OT-$282,587 for a Mantle PSA 9

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Thought this was deserving of its own thread as it was such a staggering amount. This was John Branca's PSA 9 1952 Topps sold in Memory Lane Auction this past week. Price includes buyers premium.<br /><br />Boy just think what a PSA 10 would go for.<br /><br />Nevertheless the Wagner PSA2 in the auction went for a bit more than this.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Some people simply have way too much money.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Sometimes I imagine how I would spend money on cards if it was no object at all. And I mean no virtually no object. I think I'd still have a hard time rationalizing spending that kind of money on a post-war card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I'd have a tough time spending that kind of money on ANY card.<br /><br />That said, the '52 Mantle is one of the postwar cards on my want list. In my opinion it's one of the great cards of the hobby.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p> I think that way too sometimes Jeff and i think the most id spend would be 20k on one card,but id go higher if i had to to get a K-Bats Pittsburgh team card. After that i just cant imagine spending that much on one card when you could get so many more cards for the same amount.Id rather go for quantity<br /><br /> Im pretty sure alot of mid-grade collectors on this board would hate me if i won the lottery <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bruce Dorskind</b><p>Mickey Mantle is an American Icon.<br /><br />He was a childhood hero to two generations of Americans<br />who are now at their peak earnings level.<br /><br />It is not surprising that a very high grade Mantle card is able<br />to command $283,000. A PSA 10 would (there are 3) bring <br />at least $500,000 and possibly as much as one million dollars.<br /><br />From a hobby perspective Hall of Famers in PSA 9 often command<br />6-10 times the price of PSA 8. In the case of Mantle the PSA 9<br />price is about 4.15 times the price of three PSA 8 examples auctioned<br />this year. It shoud also be noted that the price was positively influenced<br />by the fact that there was a concerted effort on the part of Memory Lane <br />to promote this Mantle card.<br /><br />For those collectors who want a show case piece; one that they<br />can share with their non-collector friends, what could be more<br />fun than to purchase a Mantle?<br /><br />Chances are the next PSA 9 example, whenever it sells, will command<br />an even higher price.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Good points Bruce.<br /><br /><br />I don't disagree--with 8s now going for above $70K, is this really that outrageous for a 9. Heck a 10 would certainly go over 500K and possibly a lot more.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Let me put it this way, I'm addicted to baseball cards, but if I had the choice between buying a vacation home and buying a baseball card. I would say Mick you would've been the greatest switch-hitting lead-off hitter of all time and I love you. But I would rather have the home.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jim and Bruce: I agree this is the most sacred card of the iconic Mick, but I think that because it is such an easy card to get (albeit at a lower grade) I am surprised at its recent near-300K selling price. For example: wouldn't you rather have the Wagner that sold in the same auction at about the same price?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Peter,<br />I think the winner of the Mantle did not have to make that choice. He can probably have both if he wants the vacation house too. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>I know one of the owners of the Mantle PSA 10 and says he has been offered $550K and turned it down flat. So if and when it does come to auction expect it to go in the $750K range would be my guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>A fool and his money, will soon part.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>greg</b><p>I'm still trying to figure out why these fetch the money they do.<br /><br />Condition aside, how many of these things exist?<br /><br />There must have been give or take a dozen of them at the Boston Show. I see them all the time up for auction. Is it really that rare a card?<br /><br />greg

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>I'm surprised at how much that one went for because it has a definite 'tilt' in the image that (for me at least) significantly detracts from the appeal. If I were defining card grading standards, I would not allow such a card to be called 'Mint', which according to the original (Beckett) definition, meant free of defects, or with defects so minor they don't bother you at all.<br /><br />I paid $72,000 for a PSA 8 1952 Topps Mantle earlier this year, apparently a world record price at the time, and to me it has as good or better eye appeal than the one that just sold in Memory Lane. I no longer own the card, but here is a scan of it:<br /><br /><img src="http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r143/ebrehm1/52TMantle.jpg"><br /><br />The lure of PSA 9 is strong, however, and there aren't very many of them (total of 6 graded by PSA in the case of this card), and given the status of the 1952 Topps Mantle as the 'face of the hobby' and so on I can see how motivated buyers would compete aggressively for it.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>"A fool and his money, will soon part....."<br /><br />If someone has worked hard enough to have this kind of coin to spend on a card, I am sure they know how to handle a dollar.<br /><br />I would spend that cash differently, but I respect the new owners success in life to treat himself to such luxury.<br /><br />99% of the earth's population would think spending $1,000 on a baseball card a foolish thing to do...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Eric,<br /><br />Wow--that was a quick flip. Could you give us any info on the sale--who to and how much?<br /><br />I do agree--that is a beautiful 8 and a good buy at $72K.<br /><br />Jeff,<br /><br />I would rather have that Mantle than a PSA 2 Wagner at an equal price.<br /><br />Bobby,<br /><br />If anything $750,000 for the 10 would likely be low.<br /><br />Possibly the first postwar million dollar card.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If everyone's figures are correct, it's interesting that there have been only three 10's and six 9's graded, because the 1952 Topps case that was found in the early 1980's had something like 30-40 Mantles in it. Wouldn't you imagine all of them would be at least 9 with a smattering of 10's? They were all uncirculated. Maybe many were slightly mishandled from the time the case was discovered until the time they were graded (and I assume all are in holders by now).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />I believe mind is from that find. The corners are nearperfect, the registration is perfect but the card is at a slight tilt and it is a bit o/c.<br /><br />Grade 8 o/c. I was hoping to upgrade to a straight 8 but with strong 8s likely $75K or more I may have missed the market.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason Duncan</b><p>If I had the sources I would much rather have a centered SGC 88. That card is offcenter and tilted. I cannot believe it sold that high. I would rather have the Wagner for that kind of $$. This just goes to show that in this instance the buyer bought the PSA 9 holder and the visual appeal of the card was insignificant.<br /><br /><br />Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>And isn't the 52 Mantle a double printed high number?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Jim,<br /><br />I bought the PSA 8 1952 Topps Mantle in the last Mile High Cards auction in June. I believe the card is from Alan Rosen's warehouse find (The Find, circa 1986) and was only graded for the first time in the past year.<br /><br />I sold the card to raise money to buy more pre-war material, which is more interesting to me than the post-war stuff.<br /><br />Barry,<br /><br />I believe a lot of the 1952 Topps high numbers from Rosen's Find had centering problems that kept them from higher grades (as many of the 1952 Topps do), but yes I would expect a higher yield of Mint and Gem Mint examples from a lot of 30-40 cards taken from unopened packs. There must still be some out there that haven't been graded yet. They've got to be somewhere.<br /><br />I remember also that in the 1980's we were less careful with cards than we are today (even valuable mint cards were carried around raw in boxes) so I expect you are right that some of them were probably mis-handled.