This 52 Mantle card really gets around

[Econteachert205]

The commoditization of baseball cards is a temporary phenomenon that began in the 1970s and in my opinion will end for the most part in the 2070's. There simply are too many cards and insufficient replacement of dying collectors. Cards are not art or coins. They do not have intrinsic value and are not created as one off expressions. Like stamps, which have already gone through this process, the ultra valuable with remain so, but 95 percent of the rest will be worth pennies on the dollar. The mantle will always be valuable, but how many 16 year olds right now will desire one at those prices upon entering adulthood? I'd love one, having been a collector, but at 35, I have no interest in spending that sort of money, nor can I, on a piece of cardboard of which there are many copies.

[Leon]

As I tell out-of-the-hobby folks at the shows I set up at, if you look at the hobby as "spending" the money on cards it can be seen as a waste and indulgence. However, if done the smart way, they can be an investment and part of any portfolio. And in 2070 I will be 109 yrs old and hopefully not still typing at this keyboard nor worrying about the value of my cards.

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

The commoditization of baseball cards is a temporary phenomenon that began in the 1970s and in my opinion will end for the most part in the 2070's. There simply are too many cards and insufficient replacement of dying collectors. Cards are not art or coins. They do not have intrinsic value and are not created as one off expressions. Like stamps, which have already gone through this process, the ultra valuable with remain so, but 95 percent of the rest will be worth pennies on the dollar. The mantle will always be valuable, but how many 16 year olds right now will desire one at those prices upon entering adulthood? I'd love one, having been a collector, but at 35, I have no interest in spending that sort of money, nor can I, on a piece of cardboard of which there are many copies.

[Rich Klein]

The 1952 Topps is not a Rookie Card and every time we call it as such as perpetuate that fallacy.

I say that, as a person who talked to literally hundreds of reporters and radio personalities over the years back in my Beckett days. We always try to be careful, state facts and correcting incorrect perceptions is part of what I did. As this card is not a Rookie Card. I did not have any problems saying what I did.

There is nothing wrong with correcting an incorrect fact. I have made plenty of errors in posting, it's part of the nature. And how many times on this board do we go into a different tangent before getting back to the point at hand. It's not a rookie card, that is no big deal,

it's still an expensive card! A BIGLY expensive card!


Rich

[megalimey]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

The commoditization of baseball cards is a temporary phenomenon that began in the 1970s and in my opinion will end for the most part in the 2070's. There simply are too many cards and insufficient replacement of dying collectors. Cards are not art or coins. They do not have intrinsic value and are not created as one off expressions. Like stamps, which have already gone through this process, the ultra valuable with remain so, but 95 percent of the rest will be worth pennies on the dollar. The mantle will always be valuable, but how many 16 year olds right now will desire one at those prices upon entering adulthood? I'd love one, having been a collector, but at 35, I have no interest in spending that sort of money, nor can I, on a piece of cardboard of which there are many copies.

why do people bother collecting any thing , basically its a hobby , some times it turns into a passion , some times it turns into an addiction ,
some times people collect for what to them seems like sound investment reasons some times they pan out some times they don't.
There are thousands of worse things that you can spend disposable income on and not have anything to show for it. Spending $1000s on a piece of cardboard may seem stupid to many people, but thats the beauty of collecting there is always some one who will appreciate what you have and share their enthusiasm with you. Bottom line it a hobby have fun with it.
if you have the money to buy higher priced items then good luck to you.
if you rather spend money on "Wine Women and Song" or anything else then go for it.

[MVSNYC]

People get too hung up on whether or not this card is his rookie card or not. Fact is the 51 Bowman is his true rookie card, and the 52 Topps is his first Topps card...all that aside, the 51 Bowman cannot touch the importance, popularity and level of icon status, that the 52 Topps embodies. Whether it's called a rookie or a cookie...people know what they're buying.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

People get too hung up on whether or not this card is his rookie card or not. Fact is the 51 Bowman is his true rookie card, and the 52 Topps is his first Topps card...all that aside, the 51 Bowman cannot touch the importance, popularity and level of icon status, that the 52 Topps embodies. Whether it's called a rookie or a cookie...people know what they're buying.

true dat!

