NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

View Poll Results: What is Mickey Mantle's RC?
1951 Bowman 53 100.00%
1952 Topps 0 0%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-15-2010, 07:24 AM
BCauley's Avatar
BCauley BCauley is offline
Bill Cauley
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 425
Default What Do You Consider Mickey Mantle's RC?

The subject line pretty much sums it up. Which do you consider his RC and more importantly, why?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-15-2010, 07:46 AM
T205's Avatar
T205 T205 is offline
Edward F.
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sasebo, Japan
Posts: 66
Default

1951 Bowman, due to its his first cardboard appearence.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-15-2010, 09:16 AM
ChiefBenderForever's Avatar
ChiefBenderForever ChiefBenderForever is offline
Johnny S
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lost in Connecticut
Posts: 1,261
Default

51 Bowman is his true RC, but given the choice I would take a 52 Topps, and not because of it's value but because it is such a good looking magical perfect card.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-15-2010, 02:33 PM
MBMiller25's Avatar
MBMiller25 MBMiller25 is offline
Matt Miller
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Charlotte NC.
Posts: 413
Default 51 Bowman

51 Bowman is considered his rookie, and its the one I would want if I had my choice. I love the look of that card.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-15-2010, 07:14 PM
doug.goodman doug.goodman is offline
Doug Goodman
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the road again...
Posts: 4,921
Default What color is blue?

Choice 1 - Blue
Choice 2 - Red
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-15-2010, 07:39 PM
BCauley's Avatar
BCauley BCauley is offline
Bill Cauley
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug.goodman View Post
Choice 1 - Blue
Choice 2 - Red
Believe me, I know this is ridiculous. I was on another forum and this was actually an issue. A very small group felt that the '52 is widely regarded as his RC. None of them care to explain why exactly beyond one person stating it's been considered "public opinion" for as long as he's been alive.

The earth was widely regarded as flat too.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-16-2010, 04:59 AM
Robextend's Avatar
Robextend Robextend is offline
Rob Miller
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Middlesex, NJ
Posts: 3,494
Default

It has to be 1951 Bowman....
__________________
My collection: http://imageevent.com/vanslykefan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-16-2010, 06:22 AM
tonyk1975's Avatar
tonyk1975 tonyk1975 is offline
member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 62
Default

The 51 Bowman came first there fore is the true RC.
__________________
My Collection
http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/tonyk1975
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-16-2010, 07:01 AM
BCauley's Avatar
BCauley BCauley is offline
Bill Cauley
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyk1975 View Post
The 51 Bowman came first there fore is the true RC.
On top of that, he played in 94 games in '51 and had over 300 at bats.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-16-2010, 08:16 AM
ChiefBenderForever's Avatar
ChiefBenderForever ChiefBenderForever is offline
Johnny S
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lost in Connecticut
Posts: 1,261
Default

If you say Mantle RC the first thing that will pop into 90% of peoples head is 52 Topps.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-16-2010, 09:52 AM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Well since there really is no such thing as a Rookie Card, it merely being a hobby construct. If it is defined as I have always heard as the first appearance on a "card" as a major leaguer then how could it be argued that it is anything other than the '51B between the two. Now I would rather have the Topps but that does make it the Rookie Card.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-16-2010, 11:17 AM
terjung's Avatar
terjung terjung is offline
Brian T.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 938
Default

People give particular cards the misnomer of being a rookie card all the time. Just because it is more popular doesn't make it his rookie card. Mantle is not the only example of this. T206 Wagner is another one that unlearned people call his rookie card. Shoot, I've even seen people call errantly call the '33 Goudey Ruth's RC and that's not even close.

With prewar collecting, there is some ambiguity with regard to whether a particular issue is considered a rookie "card", (ie. cabinet, postcard, team image, pins, magazine insert, etc.). The dates for prewar issues also aren't always as clear either, but for post war collecting, it isn't as gray. The 1951 Bowman is clearly Mickey's RC. I've seen the '52 be called the "Topps" RC since it is his first image on a Topps card, but even that is a bit of a stretch, imo.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2010, 10:14 AM
4815162342's Avatar
4815162342 4815162342 is offline
Daryl
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,503
Default

I haven't read a Beckett in years, but remember the term "XRC" being applied to the "real" but unpopular rookie cards, while the cards that popularly known as rookies would be labeled "RC". Ridiculous! The first card of a player is the rookie card and nothing else.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2010, 10:41 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,229
Default

Yeah, XRC was used for rookie cards from traded sets. That was a bit of a compromise after they said rookie cards had to be from a "major nationally distributed set" Which was put in the defenition to exclude draft pick and highschool all star sets. Jeter was in a couple of those, and was probably one of the main drivers for the change. After all, the highschool all star set only had a print run of something like 5000, not nearly enough for all the dealers at the time to get in on the action.