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>There is a possibility the buyer may think the market will be strong and just holding it for a short while as an investment as some people hold vacation property for the same reason. I think its an awesome card and well deserved as an icon of the card hobby. The boom in the 80's was centered around the 52 set and this card. <br /><br />Jim, Congrads on the PSA 8 OC. Even with the OC is still a fantastic pick up. Joe<br><br>People said it was a million dollar wound. But the government must keep that money, cause I ain't never seen a penny of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I will never understand why someone would pay $500K to $1M for a PSA 10 and "only" $280K for a PSA9 when the only difference between the two is the mood of the graders who reviewed the card, or the identities of the people who submitted them. You have to have an astonishing faith in the skills of the graders to believe that each PSA 10 is actually in better condition than each PSA 9. And that faith has to be almost religious in nature when you realize that you can't even verify for yourself that the 10 is actually in better shape than the 9 because both are encased in plastic, concealing subtle flaws. <br /><br />I've also always been amazed at the relative multitude of high grade 52 Topps Mantles. I seem to remember there being some 52 Topps cards with only a single PSA8 and none higher. (Maybe this has changed recently; I don't follow it closely). Yet Mantle has had 3 PSA10s for as long as I can remember (I actually thought there were 4), and several PSA9s as well, and I don't know how many high grades from SGC. Seems strange. I know there's more incentive to submit high grade Mantles, but with the crazy prices that high grade 52 Topps "commons" will yield, I'd be surprised if there are too many Mint and Gem Mint Herman Wehmeier cards waiting to be graded.<br /><br />With all that said, I obviously agree it's a nice card. Personally, if I had $280K to spend, I'd rather buy the Baltimore Ruth that sold for about 50K less than that, and use the difference to buy a Peck & Snyder Reds card, and still have a little chump change left over to buy a couple of mid-gride Old Judge Cabinet Hall of Famers. Or maybe I'd stock up on Hall of Famers from G&B, Yum Yum, and the N175 large set. But that's just me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>For those who don't remember, when Mr. whatever-his-name-is first offered the cards from the case for sale, the Mantles were priced at $2500 and $3500 each, I guess depending on the centering. He also offered complete runs of high numbers and semi-high numbers. I don't remember the exact price of those, but a complete high number run may have been around $8000. Since #311-313 are double-printed, there were of course some extra Mantles to be had. They sold briskly at those prices- they were high at the time but not totally extravagant. I guess we all should have bought a couple and somehow held onto them for twenty years.<br /><br />And I agree with Paul that the difference between a 9 and a 10 is to a degree whether the grader had a good night's sleep or didn't show up to work the next day with a hangover. That's why the price discrepancy at those levels is truly remarkable (and not terribly sensible either).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Paul,<br /><br />The lowest pops in the set in 8 are cards 1 and 2--Pafko and Runnels--each pop 9s. The Maxwell is next at a pop 10.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There was a smaller find of low number packs a few years ago, so I guess that is where those originate. After the high number find, the low numbers were in a sense even more valuable in high grade because you just couldn't find them. It was tough to locate even an EX-MT Runnells in the days when EX-MT meant something. After the low number packs hit the market, the pop's changed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I've actually always thought that differences between a PSA8 and PSA9 were less significant than a 9 & 10......10's have always looked pretty clean to me and rarely stood out with a flaw I would have thought should hold it back to a 9, save perhaps centering.<br /><br />But Jason Duncan's excellent observation in reference to an SGC88 I think is really interesting...current pop. report at SGC show only 2 88's, nothing higher.<br />I would take an SGC96 any day at that kind of dosh over the PSA, and I'm thinking with the current improvement in SGC prices one would sell at a 15-20% premium over a PSA9. <br />Now that would be one pretty card if it managed to get into an SGC holder. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>daniel,<br /><br />Highly doubtful in my mind simply because of the PSASet Registry--more bidders and people who are looking to move up the Set Registry--the SGC 96 goes nothing for them in this regard and the registry is not very significant yet for SGC.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>If a 1976 Gretzky card or a 1957 Koufax card can sell for $80,000 each, I guess $282K for a 1952 Mantle is not as crazy as it initially sounds. <br /><br />Personally I would never spend that kind of money on a postwar card. There are are least a two dozen prewar cards I would rather have. In fact, in the same auction, I thought the T206 Wagner that sold for just a little more was a much better deal.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>True Jim, but that SGC96 has a pretty decent chance at a PSA10 <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>In looking at the PSA Population Report, it is interesting to see that PSA has graded a total of 766 1952 Topps Mantle cards. No one would consider this rare or scarce.<br /><br />Out of the 766 Mantles graded by PSA, there are 48 cards graded PSA 8, PSA 9 or PSA 10. Even by condition scarcity standards, no one would ever consider this card difficult.<br /><br />I understand that this is one of the most recognizeable postwar cards and the marquee card in one of the most popular set ever, but high prices for a 1952 Mantle just do not seem like good value. The December Mastro auction had four for sale and the December SCP auction had four for sale. It just seems like there is an abundance of these cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Wesley, I agree. And I believe there is solid evidence that the card is actually a triple print, not a double print.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bruce Dorskind</b><p>It is most interesting to compare the auction prices realized for <br />the signature card of the three greatest New York Yankee outfielders<br />of all time. Listed below is the current PSA NQ population for Grades 8 and 9<br />and as well as auction prices realized in 2006- from Vintagecardprices.com<br /><br />The number in ( ) represents the number of 2006 auctions of a given card<br /><br /><br /> Pop 8 (NQ) Pop9 (NQ) Price 8 Price 9<br /><br /><br />Mantle 52 29 6 68,000(3) 283,000(1)<br /><br /><br />Dimaggio 41 25 5 9,200 (4) 60,000<br /><br /><br />Ruth 1933-144 32 4 18,000 (5)<br /><br />Ruth 1933-149 18 0 42,000 (1) <br /><br />Ruth 1933-189 31 6 20,000 (3) 72,000 <br /><br /><br />It seems, for trading purposes, a 52 Mantle PSA 8 would get you any two Ruths of your<br />choice plus Dimaggio. For your PSA 9 Mantle you could have the PSA 9 Dimaggio and<br />the 181 PSA 9 Ruth and the 144 and 149 Ruth in 8 and still have $90,000 left to spend<br />with your fellow Board members.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br /><br />Bruce Dorskind<br />America's Toughest Want List

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>I think the DiMag and the Ruth's are a tremendous buy at these prices. remarkable.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Can anyone explain 4K for a PSA 8 59 Koufax, a $500-600 card?<br /><a href="http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5319&getauctionid=64" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5319&getauctionid=64</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>"If someone has worked hard enough to have this kind of coin to spend on a card, I am sure they know how to handle a dollar."<br /><br />Hey Brian, not everyone that has $100K to piss away on cardboard; has actually worked for a living; i.e. trusts, a massive silver spoon, etc. <br /><br />Mark<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>at a fraction of the price, too. <br /><br />Of course, I can think of literally hundreds of cards I'd rather own than the 1952 Mantle given the cost involved. If someone wants to hand me one, well, OK, I guess I'd take it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DMcD</b><p>Per Kevin Bacon in <u>Diner</u> : "Do you ever get the feeling that there's something going on that we don't know about?"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>I do not know pricing on much of the post war issues but the following are cards that are routinely available on ebay every month yet the prices sold significantly over SMR in this same auction. I had sent an email to a new member of the board who knows pricing on this material for his comment but he is not returning my email. Maybe this is the place to go to sell your post war cards...<br /><br />1959 T Aaron PSA 8 $1579.20 OTD<br /><a href="http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5321" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5321</a><br /><br />1959 T Mantle PSA 8 $4460.30 OTD<br /><a href="http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5316" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5316</a><br /><br />1950 B Robinson PSA 8 $5030.18 OTD<br /><a href="http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5112&getauctionid=64" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5112&getauctionid=64</a><br /><br />1962 T F. Robinson PSA 8 $1475.63 OTD<br /><a href="http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5364&getauctionid=64" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5364&getauctionid=64</a><br /><br />1971 T Aaron PSA 8 $1264.3 OTD<br /><a href="http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5436&getauctionid=64" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.memorylaneinc.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=5436&getauctionid=64</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>$1,579.20 is an amazing price to pay for a PSA 8 1959 Topps Aaron card.<br /><br />The last six PSA 8 1959 Aaron cards that sold on ebay sold for $306, $345, $345, $493, $400 and $309 according to VCP. I guess the consignor in Memory Lane will not be complaining about the fees.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe Tocco</b><p>I think if you busted a 1982 wax case and got 30-40 Ripkens, you'd be very very lucky to get six 9's and 3 10's.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>I can understand someone paying twice the going rate, maybe. But it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE that TWO SOMEONES would bid against each other with both willing to pay many many multiples for cards that, as has been said, are available on an almost continuous basis on ebay and elsewhere. Something doth not look right to the naked eye. EDITED TO CORRECT TYPO ONLY

