, as opposed to just one.

In contrast, Mantle had only the 51B prior to the 52, which was of course the inaugural and highly popular Topps issue. The Wheaties Premium, Exhibits, notwithstanding. It was also the key card in a watershed set.

IMO, in some cases, a card's desirability to collectors becomes about more than the sheer player stats. I believe that viewing such cards strictly and solely through the prism of player stats is as reductive and myopic as evaluating card values exclusively through VCP grids and sticker grades.

conor912
05-09-2014, 11:49 AM
I gave up on a 52T set in favor of a 33G set purely because I could have 4 Ruths and 2 Gehrigs for the price of 1 Mantle. Seemed like a no-brainer to me.

the 'stache
05-09-2014, 12:21 PM
Mantle was good, there is no doubt about that, but people that support him seem to narrow down the facts to make him seem like he is the top player of all time. He wasn't, he was the top AL player during his time.

Not sure where you got the idea that I was "supporting" him. I don't prefer one player over the other. I was merely pointing out statistical support that Mantle is in actuality a better player than some people want to give him credit for. Oh, and...


There's no doubt Ruth was a spectacular player, and I still think he's the greatest player of all-time, especially when you consider how dominant he was as a pitcher, too. And he clearly revolutionized the game.


I already stated my opinion of Mantle being overvalued in cards in another thread so I am not going to state it all again, but I did want to point out that Willie Mays' Slugging was actually higher (barely but still higher):

Mays Slugging: .5575
Mantle Slugging: .5568

When OPS is adjusted for stadiums, Mantle has a sizable advantage.

OPS + for the stated period:

Mantle 172
Mays 156
Dick Allen 156
Hank Aaron 155
Frank Robinson 154
Stan Musial 151

Let me say again I think Dick Allen belongs in the Hall.

packs
05-09-2014, 12:50 PM
I don't think stats really come into play with the value of Mantle's cards. The value of his cards is tied to him playing for the Yankees at the right time.

the 'stache
05-09-2014, 01:08 PM
I agree, packs, that everything kind of fell into place for him. But he had to be a great player, too, for his popularity to endure. The stats don't really come into play. But people still talk with reverence about his power, as well as his speed before the injuries set in.

He was a humble guy from Oklahoma that looked like he should be on the silver screen. He hit the ball 500 + feet, and played for the Yankees. And, his private life rivaled any other athlete in America save for Joe Namath.

darwinbulldog
05-09-2014, 01:09 PM
I don't think stats really come into play with the value of Mantle's cards. The value of his cards is tied to him playing for the Yankees at the right time.

If that's true, we should see some consistency in the recent Ebay sale prices of the guys who played for the Yankees at the right time.

#9 Bobby Hogue $13
#11 Phil Rizzuto $77
#48 Joe Page $25
#49 Johnny Sain $48
#57 Ed Lopat $62
#67 Allie Reynolds $27
#85 Bob Kuzava $20
#99 Gene Woodling $25
#122 Jackie Jensen $11
#128 Don Bollweg $19
#129 Johnny Mize $12
#155 Stubby Overmire $10
#168 Charlie Silvera $4
#175 Billy Martin $80
#191 Yogi Berra $230
#200 Ralph Houk $46
#202 Joe Collins $8
#206 Joe Ostrowski $9
#214 Johnny Hopp $22
#215 Hank Bauer $53
#237 Jerry Coleman $17
#248 Frank Shea $14
#311 Mickey Mantle $4750
#331 Tom Morgan $178
#372 Gil McDougald $455
#403 Bill Miller $320

packs
05-09-2014, 01:12 PM
His stats are important. I didn't mean to totally discount them. But to say that it was the number of home runs or any other one stat that made his cards valuable is not true. It is the whole package. Personality, timing, ability, and playing for the right team at the height of their dominance.

Stan Musial was just as good as anyone. But he didn't play for the right team at the right time. Neither did Aaron or Mays. Mantle had his career at exactly the right time with exactly the right team. That's why his cards will always be more valuable.

