Will the joe namath rookie card Topps 1965 become the next Mantle 52?

[TanksAndSpartans]

Jeff - those 3 points were great - honestly some things in there I never thought of.

Namath is a legitimate HOFer. It's not a stretch to say he's a top 100 player, even if I'm sure I'd have him lower because I'd rank a bunch of guys from the 20s and 30s no one ever talks about. I don't have much problem with any of the accolades Namath has gotten. The SB III MVP I'd have given to Snell or the Jets defense for some key interceptions, but I don't think Namath was a bad choice. That being said and I started a thread on this, that rookie card is over priced to me. I don't have one

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by DezHood

Namath is a legitimate HOFer. It's not a stretch to say he's a top 100 player, even if I'm sure I'd have him lower because I'd rank a bunch of guys from the 20s and 30s no one ever talks about. I don't have much problem with any of the accolades Namath has gotten. The SB III MVP I'd have given to Snell or the Jets defense for some key interceptions, but I don't think Namath was a bad choice. That being said and I started a thread on this, that rookie card is over priced to me. I don't have one

+1000

There's a lot more reasons why Namath is in the HOF other than guaranteeing a Super Bowl.

I believe his signing by the AFL truly legitimized the league and was instrumental in getting the NFL to the table to agree to a merger.

He was also a PERSONALITY ... one of the most visible and famous of all football players during the 60s and 70s. Playing in NYC was definitely part of his appeal. Also his looks and lifestyle.

When Namath was the first QB to throw for 4,000 yards in a season in 1967, he beat the old record by 300-400 yards and his record was not broken until the NFL went to a 16 game season in 1979.

jeff

[TanksAndSpartans]

This is an older thread i stated on the Namath rookie: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=namath

[soxfan1986]

I agree with what many have already posted , vintage football just does not have nearly the market vintage baseball has.
Honestly the two cards I think will have the greatest potential for growth in the future are two newer cards - both the Peyton manning and the tom Brady contenders rookie auto.
That set has become the standard for autographed rookies and especially those years since they are super tough to find.
The manning card especially. You very rarely see that card.
I could easily see both of those cards just continuing to rise in value as those guys retire , and as they keep disappearing from the market and get stashed away into people's PC's.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by soxfan1986

Honestly the two cards I think will have the greatest potential for growth in the future are two newer cards - both the Peyton manning and the tom Brady contenders rookie auto.
That set has become the standard for autographed rookies and especially those years since they are super tough to find.
The manning card especially. You very rarely see that card.
I could easily see both of those cards just continuing to rise in value as those guys retire , and as they keep disappearing from the market and get stashed away into people's PC's.

I can see that. I was going to offer up the Montana Rookie as a candidate but there's just too many of them out there for it to ever be a 'Mantle' kinda card. the Brady and Peyton rookies could be another story in 30-40 years.

jeff

[Laxcat]

I have always thought postwar football was cheap. Except the Namath. It is a tough card and he is a New York Icon. However, I have always thought that the Namath was overpriced. Let's face it, the '65 set is NOT the same as the '52 BB.

Unfortunately football players fade from memory faster than baseball players. Don't believe me? Why is it that you can pick up copies of HOF rookies for next to nothing? I think we agree that there were less football cards printed. So shouldn't even 3rd tier HoFer's cards be a little harder to come by/more expensive?

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by Laxcat

Unfortunately football players fade from memory faster than baseball players. Don't believe me? Why is it that you can pick up copies of HOF rookies for next to nothing? I think we agree that there were less football cards printed. So shouldn't even 3rd tier HoFer's cards be a little harder to come by/more expensive?

I personally don't believe it has to do with players fading from memory as much as the lack of vintage football card collectors. It's supply and demand. No demand ... no high prices.

Here are the top 10 most collected PSA football sets based upon how many collectors have submitted cards to the registry. A rough metric, I know, but interesting:


SET NAME SETS
1955 Topps All-American - Basic 141
1957 Topps - Basic 117
1969 Topps - Basic 106
1959 Topps 93
1972 Topps 88
1955 Bowman 81
1970 Kelloggs 81
1970 Topps - Basic 81
1971 Topps 81
1956 Topps - Basic 77

I never would have guessed this list. I would have said: 1935 National Chicle, 1950 Bowman, 1952 Bowman Large, 1955 Topps AA, 1957 Topps, 1958 Topps, 1968 Topps, 1969 Topps, 1971 Topps, 1972 Topps.

There are 10 baseball sets with 200+ sets on the PSA registry.

jeff