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Should I buy<A HREF="http://cgi.ebay.com/1971-Topps-HANK-AARON-Baseball-Card-RARE-Braves-PSA-8_W0QQitemZ220037515289QQihZ012QQcategoryZ55925QQr dZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem"> this one</A> and consign it? I am sure the under bidder still needs an 8 despite the fact that s week ago an 8 on ebay did not open for $170. Guess they missed that one.<br /><br />Or I can pick up<A HREF="http://cgi.ebay.com/1959-TOPPS-10-MICKEY-MANTLE-PSA-8-AWESOME_W0QQitemZ200059668890QQihZ010QQcategoryZ55 917QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem"> this one</A> and double up by seeing if Memory Lane can place it to the under bidder.<br /><br />Edited to add the 59 Mantle

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>The one in Memory Lane only had white showing at 2 corners, surely that is worth a serious premium, no?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell,</b><p>Greg,<br /><br />I think you should call JP and ask him for the names of the underbidders. All auctioneers should be willing to help out a customer in this respect.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Even though they are plentiful, 1952 Topps Mantle prices remain strong due to the high demand. It's the card everyone wants. I don't see the prices coming down anytime soon. <br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>Bottom line, this is an iconic card. Infact I think you can only make a case for the T206 Wagner being more iconic then the 52 Mantle. These two cards are recognized by collector and non-collector alike. Yes prices continue to soar, but I havent heard of anyone losing their money buying Mantles and Wagners. These cards will always have a market, safe bet in my book.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Not a bad price for a player who averaged .298, 29 HRs and 83 RBI's a year. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Its hard to believe he only had 4 - 100 RBI seasons. What does Jeff Kent have, like 8?? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ricky Y</b><p>I think you throw any logic out the window when it comes to the 52 Mantle. It's a card even the causal collector knows about. Despite it being plentiful, a graded example has no trouble selling. I picked up a fair condition one some years ago that I thought I probably over paid for at the time....even though it was within my spending budget ...but I really wanted one. It's now housed in a PSA 1 holder..its creased with rounded corners but its centered 55/45 with no markings or other damage. I can probably triple the return of the original price if I sold it now...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I know it's blasphemy but I would rather have a PSA 6 52 Mantle and $225,000 to spend on pre-war SGC 50 and 60 caramel cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Bob,<br /><br />Are you out of your mind????<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>WOW! I think that someone is going to take a bath when they want to sell it in the future. Wait... I think I hear the water running now.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Bob, <br />I agree, I'd take that deal too.<br /><br /><br />Josh<br />(not out of his mind)<br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>I know it's blasphemy but I would rather have a PSA 6 52 Mantle and $225,000 to spend on pre-war SGC 50 and 60 caramel cards. <br /><br /><br /><br />Me, you and probably 95% of the people here.<br /><br />That particular 9 was not centered perfectly and also had a slight tilt. <br /><br /><br />I'd prefer a well centered true ex/mnt example myself.<br /><br /><br />Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>It's not perfect.....but, I like the price I paid for my MICKEY.<br /><br />See, it does pay to be an old dude, sometimes.....who was very fortunate to have saved his BB card collection.<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/mmantle52t.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>I'll take a 5 and $235K. I can buy a few OJ's with $235K.....or re-start my W600 collection that I sold a few years back......albeit at a MUCH higher price....<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>Got lots of uses for the leftover gelt -- CJ Jackson, Guy Zinn and my granddaughter's education, not necessarily in that order. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Steve wrote: "I know it's blasphemy but I would rather have a PSA 6 52 Mantle and $225,000 to spend on pre-war SGC 50 and 60 caramel cards."<br /><br />I agree with Steve for my personal collection. But that's also because I have a budget that's limited. If I had a $20 million budget for cards, buying a PSA 9 Mantle would not stop me from getting alot of other SGC 50/60 Caramel Cards...it would be just an "addition to", not an "instead of"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I'd be thrilled with a nice 2 or 3. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>I'd go for the $282,587 straight up, hold the Mantle, irrespective of grade. <br /><br />I still don't see what this has to do with Allen Iverson or the Nuggets. <br /><br />-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>I know this has probably been asked and answered a million times, but why is this Mantle so popular? The 51 Bowman is the rookie and even though it is a 52 Topps high number, it is one of the double printed cards. I never understood why it is such a big deal. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>even though i do collect higher grade cards usually, for the record, i would take the T206 Wagner PSA 2 over the 52 Mantle 9 anyday...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>In 1980, on the front page of the Philly Inquirer there was a pix of two BB card dealers<br />in the Philly area who auctioned off THREE 1952T Mantle's for $10,000....total.<br /><br />This made news in the hobby nationwide, and the "hype" began, and the rest is history.<br /><br />T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Ted:<br /><br />I know that you were a collector back in the early 1950's...<br /><br />so do you remember whether the 1952 Topps was more popular than the 1951 Bowman back then... and if so, why?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Richard, that's a good question. Maybe the overall popularity of the 52 set? Or the larger format? Or the legend of the high numbers being dumped into the sea?<br /><br />As far as Iverson goes, Kenyon Martin will EAT Allen Iverson the first time he gets out of line. So I wouldn't expect any on-court issues with Iverson. If the Nuggets can keep a strong team with those three huge contracts (and egos), and if Kenyon can come back strong from the surgery, and if Iverson passes the ball once in a while, Denver will be tough for a long time.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>I would take the psa 8 52T Mantle that sold in Drent's auction for $72,000(that was a great buy)and use the oproceeds to buy some of the 52 cards I need to complete the set in psa 8 or better. Is another psa 8 Pafko ever going to appear and would the price be higher than the Mantle in 8?<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Richard- I think 1952 Topps is the iconic post-war set. Also, certain collectibles are status symbols. The 1952 Topps Mantle is a status symbol; the 1951 Bowman is just a really nice baseball card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- if I remember correctly when that group of 1952 low number packs was found a Pafko was pulled out of one of them. Didn't that grade higher than an 8?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Last time I checked the Pafko I think was a pop 9 in psa 8 which tied it with the Runnels for lowest pop in set. I also thought there were none higher but I could be wrong on this.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's kind of interesting regarding cards #1 and #2- a find of low number packs couldn't produce one mint example? Is it unusual for a card taken directly out of a pack not to grade mint?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>Barry- not surprising to me at all...first of all, these cards often can get "shifted" around in the packs, damaging corners slightly, then the centering has a big impact on "mint" grading...even though i don't collect them, i do understand that the 52 Topps had some major centering problems...