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

People get too hung up on whether or not this card is his rookie card or not. Fact is the 51 Bowman is his true rookie card, and the 52 Topps is his first Topps card...all that aside, the 51 Bowman cannot touch the importance, popularity and level of icon status, that the 52 Topps embodies. Whether it's called a rookie or a cookie...people know what they're buying.

Houston, we have a problem. This discussion just got complicated. If we call a 52 Mantle a cookie, what do we call this?....

Cookie.jpg

or for that matter this?....

Cookie too.jpg

But that's not all, how about....

Mookie.jpg

and

Mookie 2.jpg

If Wilson is the A Mookie, would Betts be the B Mookie?

Chronologically, in the Cookie case, Lavagetto would be the A Cookie, but now you want to call Mantle the B Cookie instead of Rojas who is a true Cookie. Oy vey. Calling Mantle a C Cookie seems demeaning and I'm not buying it.

And that's just the beginning,

Where does this guy fit in

Pookie.jpg

or this this one

Nookie.jpg

If Mickey is a Cookie, what do you call a Nookie?

but i digress

The 51 Mantle is the Rookie

The 52 Mantle should not the Cookie (A, B or C)

Maybe we should just call the 52 Mantle a Wookie Card.




















Wookie.jpg

Nope, that won't work either.

[Peter_Spaeth]

..

[Peter_Spaeth]

.

[t206fix]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Houston, we have a problem. This discussion just got complicated. If we call a 52 Mantle a cookie, what do we call this?....

Attachment 278725

or for that matter this?....

Attachment 278726

But that's not all, how about....

Attachment 278727

and

Attachment 278728

If Wilson is the A Mookie, would Betts be the B Mookie?

Chronologically, in the Cookie case, Lavagetto would be the A Cookie, but now you want to call Mantle the B Cookie instead of Rojas who is a true Cookie. Oy vey. Calling Mantle a C Cookie seems demeaning and I'm not buying it.

And that's just the beginning,

Where does this guy fit in

Attachment 278729

or this this one

Attachment 278730

If Mickey is a Cookie, what do you call a Nookie?

but i digress

The 51 Mantle is the Rookie

The 52 Mantle should not the Cookie (A, B or C)

Maybe we should just call the 52 Mantle a Wookie Card.




















Attachment 278731

Nope, that won't work either.

Wow! You seriously had scans of all those cards at your fingertip just for this post! That's impressive!!!

[irishdenny]

My Man Frank iS A "VerY ImPreSSiVe GuY!"
Frank Can Even Locate the Post War and Modern Sides of THiS Site ~

MoST of Us PreWar Guys Wouldn'T Know
A "B 52 Bronx Bomber" iF iT Landed oN Us!

"BRiLLiANT WoRK Frank!!!"

[egri]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Houston, we have a problem. This discussion just got complicated. If we call a 52 Mantle a cookie, what do we call this?....

Attachment 278725

or for that matter this?....

Attachment 278726

But that's not all, how about....

Attachment 278727

and

Attachment 278728

If Wilson is the A Mookie, would Betts be the B Mookie?

Chronologically, in the Cookie case, Lavagetto would be the A Cookie, but now you want to call Mantle the B Cookie instead of Rojas who is a true Cookie. Oy vey. Calling Mantle a C Cookie seems demeaning and I'm not buying it.

And that's just the beginning,

Where does this guy fit in

Attachment 278729

or this this one

Attachment 278730

If Mickey is a Cookie, what do you call a Nookie?

but i digress

The 51 Mantle is the Rookie

The 52 Mantle should not the Cookie (A, B or C)

Maybe we should just call the 52 Mantle a Wookie Card.




















Attachment 278731

Nope, that won't work either.

