OT: Who Determined That Mantle's Rookie Card was the 52 Topps

[Buythatcard]

Almost every auction house is selling a 52 Topps Mantle. Even though there are many out there for sale, they are getting insane prices.
Mantle started his playing career in 1951 which is considered his true Rookie year. Since Bowman came out with his card in 1951, I would think that this is his rookie card.
It does not seem to be the case since all of his 52 Topps cards are sold as his Rookie card.
Why is his 52 Topps considered a Rookie card?
Also, which card do you consider his Rookie card?

[barrysloate]

I'm not sure how this can even be debated, since 1951 always comes before 1952 (my birth year). Calling the 52 Mantle a rookie card is simply a marketing ploy.

[ALR-bishop]

This has been discussed in prior threads more than once. Hard to argue with Barry's point that 1951 came before 1952 .

I guess you could call the 52 card his "Topps rookie card" and be correct.

[jasonc]

Definitely 1951 Bowman is the rookie. It's his first card from a major manufacture.

I would say the 1952 topps is the better, more iconic card though.

[yanksfan09]

1951 Bowman is only Rookie card

1952 Topps can be called First Topps card but that is it.

They are both iconic and gorgeous classic cards regardless of title in my opinion.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

This has been discussed in prior threads more than once. Hard to argue with Barry's point that 1951 came before 1952 .

I guess you could call the 52 card his "Topps rookie card" and be correct.

By that logic every card in the set except for a handful of '51 Red and Blue Backs and some All-Stars are "Topps Rookie Cards"

[Buythatcard]

With so much focus on the Mantle cards, nobody really pays attention the the Mays rookie card. He also entered the major leagues in 1951. Bowman has produced a card for him in 1951 and Topps did the same thing in 1952.
Yet, the 1952 Topps card is considered his Rookie card also.
Was there a time when the grading companies actually considered the 51 Bowmans their true Rookie card? If so, there must be an image of those actual cards.

[kvnkvnkvn]

Nobody in this industry knows what a rookie card it...The rookie card is a joke...

It should be as simple as the first time a player plays during any one pitch in a major league game...

For modern cards, Topps Now cards should be the true rookie...

[Bicem]

Would love to hear the argument for the 1952 from the people who voted for it.

[RedsFan1941]

nevermind

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by kvnkvnkvn

Nobody in this industry knows what a rookie card it...The rookie card is a joke...

It should be as simple as the first time a player plays during any one pitch in a major league game...

For modern cards, Topps Now cards should be the true rookie...

Agreed. 1995 Topps Derek Jeter is a rookie card. 1952 Topps Mantle is not.

[samosa4u]

I remember I was talking to a collector many years ago and he was telling me the difference between American and Canadian collectors. He stated that Canadian collectors go after rookie cards - any player's first appearance on cardboard - and Americans don't really give a sh*t and will just go after the cards that they like. The 52' Topps Mantle is obviously the biggest example of this, but there are plenty of others to prove his point: the Joe DiMaggio Play Ball cards are extremely sought-after, but his rookie came out in the late 1930s. A lot of American hockey collectors I've met just love Gordie Howe's 1954 Topps card, but his rookie came out in 1951.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Agreed. 1995 Topps Derek Jeter is a rookie card. 1952 Topps Mantle is not.

1993 Topps is Jeter's rookie card.

[Fred]

Holy crap, really, there's a 1951 card of Mickey????

[CW]

Originally Posted by Fred

Holy crap, really, there's a 1951 card of Mickey????

In many towns, you might've heard more than a few kids uttering this phrase.

Think about it -- back in the early 50's, if you lived in a city or town that only carried Topps cards, you wouldn't even know about Bowman cards. No internet, no collectors conventions, just you and your neighborhood buddies swapping Topps cards and chewing gum.

To you and your friends, the '52 Topps Mantle was the Mick's first card, or rookie card (if the term even existed back then).

Now, I'm not saying it is corrrect to call the '52 a "rookie card", but some things in a collecting culture just catch on, and sometimes they stick. This is one of those times.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by CW

In many towns, you might've heard more than a few kids uttering this phrase.

Think about it -- back in the early 50's, if you lived in a city or town that only carried Topps cards, you wouldn't even know about Bowman cards. No internet, no collectors conventions, just you and your neighborhood buddies swapping Topps cards and chewing gum.

To you and your friends, the '52 Topps Mantle was the Mick's first card, or rookie card (if the term even existed back then).

Now, I'm not saying it is corrrect to call the '52 a "rookie card", but some things in a collecting culture just catch on, and sometimes they stick. This is one of those times.