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Fair enough. I guess a fifty year old unopened pack is still subject to a tiny bit of wear and tear.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I can only tell you of my collecting experience in Hillside, NJ in 1951 and 1952.<br /><br />Of the 1951 Bowmans that I recovered from my youth, there were no Hi#s.<br /> And, of course Mantle's Rookie card is the 1st card in the HI# Series (#253)<br /> and Jackie Jensen's was adjacent (#254) on the 72-card sheet.<br /><br />I cannot account why I didn't collect the Hi# cards, which would've been available<br /> in the Fall of '51. One factor you must realize, in 1951 Mantle was having troubles<br />and not many of us were excited about his BB card. <br /><br />My memory of the 1952 collecting season is clearer. The 1st series of the 1952<br /> Bowmans (72 cards) were first out in the market (at least in my neighborhood).<br />Then the 1952 Topps were at the stores. These larger cards made such a huge<br /> impression on us kids, that most of us stopped collecting the smaller Bowman cards.<br /><br />Now, by the time the Hi# series of 1952 Topps was available in the Fall of '52,<br /> Mantle had become an exciting player and we all wanted his card. And, when the<br /> kids were opening up 5 cent packs and finding Mantle's, I recall the Fall of '52<br /> being a very exciting time.....even for those who were not Yankees fans.<br /><br />I leave you with this fact.....Mickey batted .311 in 1952....so, how did Topps know<br /> this, since they numbered his card....311.....?<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...I opened a 1987 Donruss pack in 1999 and sent the Maddux rookie into PSA just about immediately -- it came back an 8. It takes much more than being pulled from a pack to get a high grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Didn't one of the grading companies- it might have been Beckett- offer to remove cards from unopened packs on site and with protective gloves, and if they were in fact perfect agree to grade them an "11"? I had such a good laugh over that one- it's like the scene in "This is Spinal Tap" where Christopher Guest sets his amplifier to "11" (which is even higher than the maximum "10") so he can play his music extra loud.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>which had grades going to 11<br /><br />Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ted -- are you originally from New Jersey? I'm originally from Clark which is not more than a few minutes away from Hillside.<br /><br />Paul -- I would have loved to have seen your face when that Maddux came back an 8.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thanks Rich- no slight against Beckett intended. I was just mining it for the humor. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>In another Thread, I noticed you acquired your BB cards in Linden. I have very fond<br />memories of the towns of Clark and Linden. My Aunt and Uncle owned a restaurant<br />on Wood Ave. And, they lived in Linden, so I spent a lot of my youth in those towns.<br />And, bought a lot of Bowmans and Topps cards there in the early 1950's. My older<br />cousin went to Linden High with Rosie Greer (NFL star).<br /><br />A lot of great memories of the area, as I am sure you have.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...because I had already been given a lesson on how hard it is to get a 9 or a 10, you know, back in the go-go 90's when all those Thomas, Sosa and McGwire cards were really going to be worth something.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Great story Ted. Thanks for sharing your memories. The thought of pulling a Mantle from a 1952 wax pack is mind boggling.<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Frank, Ted: as a kid growing up in Jersey my greatest memory of plucking a 'great' card from a pack was either a) Hank Aaaron HR King card (1974) or b) a Washington National Leaguer card. Clearly, I was screwed badly by growing up in the wrong era.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>oops - wrong thread (duh).<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Barry,<br />The Pafko out of that low number pack graded PSA 10. It sold for a ton of money.<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- I remember that now. What would it sell for today? The price of a house?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I'll make an effort to answer Richard's question about why the 52 Topps Mantle is more popular than the 51 Bowman. I think there's several factors.<br /><br />First, as Barry said, the 52 Topps set is considered to be the classic post-war set. But I don't think that alone explains it. After all, that would mean Willie Mays' 52 Topps card should be worth more than his 51 Bowman rookie.<br /><br />Second, and I think this is critical, throughout the 70s and 80s, 52 Topps high numbers were true glamour cards. They were very expensive (by the standards of the time) and were simply unavailable from most dealers. Few collectors even knew of true rarities like E107s, so 52 Topps high numbers were considered genuine rarities among those cards that ordinary people actually collected. Mantle was more popular than any other player in the high number series, including Mays. So his 52 Topps card was the king of this run of rarities.<br /><br />Third, it was not until the late 1980s that Mantle's card was discovered to be a triple print. By this time, its status as the most important and most valuable post-war card had been fixed. (Though the 54 Bowman Ted Williams gave it a run for this title for awhile.)<br /><br />Fourth, marketing. Once the 52 Mantle was established as the most desireable post-war card, dealers started to exaggerate its significance to boost sales. To this day, some dealers falsely call the card Mantle's rookie card. Even highly respected dealers and auction houses refer to it as Mantle's "Topps rookie card." I think this caused many novice collectors to either overlook the 51 Bowman Mantle entirely, or to think that there was something "wrong" with the card that disqualified it from being his rookie (just like many collectors find something "wrong" with 1947 Homogenized Bond cards and don't consider them rookies). Collectors carry with them what they learn when they are novices. So, as these collectors became more experienced, they still valued and desired the 52 Mantle, even though they eventually learned that he had a legitmiate earlier card.<br /><br />Fifth, Mr. Mint's find of 52 Topps high numbers. Once the rarity of the 52 Topps high numbers was established, Alan Rosen found some mint unopened cases. This suddenly made ultra-high grade 52 Topps Mantles available. Others may disagree, but I think the influx of these cards actually made the price of ultra-high grade 52 Mantles go up. Until this "find," I don't think collectors strived to own the single finest 52 Topps Mantle, or one of the top ten. They satisfied themselves with owning a very nice one. After the "find," this became the top priority of many collectors, driving up the price of high grade 52 Mantles even further. The development of grading companies also contributed greatly to this phenomenon, but the existence of grading companies doesn't explain why the 52 Topps Mantle was singled out.<br /><br />There may be other factors that I've overlooked, and some may disagree with the ones I've listed. But I've given it my best shot.<br /><br />Paul<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>PAUL<br /><br />Well said, and I would say between your very informative post and my post (1 PM) relating<br /> my experience as a kid in 1951-1952 , we pretty well accounted for the popularity of the<br /> 1952 Topps Mantle over his 1951 Bowman card.<br /><br />I was hoping you had mentioned the 1980 auction in Philly where 3 - 1952 Mantle cards<br />sold for a total of $10,000. This selling price at that time was unprecendented for just<br /> any BB cards, that it received nationwide attention since it was depicted on the front<br /> page of Philadelphia's major newspaper.<br /><br />This event "jump-started" the hype on the '52T Manntle and 6 years later Al Rosen's big 52T<br /> find in Boston raised the level of hype and the value of this Mantle card an order of magnitude.<br /><br />I must correct you on one minor item....the 52T Mantle is a double-print (not a triple-prt)..<br /><br />And, there are subtle front picture differences between these double-prints.<br />The earlier posted (PSA8) card is referred to as "Type II".<br /><br />I will post a scan later today of mine which is referred to as "Type I".<br /><br />Thanks for a great explanation.......TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Paul- I agree, great analysis, but I believe it was only one case that was found. They were all cello packs, highs and semi-highs, and I vaguely remember it contained about 4000 cards. One ironic aspect of it is that the seller got somewhere around 100K for it, and he must have felt like the luckiest guy in the world, getting all that money for something that was sitting in his attic for more than 30 years. But if he knows what the case is worth today, he is probably sick to his stomach. I would say $5 million would be a conservative estimate of its current break value.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>For those who are interested in the difference in the printing of the fronts of this double-printed card.