1951 Mickey Mantle TYPE 1 Photo Used to Create His 1952 TOPPS Card is now at 20K...

[Forever Young]

With all due respect, I doubt there will ever be 10-15(TRUE TYPE 1s) that ever hit the market. With all of the archives already opened, this is the only one documented. Heck..I have never seen 10-15 or more of one TYPE 1 Rookie image Documented PERIOD(pre-1960s). That doesn't mean that it can't happen of course. I just think that a true rookie image taken in 1951 developed, FROM THE ORIG NEG(not wired) within those 2 years is way rarer then say a 1956 triple crown shot when he was a bigger story/well known. Hence the 2 year type 1 debate and one reason why that requirement was set. If this was printed in 1956 because of his records, popularity etc.. it would be less valuable in my eyes..not period. That is just me.
This could be compared to a 1952 topps mantle vs 1956 topps mantle card..both have images from 1951..(main image in 1952, and the diving in stands in 1956 topps).The difference is when the cards were created/published.

I do agree with two main points that were made below.

A) This sale should bring out a percentage of any out there.
B) The additional photos that surface will not affect the price as the supply is simply too few and the demand is high.

Jimmy-I was wondering how long it was going to take you to respond Mr. Toughy pants.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Jimmy-I was wondering how long it was going to take you to respond Mr. Toughy pants.

Mr. Toughy Pants? His rant was well worth the wait. I'm afraid the poor guy spilt his Cheerios all over himself in the heat of the moment.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

With all due respect, I doubt there will ever be 10-15(TRUE TYPE 1s) that ever hit the market. With all of the archives already opened, this is the only one documented. Heck..I have never seen 10-15 or more of one TYPE 1 Rookie image Documented PERIOD(pre-1960s). That doesn't mean that it can't happen of course. I just think that a true rookie image taken in 1951 developed, FROM THE ORIG NEG(not wired) within those 2 years is way rarer then say a 1956 triple crown shot when he was a bigger story/well known. Hence the 2 year type 1 debate and one reason why that requirement was set. If this was printed in 1956 because of his records, popularity etc.. it would be less valuable in my eyes..not period. That is just me.
This could be compared to a 1952 topps mantle vs 1956 topps mantle card..both have images from 1951..(main image in 1952, and the diving in stands in 1956 topps).The difference is when the cards were created/published.





I do agree with two main points that were made below.

A) This sale should bring out a percentage of any out there.
B) The additional photos that surface will not affect the price as the supply is simply too few and the demand is high.

Jimmy-I was wondering how long it was going to take you to respond Mr. Toughy pants.

Ben,

I agree with you. As I posted in an earlier response to Hank, I believe we may only see 1 or 2 (hopefully) Type 1 photos of the '52 Topps image ever surface and become available in future auctions.

Mickey actually was a very big story in 1951 - the most publicized rookie in a number of years (mostly due to the NY press, Casey's ranting and his pre-season accomplishments). Over the years I have accumulated a significant number of Mantle Type 1 Rookie photos. Based on what I have, what I have seen in auctions over the past 20 years or so and my discussions with other Mantle collectors I can say with certainty that I know of at least 7 or 8 examples of a number of different and documented Type 1 Rookie Mantle photos. Interestingly, this is actually much more then I have or have seen from any other year - although this part may be somewhat biased since my primary focus has been on these early years ( I do, however, have a multitude of Type 1 photos that span his entire career).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Ben,

I agree with you. As I posted in an earlier response to Hank, I believe we may only see 1 or 2 (hopefully) Type 1 photos of the '52 Topps image ever surface and become available in future auctions.

Mickey actually was a very big story in 1951 - the most publicized rookie in a number of years (mostly due to the NY press, Casey's ranting and his pre-season accomplishments). Over the years I have accumulated a significant number of Mantle Type 1 Rookie photos. Based on what I have, what I have seen in auctions over the past 20 years or so and my discussions with other Mantle collectors I can say with certainty that I know of at least 7 or 8 examples of a number of different and documented Type 1 Rookie Mantle photos. Interestingly, this is actually much more then I have or have seen from any other year - although this part may be somewhat biased since my primary focus has been on these early years ( I do, however, have a multitude of Type 1 photos that span his entire career).

Craig,
I absolutely agree with you on Mantle being a larger story vs say an Ernie banks as a rookie. Therefore, the existence of a greater number of DIFFERENT images. I am just referring to the need to print multiple copies of each in 1951 -53. No need IMO.. as the hype was primarily in NY and there was no real "National" story worthy of sending hard copies to different media outlets. Especially with the wire capabilities. I also noticed that this particular example has date stamps through the late 70s. Which tells me it was the ONE used in house for all/or most of the published stories. I know for a fact that INTERNATIONAL NEWS was the agency who took this original shot and owned the negative(where this originated). If they used this image in house all those decades, what would be the need to print more?? If they did, why not use cleaner examples??? I wouldn’t be shocked if we NEVER see another or less than 3 pop up EVER. BUT… you never know… Mantle was one of teh most photographed athletes EVER so I am not surprised that there are 3-5 inch think folder full of images. BUT..that in NO WAY makes be believe that this one exists in ANY of them. Just some observations on my end. Ben

PS: I think I might have just talked myself into cashing out some retirement and making a run at this. Anyone out there have thoughts other than "It's just a photo" or "You're an idiot for talking a pre-penalty" that can talk me out of this..PLEASE! HAHA