Vintageclout
05-09-2014, 01:14 PM
An interesting stat. For the 40 year period of 1950 to 1995, there were 276 Major League players with at least 5,000 at bats. Mickey Mantle had the highest OPS of all of them. Only Wade Boggs had a higher OBP, and nobody had a higher slugging percentage than Mantle.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/season_finder.cgi?type=b#gotresults&as=result_batter&offset=0&sum=1&min_year_season=1950&max_year_season=1995&min_season=1&max_season=-1&min_age=0&max_age=99&is_rookie=&lg_ID=lgAny&lgAL_team=tmAny&lgNL_team=tmAny&lgFL_team=tmAny&lgAA_team=tmAny&lgPL_team=tmAny&lgUA_team=tmAny&lgNA_team=tmAny&isActive=either&isHOF=either&isAllstar=either&bats=any&throws=any&exactness=anypos&pos_1=1&pos_2=1&pos_3=1&pos_4=1&pos_5=1&pos_6=1&pos_7=1&pos_8=1&pos_9=1&pos_10=1&pos_11=1&games_min_max=min&games_prop=50&games_tot=&qualifiersSeason=nomin&minpasValS=502&mingamesValS=100&qualifiersCareer=nomin&minpasValC=3000&mingamesValC=1000&orderby=onbase_plus_slugging&c1criteria=AB&c1gtlt=gt&c1val=5000&c2gtlt=eq&c2val=0&c3gtlt=eq&c3val=0&c4gtlt=eq&c4val=0&c5gtlt=eq&c5val=1.0&location=pob&locationMatch=is&pob=&pod=&pcanada=&pusa=&ajax=1&submitter=1

When you consider the sheer number of injuries Mantle dealt with during his career, what he was able to accomplish is pretty spectacular.

I don't think the gap between Ruth and Mantle is as big as some would lead you to believe. When you consider that Ruth didn't have to travel as much (he never had to fly cross country), he didn't face the best black players of his era, and he didn't play night games (Major League Baseball's first night game was in 1935), the advantage that he had might be diminished somewhat.

There's no doubt Ruth was a spectacular player, and I still think he's the greatest player of all-time, especially when you consider how dominant he was as a pitcher, too. And he clearly revolutionized the game.

But Mantle was the best pure power hitter for half a century. If he'd have been healthy, he'd have hit 800 home runs.

Bill,

I agree with virtually all of your Mantle related comments except one. Injuries are NOT the sole reason Mantle feel short of his incredible potential, but rather his fondness of alcoholic beverages. Let's be honest here...we are talking about someone who spent most of his playing career in a seemingly infinite number of bars as late as 3:00/4:00 AM. Obviously playing many games with little to no sleep at all, Mickey unquestionably wasted a myriad of at-bats in a 'comatose-like' state, and we can only wonder how truly great he would have been had he not chose to drink his life away. In retrospect, I find Mantle's accomplishments absolutely amazing considering his rather loose lifestyle, justifying Ted Williams comment that Mantle was the most athletically gifted ballplayer he ever saw.

Joe

bn2cardz
05-09-2014, 01:57 PM
Not sure where you got the idea that I was "supporting" him. I don't prefer one player over the other. I was merely pointing out statistical support that Mantle is in actuality a better player than some people want to give him credit for. Oh, and...


I know you said Ruth was better, but you also compared his stats to a set criteria to state that he was better. By support I meant you are showing support for his baseball card values using stats (I will not argue with 2nd yr card vs end of the year or hi # vs lo# in the 52 set because I can agree with these to an extent)

If you are going to do a comparison though, you need Mays in the numbers. Some how your numbers keep missing Mays. You really do have to look at more than just home runs. Mays is the best comparison because they played the same position during the same period. You can not use stats to say that Mantle's cards are worth more than his counterparts. Card Values-to-talent either his cards are overvalued or everyone else is undervalued.


When OPS is adjusted for stadiums, Mantle has a sizable advantage.

OPS + for the stated period:

Mantle 172
Mays 156
Dick Allen 156
Hank Aaron 155
Frank Robinson 154
Stan Musial 151

Let me say again I think Dick Allen belongs in the Hall.

Until 1958 Mays had the harder park. 480 center, 450 alleys
Mantle had 461 center, 457 left alley, and 407 right alley.