<br /><br />My Mantle is referred to as type I and when you compare it with the PSA-8 card (type II), shown in an<br /> earlier post on this Thread, observe that the skin color of Mantle's right arm is clean. While the type II<br /> card has a "glossy sheen" on it. Also, the yellow star name box in the type I card is clean, while the<br /> type II card has a somewhat "ragged" name box.<br /><br />The only difference on the back of these two cards is the stitching on the BB containing the card's #,<br /> which is reversed when you compare type I vs. type II.<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/mmantle52t.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>I have never seen more than maybe a tiny resemblance between the 52T Mantle and the real Mantle.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1166716371.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Your photo of Mickey appears to be one when he was in his 30's....and "NYC aged".<br />The picture used by <br />Topps for his 1952 card is when he was only 19 years old....fresh from Oklahoma<br /><br />T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ted- of all the diagnostic points you cited the easiest way to tell a type 1 from a 2 is the stitching on the ball by his number "311". But here's a question- which is type 1, and which is type 2? Do you know which was printed first?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I remember very clearly an article in SCD many years ago concluding that the 52 Topps Mantle was a triple print, and it was listed that way in the Standard Catalog for awhile. But it has been listed as a double print for a long time now. I can't remember what the basis was for concluding it was a triple print. And since SCD has been listing it as a double print in their Standard Catalog, I think it's safe to say they no longer stand by their original analysis. So, I guess I'll join the consensus that it's just a double print.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Paul there are 97 different cards in the high number series #311-407. The first three are double printed, thus making 100 cards on a high number sheet. Does that make sense (since I have never seen a high number sheet)?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I never really understood the type1/type2 thing with 52'topps mantles, and was wondering if there is any belief that the print run for one was higher than the other....? And have auction results reflected that?<br /><br /><br />thanks<br />daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>BARRY<br /><br />Let us start with 1952 Topps cards were all printed on 100-card sheets. And, there are 97 cards<br /> in the Hi# Series......#311 - 407. Therefore, Topps had to double-print three cards. They chose<br /> Mickey Mantle (#311), Jackie Robinson (#312) and Bobby Thomson (#313). These 3 were perfect<br /> choices. The first two were very popular by late 1952 and Thomson was the hero of the 1951 play-<br />off game with his famous HR.<br /><br />Confirmation of these 3 being dbl-prints was evident in Al Rosen's 1952T find in 1986. There were<br /> 37 Mantle cards, and similar numbers of JRobby and Thomson. While there were just 17 complete<br /> Hi# runs.<br /><br />Now, for your question regarding Type I & Type II Mantle cards. They were printed simultaneously.<br />Apparently, one plate of the double printing plates differed from the other. This is not an unusual<br /> occurence.<br /><br />TED Z<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>As always Ted, right on target.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Barry, that makes perfect sense, as does Ted's explanation. Thanks. I just wish I remember why SCD once reported the cards as triple prints.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I looked at my SCD guides #1, 2 and 3 and I cannot find anywhere that they say Mantle was a triple-print.<br />Also, the 1981 Beckett (#3) guide had already listed that Mantle, JRobby and Thomson were double-prints.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>This nut case is why grading is a joke.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />There are probably a few guys still in mourning over the passing of The Mick. But they will get over it and the prices will drop.<br /><br />A better measurement of Mantle's popularity is to look at the prices for 1969 White Letter Mantle. When the price of that card starts coming down, Mantles will be entering into a slump.<br /><br />I really didn't have anything to say, I just wanted to be post 100.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Ted, maybe my memory is just fading much, much earlier than it should. I could have sworn it was listed as a triple print for awhile.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />I remember that the Mick and Jackie have always been listed as double-prints. Possibly what you remember as being a triple-print is the '59 Mickey Mantle All-Star card.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Peter, this is Mickey in his early 20's...a much closer fit to the 1952 card:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.themick.com/Youngportr.jpg"> <img src="http://www.damox.com/sports/cards/1952_Topps_Mickey_Mantle.jpg"><br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Frank I don't see the resemblance there either. His 51 and 53 Bowman cards look like him, but the 52T, to me, looks more like my brother in law than it does Mantle.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Mantle still generates a lot of interest on Net54, based on the responses in this Thread.<br /><br />Anyhow, what uniform # did Mickey wear as a rookie in 1951 ?<br /><br />Then, why did he have to switch to #7 in 1951, and who else wore #7 in 1951 ?<br /><br />And, if those are too easy......what was Joe DiMag's rookie uniform # ?<br /><br />T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>These look a lot more like him to me than does the 52.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1166754476.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1166754461.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Ted I believe he originally wore 6, being considered the next in line to Ruth Gehrig and DiMaggio (3 4 and 5). I think the other guy who wore 7 that year was Cliff Mapes. Not sure about Dimaggio's number.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Peter you are on a roll, you got two of the trivia questions.....so, now for the 3rd......<br />why did Mantle have to give up #6 ?<br /><br />And, Cliff Mapes is the answer to what Trivia quiz ?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>I know he was awful during his initial stint with the club, so maybe they thought the number making him the next in line was too much pressure? No idea about Mapes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Mantle was given Bobby Brown's #6 and when Brown returned from military duty he wanted back his old #6.<br /><br />When Cliff Mapes joined the Yankees in 1947 he wore #47 and in 1948, Mapes wore #3 until the Yankees fi-<br />nally retired Ruth's uniform #3. Then Mapes was given #7......so, Mapes wore two great HOFer's uniform #s.<br /><br />Joe DiMaggio's first unifom # was 9.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Ted, great trivia! Do you know if any other Yankees wore #3?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>I have a black and white Japanese card that has a photo of Mantle with #6 visable. The picture was taken in spring training 1951, but the card issued in 1953. I will post it when I can.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>PETER<br /><br />I have the complete rosters and uniform #s of the Yankees from 1929-1971....when you<br /> look thru it, by the 1950's there really was no "rhyme or reason" as to who got assigned<br />any specific #s. Number "6" was just available when Bobby Brown went into the military<br /> in 1950-51. A good example of what I am saying is in the answer to King's question.<br /><br />KING<br /><br />NY Yankees uniform #3 was worn by.....<br /><br />"Twinkle Toes" Selkirk 1935-42<br />Bud Metheny 1943-46<br />Hal Peck 1946<br />Roy Weatherly 1946<br />Frank Colman 1946-47<br />"Ducky" Medwick 1947<br />Allie Clark 1947<br />Cliff Mapes 1948<br /><br />August 16, 1948 Babe Ruth passed away and his uniform #3 was retired.<br /><br />TED Z<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />To respond to your earlier question, I think the Pafko psa 10 could be the hobby's first post-war million dollar card. I ewould think it would go for higher than a Mantle 10 which I would think would be about a $750,000 card.<br /><br />Jim<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- I don't know the final number, but there would be quite a fight for a PSA 10 Pafko and I agree that it would set a record for a post-1948 baseball card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>With all due respect to Andy Pafko.....I watched him play when I was a kid, he had a iong 17-year career,<br /> BA = .285, and hit 213 HR's with the Cubs, Dodgers and Milw. Braves.<br /><br />But, if his 1952 Topps card (#1) were to sell for a Million, irregardless of grade, this would be the ultimate<br /> example of absurdity in this hobby. And, I'll predict that within a year after such an event, such a purchase<br /> will have de-valuated to less than 1/2 of this price. For, such events are of "fleeting and foolish" moments.