I'm surprised that Cookie Gilchrist and his Cadillac that had "Lookie looked here comes Cookie" written on the hood did not make an appearance in that post.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

The commoditization of baseball cards is a temporary phenomenon that began in the 1970s and in my opinion will end for the most part in the 2070's. There simply are too many cards and insufficient replacement of dying collectors. Cards are not art or coins. They do not have intrinsic value and are not created as one off expressions. Like stamps, which have already gone through this process, the ultra valuable with remain so, but 95 percent of the rest will be worth pennies on the dollar. The mantle will always be valuable, but how many 16 year olds right now will desire one at those prices upon entering adulthood? I'd love one, having been a collector, but at 35, I have no interest in spending that sort of money, nor can I, on a piece of cardboard of which there are many copies.

Yuck, Yuck. Now that's a good one! Never mind that the trend has been quite consistently exactly the other way for nearly 50 years. And the first coin that sold for $10,000,000? A 1794 silver dollar graded Mint State 66 by PCGS in January, 2013. I haven't checked the value of silver per ounce lately, but the "intrinsic value" had to be what? $10,00? $20.00 max? Not terribly rare, either, if you're not that concerned with condition--140 examples estimated to have survived, with very nice examples apt to grade Fine to Very Fine. That same coin, in extremely fine, was valued at $25,000 in 1980, $125,000 in 2003, and $150,000 in 2005--maybe a trend--heavens, even a collectible trend--at work? Maybe other truly classic collectibles might be susceptible to those very same trends??? Maybe it might have something to do with history, since the 1794 dollar was the first coin of that denomination made by the very, very young country, the United States? Wow! Hold it in your hand (in its' PCGS holder, of course) and perhaps, just perhaps, it takes you back to the early, historic days of America itself? Perhaps you can feel a connection to people like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and others that were alive and moved in real time through that small, round slug of silver? Maybe people even like history? Have you ever seen shows like "American Pickers," Pawnstars," or Antiques Roadshow?" OF COURSE THEY DO!

Do you really think that collectors that buy 2.5 million dollar '71 Hemi 'Cuda convertibles (11 made, making it the king of all 426 Hemi muscle cars) actually do so for their "intrinsic value," i.e., to drive? Somehow I doubt it. An occasional cruise around the block or so to keep everything lubricated (gaskets and seals dry out otherwise), but that's about it. No, it's a collectible, one that takes them back to the HISTORIC days of the first great muscle car era (though towards the end of that era) and likely one that will continue to appreciate IMHO for quite awhile. More and more classic cars are moving into the 7 and even 8 figure bracket, just within the last year or two. Why? Because they are pieces of HISTORY that take these collectors back to the interests and days that they treasure and cherish!

In case you haven't noticed, many areas of collectibles are growing, and growing now even more rapidly due to the internet (even the rarest items will ultimately, inevitably show up on ebay). Oh, but the sky is falling, the sky is falling--but just not now; wait until 2070! This field of collecting is based on a fundamental element of human nature, and for that reason, I highly doubt it.

As to the failure to replace dying collectors, I believe the most recent surveys regarding the average age of our own board members have shown that age to be DECREASING, not increasing. And if you've been to a National lately, you likely will have seen the hoards of younger people--sure, they'll start out with Harper and Trout, or maybe Kershaw or Scherzer, but inevitably, many, many will move on to Gehrig, Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Cobb, Wagner, Johnson, Grove, Foxx, etc., etc. People simply LIKE baseball, and a certain percentage are interested in its HISTORY. Of those that are, cards are the perfect tangible gateway to it--almost like time travel, they connect you to the player, and take you back to the time. Through vintage cards, you truly can hold the HISTORY of the game right in your hands!

The quote above sounds like sour grapes to me, just as another post did--oh, woe is me! The market is moving on, and leaving me behind. Well, wealthy people like various fields of HISTORY too! They can buy the best, and they will. Just my $10.50 worth.

Larry

[rainier2004]

You really need to stop being so shy Larry...

Happy 4th to all!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

My only contrary thought to Larry's rant is about the average age of N54 users. If the older generation is dying off, then of course the average age will start to skew younger.