Again Mantle was merely the best in the AL. He just wasn't the overall best of his generation unless Home Runs are the only thing that matters, but even then it is hard to say that he was the BEST when he played at the same time as Aaron and Mays, and overlapped with Musial.

GregC
05-09-2014, 02:14 PM
The problem is in trying to evaluate the value of Mantle's cards based on his stats and comparing both the stats and card values to his contemporaries. For whatever reason, Mays, Aaron, Musial etc just never had the broad appeal to collectors that Mantle does.

When the hobby boomed in the 80's Mantle's cards were the first to take off. They continue to be the premier card in any set they are in to this day. It clearly transcends statistics.

MattyC
05-09-2014, 02:38 PM
The stars aligned for Mantle-- he had the talent, the looks, the name, the personality, the team, the stage, and the time. Some of these things were beyond his control but it doesn't change the fact that they were. And that he is and remains the brightest star in the Post War card collecting universe. In fact one of the reasons he fascinates me, and the 311 fascinates me, is that they are examples of a perfect storm, the coalescing of all these factors to create a star.

Mick Jagger or DiCaprio shouldn't be faulted if they were aided by timing and serendipity, and if there have been better performers from a sheer skill standpoint who didn't hit the cosmic lotto that they did. There will always be people as good as others who for a variety of factors never become as famous or desired.

Then we have factors like how he implored people not to make his mistakes, and how he hit all those WS homers. Again, team and opportunity were given him, but that's moot-- he was there and did what he did.

Ultimately, no post war card will ever dethrone the 311.

t206blogcom
05-09-2014, 03:14 PM
What the Mantle card has going for it ( nothing to do with career stats between the players ) is Mantle was THE baseball figure for the babyboom generation, hence demand. He was the last tie to Yankee lore, the last great Yankee. All of those kids born in 1944 were 8 years old when Topps produced their 1952 set. Look at the population explosion that Topps had at their fingertips to work with from there on out. No wonder the Mantle has taken on a life of its own. The boomers had kids, and told their kids about Mantle because they collected his cards, and saw him play. Television and advertising put players and celebrities in our homes and made them more real. EVERYONE knew who Mickey Mantle was. Ruth never had the exposure that Mantle did. 1933 Goudey's were issued during The Depression. It is remarkable those cards survived at all.

You nailed it. Has nothing to do with scarcity, player stats, production runs, etc. Curious to see how Mantle's cards, or baseball cards in general, fare once baby boomers are pushing up daisies.

yanksfan09
05-09-2014, 03:18 PM
The Goudey Ruths were later in Ruth's career. Also there are 4 of them so if there were only 1 at the same printing levels, the card would likely sell for 4x or more the price it goes for now.

Also many people consider the 52 Mantle to be his, or one of his, rookie card(s). I know that is not true but it's the perception that matters. It is a very early card of his and his most iconic.

If comparing to Ruths best and most iconic cards (Baltimore News and m101's) we know who's cards trumps who's.

They're all great and classic cards but there are far more Ruths being that there are four in the set. The total number of Goudeys at any given time always far exceeds the amount of 52 Mantles out there for sale.

MattyC
05-09-2014, 03:24 PM
You nailed it. Has nothing to do with scarcity, player stats, production runs, etc. Curious to see how Mantle's cards, or baseball cards in general, fare once baby boomers are pushing up daisies.

After they are gone, you have my group of 30-40 right now who grew up with that card as symbol of a beloved hobby. So maybe in like 40-50 years, it could dip. But then again my son is 4 and loves the card...

GregC
05-09-2014, 03:25 PM
You nailed it. Has nothing to do with scarcity, player stats, production runs, etc. Curious to see how Mantle's cards, or baseball cards in general, fare once baby boomers are pushing up daisies.

I think the value of cards, and the #311 in particular are safe through at least my generation (born in 1980). We grew up collecting and I know plenty of guys my age that found their way back to the hobby.

There also seems to be a strong following of modern collectors. Whether or not they evolve into collectors of vintage down the road is another story. Most modern collectors I know prefer cards that blind you in certain light and have cut up pieces of dirty laundry on them. It's possible that the current modern guys move to vintage as they get older though.