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I agree with Ted about the absurdity part, but not about the deflating part. Unless another 10 shows up someday, which I think is unlikely.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Ted- I'm not the one who is going to buy it if it comes up for sale. But I can offer my house in Sag Harbor straight up for it in a trade. Should I do it? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I wholeheartely disagree. Though I realize a Pafko would sell for an insane amount of money, there is no way it would go higher than a PSA 10 Mantle head to head. The Mantle may be the first post-War million dollar card, but I think the Pafko in a PSA 10 would not go for more than $200-300k. Even that is insane for a common. Would a PSA 8 in that slot for a high-grade set not do the trick?<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- while you very well may be correct the Pafko, like the 33G Bengough, is a card with a reputation of being impossible to find in nice shape. High grade 52T Mantles are really not that difficult. If the Pafko came up for auction and the top ten set registry people went after it, I can't even imagine the havoc they would wreak. And each of those ten probably already has a Mantle in at least an 8, if not a 9 or 10. Of course the whole thing is insane, but that's the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Those who don't realize the value of Pafko obvioussly do not collect graded cards. This is a pop 1 with no 9s!!!!!!!!!!! The toughest card in the most popular post-war set there is!!!!!!!<br /><br /><br />JimB--I can guarantee the Pafko would go for $500K because I would pay that--but I can think of 4 guys at least off the top of my head that would outbid me. I think at $500K, the 52 Pafko in PSA 10 would be a terrific buy.<br /><br />Jim<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jim:<br /><br />Not a criticism at all, just a legitimate question. I understand how tough the Pafko is.<br /><br />You would pay $500K for a PSA 10 Pafko. Wouldn't you worry that somewhere along the line, a 9 or a 10 might pop up somewhere, either from another unopened find, from a high-grade raw collection, or perhaps from a high-end 8 that got bumped to a 9? Wouldn't an increase in pop - even an increase of one - have an impact on the value of the 10?<br /><br />-Al<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Al,<br /><br />Do not think any more Pafko 10s will pop up.<br /><br />If I bought it for $500,000 which in my opinion would be a steal I would look to flip it for a Pafko 8(pop 9)and $400,000.<br /><br />As I said, I think there would be at least 4 buyers that I could think of for that card with 2 likely to go over a million...and that excludes a wealthy LTS guy who might top them all??? You know who I mean.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I really don't understand collectors who will pay huge sums of money for condition rarity. $500,000 for a 52 Topps Pafko??? A card that can be had in lesser condition on ebay EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR. An extrememly common card. Sure it's rare in PSA 8-10, but if you're buying the card for the number on the slab then IMO you are a collector of numbers and not cards. And strictly for the purpose of competition of which this hobby is not and should not be about.<br /><br />If someone willing to pay a half a million dollars for an Andy Pafko card is the backbone of the hobby then we're in worse shape than I thought.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I agree 100% Dan. Can you imagine how many really nice pre-war tobacco and caramel cards you could buy for $500,000??? It staggers the mind, my mind at least...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>NetJr</b><p>Quote: "And strictly for the purpose of competition of which this hobby is not and should not be about."<br /><br />I don't agree with this assessment, its a fine opinion and each is welcome to it as much as they want, but its just an opinion. To state that it "should not be about" might be your opinion but mine is opposite. I think the registries are quite intriguing and fun. Without them the hobby may have even less interest. <br /><br />A $250k card is certainly not something I'm going to buy now (maybe never). But I still don't understanding begrudging those who can - and the reasons why they do so.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>There are people out there in ANY type of collectibles who want the "best" of everything. I completely understand that. More power to 'em. There are guys buying shiny cards every day (in much greater numbers than we, BTW) who shake their heads at the idea of spending money on an off-grade Joe Tinker card when you can get a beautiful shiny card of Albert Pujols with his autograph on it for a mere $3K. There are people who shake their heads at the idea of buying ANY baseball card when you can get a piece of equipment used by the player instead. There are PLENTY of different ways to collect, and I respect all of them.<br /><br />And while I would never spend $500K on a postwar common, I would never spend $500K on a prewar HOFer, either. Other people do it, though, and I think that's great.<br /><br />The Pafko is a tough, tough card in nice shape. That's the appeal of the card. That's ALWAYS been the appeal of the card, as far back as I can remember.<br /><br />My concern is more related to the idea of buying a card for an extravagant sum based on graded population reports only. Jim is right - I sincerely doubt another 10 will ever pop up. But if an 8 gets bumped to a 9, and then another 9 shows up somewhere down the line, how would that impact the value of the 10? Even Jim says he'd pay $500K for the 10, and flip it for $400K and an 8. Part of this is because Jim collects 8s, not 10s. But Jim, wouldn't you say that part of why you'd flip it for $400K and an 8 would be to mitigate the risk of another 9 or two showing up some day and reducing the value of the 10 slightly?<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />You don't understand people who collect high grade cards and sets. I and others do not do it solely for the numbers. Competition may be a part of it(and the competition part can be a lot of fun as well)but the real reason is we like and can afford nice cards.<br /><br />I have absolutely no desire to have a off-center Pafko or one with corner wear or creases--that seems to be fine with you--wonderful! I want to collect high-grade sets.<br /><br />Al,<br /><br />Thats a good question--I am not sure that 1 or 2 psa 9s would reduce the value of a 10. I suspect if there was a 9 it would find a value of around $400,000 and the 10 would maintain a value of over a million. Just my opinion.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You know, the difference between a million dollar house and a $50 house is the million dollar one would probably have four bedrooms, be on an acre of land in a nice neighborhood, and perhaps have a swimming pool; while the $50 one would likely be a seat on a park bench.<br /><br />But the difference between a million dollar Pafko and a $50 Pafko is squarer corners. When you look at it like that, even a PSA 8 collector has to chuckle <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Jim- I am having trouble getting a handle on what exactly you want with respect to cards: do you want to own extremely nice PSA8ish and PSA9ish cards per se or do you simply strive to own the highest graded card known? In other words, if the highest graded known card is an SGC 50, would you want to own it or would you pass on ever owning that particular card because it wasn't an 88? Just curious....<br />Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>That is kinda funny, Barry.<br /><br />Now you've got me thinking about selling my house, buying a $50 house and spending the profits on cards. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Is this absurd or what ?<br /> <br />"Those who don't realize the value of Pafko obvioussly do not collect graded cards. This is a pop 1 with<br /> no 9s!!!!!!!!!!! The toughest card in the most popular post-war set there is!"<br /><br />Even if we don't collect post-War BB cards....most of us are keenly aware of the "condition scarcity" of<br /> this card.<br /><br />And, such a statement shows that you are the un-informed....not us.<br /><br /> Furthermore, in the post-War category.......a 1949 LEAF Leroy "Satchel" Paige in equivalent condition<br /> would generate a lot more of excitement than this Pafko card, and perhaps sell for 1/2 million.<br /><br />And, finally..... <br />those who live by the "pop reports" (generated only by PSA) will some day suffer from the "pop reports".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>I think John McEnroe said it best..." You cannot be serious!"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Jim, it's not personal, and you're right I do not understand it. More power to you. I just have to chuckle when you and the other 5 guys in the world willing to pay 1/2 million dollars for a common card consider yourselves to be the backbone of the hobby.<br /><br />Merry Christmas!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Al- a park bench can get awfully cold and lonely in the winter <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />You are wrong. Leaf set not very popular.