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Craig,
I absolutely agree with you on Mantle being a larger story vs say an Ernie banks as a rookie. Therefore, the existence of a greater number of DIFFERENT images. I am just referring to the need to print multiple copies of each in 1951 -53. No need IMO.. as the hype was primarily in NY and there was no real "National" story worthy of sending hard copies to different media outlets. Especially with the wire capabilities. I also noticed that this particular example has date stamps through the late 70s. Which tells me it was the ONE used in house for all/or most of the published stories. I know for a fact that INTERNATIONAL NEWS was the agency who took this original shot and owned the negative(where this originated). If they used this image in house all those decades, what would be the need to print more?? If they did, why not use cleaner examples??? I wouldn’t be shocked if we NEVER see another or less than 3 pop up EVER. BUT… you never know… Mantle was one of teh most photographed athletes EVER so I am not surprised that there are 3-5 inch think folder full of images. BUT..that in NO WAY makes be believe that this one exists in ANY of them. Just some observations on my end. Ben

PS: I think I might have just talked myself into cashing out some retirement and making a run at this. Anyone out there have thoughts other than "It's just a photo" or "You're an idiot for talking a pre-penalty" that can talk me out of this..PLEASE! HAHA

Ben, if you cash out a portion of your IRA to pay for this you have 60 days in which to roll a portion or all of those funds back into the IRA to avoid all penalties and tax. Keep in mind that you can only take advantage of this once a year.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Craig,
I absolutely agree with you on Mantle being a larger story vs say an Ernie banks as a rookie. Therefore, the existence of a greater number of DIFFERENT images. I am just referring to the need to print multiple copies of each in 1951 -53. No need IMO.. as the hype was primarily in NY and there was no real "National" story worthy of sending hard copies to different media outlets. Especially with the wire capabilities. I also noticed that this particular example has date stamps through the late 70s. Which tells me it was the ONE used in house for all/or most of the published stories. I know for a fact that INTERNATIONAL NEWS was the agency who took this original shot and owned the negative(where this originated). If they used this image in house all those decades, what would be the need to print more?? If they did, why not use cleaner examples??? I wouldn’t be shocked if we NEVER see another or less than 3 pop up EVER. BUT… you never know… Just some observations on my end. Ben


PS: I think I might have just talked myself into cashing out some retirement and making a run at this. Anyone out there have thoughts other than "It's just a photo" or "You're an idiot for talking a pre-penalty" that can talk me out of this..PLEASE! HAHA

Ben,

I think you have made a number of very good points and as far as I can see, we are in complete agreement on this issue.

One last observation, most of the Rookie Type 1 Mantle photos that I referred to in the previous response were all from INP.

PS: If you can do it without stressing the finances too much, then I for one say YES, go for it. If you do, I wish you all the luck in the world!!!!!!!

PSS: However, if you do win and then have second thoughts (which you absolutely should not) please don't blame me.

Best of luck.

Cheers,

Craig

[Wymers Auction]

If I spent 100K on a photo I would be divorced. Great photo though!!!

[Scott Garner]

I've got to say that I have found this thread to be one of the most interesting and controversial that I have ever read on net54.

All of the points and perspectives that have been expressed by the different members have been very educational. Thanks for opening up my eyes...

Even though I do not collect Mantle, I'm really curious as hell to see the final auction result....

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I've got to say that I have found this thread to be one of the most interesting and controversial that I have ever read on net54.

All of the points and perspectives that have been expressed by the different members have been very educational. Thanks for opening up my eyes...

Even though I do not collect Mantle, I'm really curious as hell to see the final auction result....

I agree with Scott. Even though the topic is clearly dear to my heart and collection focus, I must say that I also have learned a lot about newspaper archives, the ways photos may be treated and the ranges of probabilities for specific Type 1 prints surviving and coming to the market.

So, a big thank you to Jimmy for the insight to start this thread as well as to all those who have enriched it by participating.

Thanks again.

Craig

PS Now if I can only come up with something to trade for this photo. Lets see: wife, kids, house, car ------- Got it, mother-in-law and a free trip to Disney World!!!!!

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

If I spent 100K on a photo I would be divorced. Great photo though!!!

It used to be that divorce meant arguing over who got the house. Now it would be more like "you take the house, I'll take the Mantle".

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by mr2686

It used to be that divorce meant arguing over who got the house. Now it would be more like "you take the house, I'll take the Mantle".

I was thinking the same thing luckily I would get away with just giving her the house. Just kidding I actually love my wife very much. As an auctioneer I am very lucky I get to enjoy others things for awhile without the expense of owning them myself.

[Leon]

So it went for 50k as the hammer, plus the 19.5% = $59,750 for the final sticker. With the steam it had earlier I am a bit surprised it didn't get a few more bids. Still, I am sure it's some kind of record number for what type of collectible it is. (post war type 1 baseball photo) congrats to the winner and congrats to the seller

[drc]

Record for stupidity.

Just kidding, just kidding. Lighten up people.

[stlcardinalsfan]

Ben,
Hope you didn't win this photo... I'll just sell you mine!

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Leon

So it went for 50k as the hammer, plus the 19.5% = $59,750 for the final sticker. With the steam it had earlier I am a bit surprised it didn't get a few more bids. Still, I am sure it's some kind of record number for what type of collectible it is. (post war type 1 baseball photo) congrats to the winner and congrats to the seller

I second that. NOW, WHO WON IT?

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

I second that. NOW, WHO WON IT?

How many times do I have to tell you, WHO IS ON FIRST!

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by gary dunaier

how many times do i have to tell you, who is on first!

:d

what?