I think elite vintage cards hold for at least another 30+ years.

packs
05-09-2014, 03:32 PM
I might be in the minority or even totally alone, but in the next 20 or so years when there are collections being sold en masse by estate heirs I honestly feel like card values will take a serious hit.

I don't want to call it wishful thinking. But if everyone is the same age and checks out around the same time, supply will for the first time in a long time outpace demand.

atx840
05-09-2014, 03:58 PM
Can we some examples :D

kailes2872
05-09-2014, 04:03 PM
I might be in the minority or even totally alone, but in the next 20 or so years when there are collections being sold en masse by estate heirs I honestly feel like card values will take a serious hit.

I don't want to call it wishful thinking. But if everyone is the same age and checks out around the same time, supply will for the first time in a long time outpace demand.

I hope so - buying opportunity!

MattyC
05-09-2014, 04:11 PM
IMO, trying to project as far into the future as 20+ years becomes just too fuzzy to be useful.

packs
05-09-2014, 04:14 PM
I was just thinking about the pre-eBay days when there were lots of cards but buyers were hard to find.

the 'stache
05-10-2014, 01:48 PM
Bill,

I agree with virtually all of your Mantle related comments except one. Injuries are NOT the sole reason Mantle feel short of his incredible potential, but rather his fondness of alcoholic beverages. Let's be honest here...we are talking about someone who spent most of his playing career in a seemingly infinite number of bars as late as 3:00/4:00 AM. Obviously playing many games with little to no sleep at all, Mickey unquestionably wasted a myriad of at-bats in a 'comatose-like' state, and we can only wonder how truly great he would have been had he not chose to drink his life away. In retrospect, I find Mantle's accomplishments absolutely amazing considering his rather loose lifestyle, justifying Ted Williams comment that Mantle was the most athletically gifted ballplayer he ever saw.

Joe

I agree with your assessment, Joe, but remember part of the reason he drank so much is that he thought he was going to die young. That's a pretty depressing thing to live with. He even said "if I knew I was going to live as long as I did, I'd have taken better care of myself." That's not to say the specter of Hodgkin's disease was the only reason he partied-he certainly loved the ladies, even though he had a wife in Dallas, but that was a big part of it.

Mick had something like 17 different broken bones. As somebody that's had north of that figure, I can tell you it's just hard getting out of bed, let alone competing against the best baseball players in the world.

25801wv
05-10-2014, 11:00 PM
PSA, SGC, and Beckett (combined) population reports:

1952 Topps Mickey Mantle - 1639 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #53 - 1073 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #149 - 1101 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #181 - 1248 TOTAL

1933 Goudey Babe Ruth #144 - 1424 TOTAL

----
Any one Ruth appears to be tougher than the Mantle.

MattyC
05-11-2014, 12:51 AM
I think the demand for the Mantle relative to any of those Ruths is more than enough to offset the few hundred greater in pop. Not to mention those four Ruths are four offerings of the same player in the same set, versus the one Mantle in the 52T, and it being the key card.

I'd also hazard that the Mantle has far more crossovers than any of the Ruths, which would mitigate the pop disparity somewhat. But end of the day, sheer pop data is just one part of the equation. In this case I think other parts, such as demand and proximity to player's rookie year, outweigh the pop comparisons and speak to why the #311 is worth more grade-for-grade.

CW
05-11-2014, 11:14 AM
Can we see some examples :D

No kidding, Chris! 35 posts in this topic and not a single image of a card posted. Sheesh! :rolleyes: :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/ltsgallery/memberfolderscf/cw/cwcollection/2%20yanks.jpg

yanksfan09
05-11-2014, 11:24 AM
Gorgeous cards!