<br /><br />Dan,<br /><br />You are misquoting me--I said that beacuse over half of the dollar value of all transactions was in psa 8 or better cards that the high grade collector was becoming the backbone of the hobby--since low grade pre war collectors do not like not being called the backbone, I just changed it to the majority.<br /><br /><br />Bob,<br /><br />Depends--if highest example for most cards was a psa 5 or 6 then no--if there was just a couple of cards bthat had no examples in 8 or better I would likely go for it. Just don't like low grade cards.<br /><br />Jim<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- do you really think a PSA-6 is a low grade card? I have seen a lot of 6's that are awfully nice.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />No-mid grade--but I have no interest in 6s.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Please put your name by your post, per the board rules. IF you don't then I will be deleting it...nothing personal and thanks much.....<br /><br />Btw, I think collecting numbers on slabs is fine...if that's what you're into...it's not card collecting and the card hobby though...<br /><br />Jim- if you would collect for the love of the game, the art on the cards, the history of the cards, the friendships the hobby can bring, then you would be much happier. You don't ever sound like you are having fun. Remember the thread about the E221 Bishops I picked up, and how excited I was/am, that's what it's all about. It's about the 5 day frat party every year called the National...The Net54 dinner where 60 or so folks get together and meet and talk. You concentrate on the number on the slab and most of us concentrate on everything else. Just a few words you might think about. Take care

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That was sort of what I was thinking, but said it in fewer words. I respect everyone's decison to collect what they want, but it's going to be hard to convince me that PSA-8 guys aren't just collecting the labels; because the physical difference between a nice 6 and an 8 is pretty insignificant. Like Jim said, it's really more of a competition. Fair enough, just not my thing. If I want to compete I play chess. If I collect I don't care what the other guy has, I'm just happy to enjoy what I have.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />I think all ways of collecting are fine.<br /><br />But I have some advice for you--get all your cards graded by SGC or PSA and upgrade your dogs to PSA 8 --you will have much greater peace of mind and enjoy the hobby more. Just a few words Leon you might think about.<br /><br />Seriously Leon where do you get off talking about my happiness or lack thereof. I have a great job, a wonderful family and I love the hobby. I collect for different reasons you do. If its all about the Bishops for you and frat parties--great--I am happy for you. For me its collecting high grade sets that makes me happy--comprende?<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Exactly--collect what makes you happy--thats what I am doing.<br /><br />By the way, do you have a chess rating?<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>What frat parties? Leon is 45.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Many years ago I played tournaments and had a rating around 1600. Most of my chess playing days were at the Village Chess Shop on Thompson Streeet, and in Washington Square Park. I preferred the casual game over tournaments. But I really don't play much anymore.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Thats about my rating too although on my Kasparov computer game I am at about 1800. <br /><br />When we meet for dinner in January maybe we can play a quick game or two of chess.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Hey Leon when you upgrade your 4BH Kelly to an 8 can I have your beater?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- I'm always up for a game but we may have a few distractions at the dinner. Maybe we can play an online game sometime.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Leon just said what a lot of us have not said to you, and although I share his feelings regarding<br />your style of collecting....high-value plastic is your thing. So, I say let's live and let live.<br /><br />But, what a good number of us don't care for is your continuous condescending "bullcrap" that<br /> you have thrown at us this past month. It's getting tiresome.....you admonish us not to judge<br />you. However, have you actually read some of statements you have posted here ? You are<br />constantly deriding the rest of us for not being like you. You just don't get it.....we don't ever<br /> want to be like you. <br /><br /> I'd bet anyone that you have not even bothered to read any of the more worthwhile Threads<br /> about vintage cards and collecting that many of us take the time and effort to research and<br /> share with each other on this Forum. You are just to self-centered to bother.<br /><br />I'm sure you will dismiss these comments I have made, as you think you are better than all of us.<br />So, be it....you do your thing....and leave us alone to do ours.<br /><br /> Just give us a "damn break" will you, man !<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Having been in Jim's Collection Room, I can attest that he's a very happy collector. In showing his cards to us, I saw the same look in his eyes that we all share when we discuss our cardboard, be they low grade, mid grade or high grade.<br /><br />That said, I'm hurt that he would rather have a Pafko card in 10, than a Mickey.<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Jim and Barry: I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think there is no such thing as a "quick game of chess". lolol. <br /><br />And for Jim (and maybe Bruce): A question of genuine interest and curiosity - I'm not accusing anyone of collecting a number on a slab. If grading were still not invented, do you think your collecting would still be the same? I can't tell from scans the difference between a 7 and a 9. Does that mean your quest for high-end cards would limit you to cards that you could see in person? Or would you still be able to maintain the focus and criteria you have now?<br /><br />Do you think this hobby would be more interesting and challenging, or less?<br /><br />Me? My collecting world is in the lower to middle ends, so usually I can tell from a scan if I would like a card or not - the differences are obvious. I'm not sure how it would work for characteristics that are less obvious. (Also, I'm not all that expert in higher end cards - it could be that these collectors can see some things in scans of 7's, 8's, and 9's that completely escape me.)<br /><br />Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Joann- one of the most popular versions of casual chess is "speed" or "blitz" chess where both players use a clock and have five minutes to play their entire game. I've played thousands of speed games and they can be a lot of fun. Sure, you make errors, but you can still play at a pretty high level if you know what you are doing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Now THAT is a kind of chess I could get into. I'd probably lose every game for a long time (I don't know any of the set strategies, etc), but at least I could get through a game without being as distracted by the waiting like I usually am.<br /><br />Cool.<br /><br />J

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You of course don't have enough time to analyze each move so you look for familiar positions and recognizable themes. You can't play the best move, but you can play a logical one. It takes its own special discipline.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Barry wrote: "because the physical difference between a nice 6 and an 8 is pretty insignificant. "<br /><br />I can see the difference vividly. When correctly graded (and yes, there are some incorrectly graded ones), a 8 and a 6 are worlds apart. Barry, I won a 6 and an 8 in your November auction. They were from two different grading companies, but the condition of the card is a lot different and if one looked at the card carefully and close up (no need for a loupe even), it should be plainly obvious what the differences are. Some people don't care about that difference, some do, and yet others (like me) sometimes do and sometimes don't depending on the set and/or card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />You have got to be one of the most condescending people I have ever met. You think your way is the only way to collect. Quit attacking me and post about whatever you want to post about. Do you ever read what you write? Ever since I have started with my campaign to clean up the hobby you have done nothing but criticize me--get a life buddy and try to quit attacking me!<br /><br />Hi Frank--<br /><br />Tough to decide which one I would rather have but I do think the Pafko would go for more--thanks for the plug--I am a happy collector except whren people like Ted try to impose his way of collecting on us.<br /><br />Barry and Joann,<br /><br />Five minute blitz chess is brutal--respecially playing the guys in the park--I always lose on time, even when I am winning the game.<br /><br />King,<br /><br />Completely agree--I think a big difference between a 6 and an 8.