And with McGwire they had a different problem, a card in a major set that wasn't actually a major league card. I think that's about the time the FTC- first Topps card designation came along.

The whole "rookie card" thing actually made sense up till roughly the late 1970's. after that it got sillier and sillier.

Steve B
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-17-2010, 12:11 PM
fkw's Avatar
fkw fkw is offline
Frank Kealoha Ward
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kea'au HI
Posts: 1,149
Default

There is also a 1951 Wheaties of him, the test issue.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-18-2010, 10:22 PM
Sammy849
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

1951 Bowman is Mantles Rookie Card. 1952 is the 1st year Topps Made Baseball Cards. I have a question how many years is a player considered a Rookie regardless of the card.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-19-2010, 12:23 AM
FUBAR's Avatar
FUBAR FUBAR is offline
Jim D
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,000
Default

most players in the 90's hadnt ever played in the majors but had cards. It was getting ridiculous. Some players like Rolen or Halladay you have to go back 7 or 8 years for their card before they played a game in the bigs.....

Beckett describes a RC as the first card of a player in a major issued set from a major manufacturer.

Beckett still lists 1933 Ruth's (a 4 of them) as his rookie card because none of his other cards came from major sets/manufacturers.
__________________
"There is no such thing as over educated!

It is better to be quiet and thought of as a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-20-2010, 03:05 PM
brian1961 brian1961 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,349
Default The 1951 Bowman is Mick's rookie card

The discussion of what constituted Mickey Mantle's rookie card historically has had a strong undercurrent of which card was more important and valuable.

In the early days of the organized adult hobby, prices were going up by the month. Originally, adult collectors tried to collect every baseball card ever printed. Younger collectors such as I were quickly priced out of the market to do that. So, many of us resorted to collecting several particular sets, one or several favorite players, an era, or even type card collecting.

One of the theme collecting niches that sprung up was rookie card collecting. Now, keep in mind, a player's rookie card is simply his first appearance on a baseball card, or some other item if he did not appear on a card in his first year. A rookie card does not mean his scarcest card, and has nothing to do with rarity per se. The ONLY reason that the price increased was because dealers soon picked up on this popular collecting trend, and jacked up their prices for a given player's rookie card. One of the first dealer's to do that was Larry Fritsch. The player's photo or the card design might be as ugly as a dead tree, but if it was his first card---viola, a bonanza for the dealer. Simple as that.

Now, the example of Mickey Mantle is an interesting one. His 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps are both very attractive, compellingly so. Often, the arguments raged because a given collector had one of them, but not the other. Also, it became apparent, from the old law of supply and demand, that the 1952 Topps Mantle was much more desirable, and its value broke away from the 1951 Bowman. Bowman owners felt insulted, bewildered and rather insecure over the idea that their actual rookie card of Mick was falling behind the 1952 Topps. They pounded the table with the absurd idea that the rookie card must naturally be the more significant, the more desirable, and the more valuable.

Topps owners just smiled and essentially said, "I bought what I wanted and I love what I have." Bowman owners fumed and spat and sputtered, "but you can't feel that way, you're supposed to like the Bowman rookie more!"

Then, of course, there were those who purchased both, enjoyed both for what they were, and stuck plugs in their ears to enjoy both Micks and keep out the noise of the arguers.

I made my choice many years ago, and never regretted it a minute. It matters not which of them I chose. Besides, I had to part with it to raise money for a home. Believe you me, I miss that Mickey terribly, but sometimes there are things in life that are more important than cards. I must confess though that I did not part with all my Mickey Mantle cards and coins. I could not bring myself to do that.

In the mean time, the 1951 Bowman is Mickey Mantle's only rookie card. The 1952 Topps is his most valuable gum card, period. Then again, the population reports only reinforced the cause for the 1952 Topps. If any more major finds occur, that would definitely change the value of that particular Mantle.

Cheers. ---Brian Powell

Last edited by brian1961; 05-20-2010 at 03:08 PM. Reason: Edited to clarify my sale of an important Mantle card.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-20-2010, 03:37 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 9,150
Default Mantle Debate...err discussion

Good one Brian

Last edited by ALR-bishop; 05-20-2010 at 03:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-20-2010, 04:41 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Beckett still lists 1933 Ruth's (a 4 of them) as his rookie card because none of his other cards came from major sets/manufacturers.

This is true and most all people regard this for the buffoonery that it is!
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Topps Mickey Mantle's for sale ALL SOLD drdduet 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T 0 04-06-2010 07:41 AM
FS: Low-Grade Mickey Mantles Archive 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T 2 03-01-2008 06:01 PM
Mickey Mantle's Big League Game FS Archive Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T 0 10-07-2007 01:14 PM
Mickey Mantles Restuarant Gift Certificates Archive Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T 0 08-31-2006 09:21 AM
Mickey Mantle autographed ball - Ted Williams autographed ball Archive Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T 1 08-13-2006 08:08 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 PM.


ebay GSB