1933 Goudey Ruth vs 1952 Topps Mantle

[jasonc]

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]

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).

[the 'stache]

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/pl...=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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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]

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]

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.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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/pl...=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]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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]

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.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

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]

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.

[jasonc]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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]

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]

One word is why the '52 Mantle is worth more: Demand

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

[t206blogcom]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

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.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

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]

Originally Posted by t206blogcom

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.

[glynparson]

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.

[atx840]

Can we some examples

[CW]

Originally Posted by atx840

Can we see some examples

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

[yanksfan09]

Gorgeous cards!

[MattyC]

[Kawika]

[CW]

Originally Posted by yanksfan09

Gorgeous cards!

Thanks, Erick!

Nice followup scans, fellas!

[Republicaninmass]

My favorite ruth is #181