MattyC
05-11-2014, 11:34 AM
http://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/mattianc/-top-20-/14975/1933-goudey-babe-ruth-53

http://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/mattianc/-top-20-/16755/1952-topps-mickey-mantle

Kawika
05-11-2014, 12:42 PM
http://photos.imageevent.com/kawika_o_ka_pakipika/sportscardsetc/baseball/bbhofthefirstclass/huge/qu33%20Goudey%20Ruth%202.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/kawika_o_ka_pakipika/sportscardsetc/mischidden/recentpickups/huge/MileHigh%2052T%20Mantle.jpg

ALR-bishop
05-11-2014, 01:06 PM
I am not a Mantle collector, but have most Topps Mantle cards ( no 61 Dice), only because I collect all Topps sets. But because of that I have had to follow his prices over time since I started collecting in 1957. Although I am not a Yankee or Mantle fan specifically ( or detractor... I am a Cardinals guy), those who argue his cards are over priced, for whatever reason, remind me of Bob Seger's running against the wind song. If you don't have the card, it always seems overpriced :)

25801wv
05-11-2014, 02:41 PM
Those are some really nice Ruth's & Mantle's. This one is more my style.
(I would love to find a Mantle in this condition)
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b558/wv25801wv/1933GoudeyBabeRuth144PSAA_zps217a7314.jpg

yanksfan09
05-11-2014, 02:46 PM
My only Ruth Goudey... always liked the red one

Bestdj777
05-11-2014, 03:34 PM
Those are some really nice Ruth's & Mantle's. This one is more my style.
(I would love to find a Mantle in this condition)

We have very similar tastes:

http://i1345.photobucket.com/albums/p669/debonochris/img014_zpse206ede6.jpg

http://i1345.photobucket.com/albums/p669/debonochris/IMG_0518_zps13ecb3bc.jpg

Now to find some nice Ruths...

CW
05-11-2014, 04:13 PM
Gorgeous cards!

Thanks, Erick!

Nice followup scans, fellas!

Republicaninmass
05-11-2014, 04:54 PM
My favorite ruth is #181

tedzan
05-12-2014, 01:17 PM
In the Fall of '52, I opened up my last 5-cent waxpack and I'll never forget how exci-Ted I was to see the Mantle card shown here (Type 1). Yes, that's my original Mantle
card. My youthful collection was not thrown away. Many have a tendency to blame their Mom's for lost collections. Let's give them a break....yesterday was Mother's day.
I think many lost collections are due to MOVES, and not MOM's. My folks never moved....I was lucky.

Whatever....when I returned to the hobby in 1977, things in this hobby were "popping". And, the 52T Mantle was the key card for many collectors. This was in part due to
"hobby hype". By 1980, B & B Collectibles (Philadelphia) auctioned off 3 crisp looking 52T Mantle cards for an unprecdedented $10,000. This event was front page headlines
in The Philadelphia Inquirer. And, was all over hobby news reports.

This event set the tone for "52T Mantle-mania" that has lasted for the past 34 years. And, I expect that it will continue for quite a few more years.

I saw Mantle play in the 1950's, and especially in every World Series game. His REGULAR season performance was really great....and, as good, if not better than Willie Mays
or Duke Snider. But, for those of you who like to compare performance (STATS) of these 3 great players, there is no comparison with Mickey when it comes to World Series
performance.
Trust me, there are many guys my age; and, many more "baby boomers" that remember the excitement Mantle provided us during those years (1952-1964). And, there is a
lot more I can say regarding this subject....I will leave you with this to consider....in 1980, an Ex/Mt 52T Mantle was selling for $3000, while a 33G Ruth was selling for $300.
And, Mantle's 1951 Bowman (rookie card) $200.


Type 2 .................................................. .................................................. ................. Type 1

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh622/tedzan77/52TMantleSGC40_zpsc6162664.jpg....http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd339/tz1234zaz/mmantle52t.jpg




TED Z
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
LOOKING for this T206 guy to complete my EXCLUSIVE 12 red HINDU sub-set (12 subjects)

SHECKARD (glove)
.

thunderdan
05-13-2014, 09:13 PM
At some point, I'd like to add back the Goudey #144 full pose. Sold mine off a while back. This 52 Mantle is one of my favorite cards.

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp360/thunderdanny/1952ToppsMickeyMantleFront_zps4308f4b3.jpg

ullmandds
05-13-2014, 09:19 PM
beauty Dan!