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I would think the whole collecting by condition discussion comes down to being pretty simple - you become expert at what you focus on. If it's 7's 8's and 9's you look at all day, then the differences though seemingly minor to many are plain as day to those whose focus they are. <br />Similarly if you like SGC40's better than 30's because it often means less distracting or major creases - though in number they may be the same, then you choose them that way. Everyone gets to choose what's important in a card's aesthetics, and then builds their collection to reflect that.<br />I could be wrong, but it seems everyone who wants to denegrate Jim's collecting style focus on the grade of the flips he collects. And I think Jim focuses on that grade because it is reflected in the card's condition. If an 8 requires similar corners but better centering than a 7, I'll lay dollars to donuts he just plainly prefers a centered card. In fact, he's said a million times when drawn in to such discussions that he simply doesn't like the look of creases/wrinkles, wear to surface and corners, poor centering, and other effects of time or poor print quality on paper. <br />At a guess, he probably similarly likes his car clean, and when it gets dirty it bugs him. If someone puts a scrape or a nick in his fender, he more than likely gets it fixed straight away so that he can continue to enjoy his car...<br />I'm not sure why anyone hounds him for his decisions (ok, exept the whole backbone comment, though I doubt it reflects everything he has added to the board or to other interested collectors, and shouldn't follow him for bloody ever...). They make him happy.<br />A guy with a vintage car who keeps it absolutely shmick and cleans it when he gets home, or a motorbike rider who has to keep all the chrome absolutely reflective, we don't judge their true ability to enjoy the machinery they own because of a pre-occupation with condition? In fact, it seems mostly we celebrate those people as serious enthusiasts who give us nice eye candy to look at in the magazines we thumb in barber shops and planes.<br /><br />And, if ultimately he also sleeps easier at night as a collector because he feels the market for his cards will save his bacon or conscience if he has to sell, and wishes to talk it up for both his own peace and to make it self-fulfilling through some marketing....hell, I don't care. Why should anyone? The truth will be told in the lifetime of his collecting and how he disposes of it.<br /><br />While it is regularly said you shouldn't spend what you can't afford to lose on this hobby, truth is that for most people losing the money they've spent on cards would hurt them enormously emotionally, financially, and have consequences to others in their families. Maybe some will tell me bulldust and that their collecting affects no-one but themselves, I'd think that they would be in minority.<br /><br />I thought with Frank's post attempting to celebrate however we collect, that we were past all this crap.<br />Doesn't everyone just want to move on?<br /><br /><br />Oh, and I love my GAI3 52' topps Mantle and wouldn't upgrade it for the world. Kind of like my old dog, she maybe couldn't do it all but she reflected the best parts of me and will always be connected to me, I mean, I chose her, and loved her from the very start. And similarly I feel a real connection to my cards as I keep them safely until the next owner gets that responsibility. Isn't that enough to know, and isn't participation on this board with the time it chews up a pretty good example of everyone's passion for vintage cards? I doubt you could start one up that only had slabs and the flips inside, with no cards to enjoy!<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I agree with King re the difference between a 6 and an 8. Two totally different specimens. As for the difference between a 7 and an 8, it is more subtle but still usually obvious. That being said, when I'm completing a set in the 7-8 range I usually buy the graded card of 7 or 8 which comes up first on ebay or otherwise. Sometimes one does feel stupid paying anywhere from 3-5x more for a common 8 simply because it became available first.<br /><br />As someone who has some registry sets, I often wrestle with the true stupidity of completing a set by paying large numbers for common 8s or 9s, simply to complete the set. Spending $1800 on a 1955 Art Fowler PSA 8 when I could have used that money towards an SGC 88 E93 Mathewson is just one of many examples of this sort of stupidity.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />I agree--the way I battle this is to have a number of sets I am working on so I can avoid paying a high price for a hot card. The 55s have been hot for some time but slowly I am moving toward completion here--the 59s are another red hot set with the lower pops.<br /><br />Daniel,<br /><br />Thanks--people like different things. I have said a million times collect what you want to collect--I do not like collecting anything less than nrmt-mt cards as I just don't like the looks of them. I am a passionate collector and love the hobby but I hate cards with dinged corners or off center or creases or other visible defects. You guys who like these --wonderful--I don't--to each his own.<br /><br />Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>King- your point is well taken, so let me rephrase what I meant, and your purchase is a perfect example. While the difference between a 6 and 8 is apparent, you are a collector of high grade cards, and although you might prefer to have 8's you deemed the 6 high enough quality to fit in your collection. And that was really my point- that 6's are nice looking cards, and that I disagreed with Jim calling a 6 a low grade card. Granted, not a registry grade, but for most collectors a quality example.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />I never specifically said a PSA 6 was a low-grade card--it is not. I sid if the highest example of a card in a set was a 5 or a 6 I would not try for the set because I don't like lower grade cards. If the highest was a 5 or a 6 then there would likely be lower cards too. <br /><br />Happy Holidays.<br /><br />Jim<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Barry, I see your point. BTW, I am not necessarily a collector of high grade cards, I also collect some sets in low to mid grade. I have a tendency to like consistency of grades in the sets I collect. My E92 mixed-back set has an average grade of SGC 40. My T206 set is only in SGC 50 and a sprinkling of PSA 4 cards. The Diamond Stars set I'm working on range from PSA/SGC 6 to 8, while my 1934 Goudey set is mostly PSA 7 or 8. So I do collect and appreciate many different grades. At the same time, I can see how someone like Jim would only be interested in PSA 8 cards. And I can also see how someone else is only interested in SGC 20-50 cards. What I am curious about is the bashing that goes both ways.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>King- whatever grade you collect, I agree that keeping a set as consistent as possible is a good idea.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>It's kind of funny to read these posts because everyone seems to think that only their way of looking at the world is correct. I think Jim and Leon can be equally happy pursuing their goals. IMO a collector sets goal. Those goals could be completing a PSA 8 set or completing a group of different backs in a caramel set. As the collector progresses towards completing that goal he/she achieves happiness from the pursuit. Whether one receives more or less than the other is probably more a function of the person's internal makeup than the goal they are trying to achieve. I achieve happiness moving towards completing the sets I am working on. Some are registry sets where I am searching for a number, some are vintage sets where I am searching for an esoteric variety. I achieve pleasure from both pursuits. I dislike pre-war caramel cards. I think they are ugly and would never collect them. However, I fully understand that some people like them for their rarity, and some may actually like them for their appearance, and I can understand that they would achieve much satisfaction from making progress on their sets. It wouldn't make me happy, but it makes them happy and that's all that matters. <br />Being an old fart I still remember the words to a Joe South song:<br /><br />Walk a mile in my shoes. walk a mile in my shoes<br />Before you abuse, criticize and confuse<br />Walk a mile in my shoes<br /><br />Everyone enjoy the holidays!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>What- you think caramel cards are ugly!! Those are fighting words!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Really really well said Jay.<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I agree with you.<br /><br />Jim- if it makes you happy to collect the way you do, and it obviously does, then that's great. I mis-spoke when I said you aren't happy if you are. There is room in our hobby for everyone including you and I. I would like to offer an olive branch as a token of friendship. Have a happy holidays and I hope you find a nice PSA 8 or 9 in your stocking this year....I am hoping for a card to fill a hole in my collection too...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>We've gone through 167 posts to discover what we all already knew- that there is no right or wrong way to collect. What we may however need a little more of is tolerance towards the other guy's way of collecting.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />Sounds good to me.<br /><br />Happy Holidays to you as well.<br /><br />Jim