In 1952 no one used the term rookie card. It was invented much later by dealers to sell cards.

[Fred]

Jay, you beat me to it.... yup no "rookie" cards way back then.

Here's something to ponder... Topps first year for BB cards was 1951. Could you imagine if Mantle was on a blue back Topps in 1951, let's also say it was an SP to boot. I wonder which card would be more desirable, the Topps or the Bowman?

Thank goodness Joplin didn't put out a minor league card of the Mick in 1950.... where would we be then?

[g_vezina_c55]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I remember I was talking to a collector many years ago and he was telling me the difference between American and Canadian collectors. He stated that Canadian collectors go after rookie cards - any player's first appearance on cardboard - and Americans don't really give a sh*t and will just go after the cards that they like. The 52' Topps Mantle is obviously the biggest example of this, but there are plenty of others to prove his point: the Joe DiMaggio Play Ball cards are extremely sought-after, but his rookie came out in the late 1930s. A lot of American hockey collectors I've met just love Gordie Howe's 1954 Topps card, but his rookie came out in 1951.

i am in canada and your are 100% corect in your affirmation. people here chase only first card. the 54 howe topps is the most underrated card here in canada i think. its the best howe looking card but here in canada not many people have interest. everyone want the 51 ugly parkie howe because its the rookie.

i also think the 51 bowman is the rookie but i prefer way more the topps... the design and the size the color etc.... probably one of the best looking sport cards ever.


last week i bought a V145-2 howie morenz card 1924 his second year card. the rookie for morenz is the v145-1. the image and design of the card is the same at 95%. people said to me bahh its not the rookie its only the second years blablabla .... the v145-2 is more rare than the v145-1 ...
in hockey you also have the c55 vezina VS the c57 vezina. the c57 is way more rare and better looking than the c55 but people want the c55 because its the rc

but a lot of people in canada in hockey don t see that

[Fred]

What? Can you please translate that into English? I don't understand Canadian..... Oh, sorry, that's right hockey up north kind of rules...

Bottom line is that you're right, collect what you like. If you have to have the "rookie" card then good for you, however if you like the '54 Howe more, then by all means, GET IT and bully for you!

[Bigdaddy]

William Edward White, Moses Fleetwood Walker or Jackie Roosevelt Robinson - who was the first African American major league ball player???

I would say that most of us recognize Jackie as the first, but I'm sure some baseball nerds will point to one of the other two gentlemen.

And so just like the above example, I would assume that most people outside our group of baseball nerds would say Mick's 52 Topps is his RC, and we'll all jump up and down and and be technically right that it was his 51 Bowman.

So, Jackie or Moses or William White???? 51 Bowman or 52 Topps??

BTW, I voted for the 52 Topps and Jackie is my choice.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

In 1952 no one used the term rookie card. It was invented much later by dealers to sell cards.

+1
It's a hobby invention.

Dilly dilly!

[Hot Springs Bathers]

I AGREE, the term "rookie card" is useless. Why should it be worth anymore than a second year card if the sets were produced equally? This term began being bounced around in about 1980 when the monthly Beckett guides starting coming out.

Strictly a sales pitch and many older collectors will remember there was hype around future Hall of Famer Bob Horner and his "rookie card." Ooops

















'rookie card
'

[g_vezina_c55]

Originally Posted by Fred

What? Can you please translate that into English? I don't understand Canadian..... Oh, sorry, that's right hockey up north kind of rules...

Bottom line is that you're right, collect what you like. If you have to have the "rookie" card then good for you, however if you like the '54 Howe more, then by all means, GET IT and bully for you!

Soryy for my poor writing
I will stop to comment here
Thx

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Fred

What? Can you please translate that into English? I don't understand Canadian..... Oh, sorry, that's right hockey up north kind of rules...

Fred, how old are you? 11? Considering English is not Nelson's first language, I think he writes really well.

Nelson, you provide excellent points. The Howe RC is indeed a very ugly card that has very little color, poor registration and a blank back. And despite this, Canadians go absolutely nuts over it.

[Fred]

Sheesh, this is why lots of people stop commenting for the most part -

Looky here, another Canuck coming to the rescue of Nelson.... really? Oh shit, now beat me down for using the C-word....

Cripes, I was only alluding to Nelson's use of Hockey cards when referencing rookie cards. This is a baseball card forum and the reference to speaking "Canadian" was for the reference to Hockey cards (a "Canadian" thing, for the most part) .... sheesh..

No, I'm not 11, however you're not far off depending upon how relative age is to what ever you feel like referencing. Get a grip dude... look, I capitalized Hockey, do I get redemption points for that?

To all the Canadians that post here and are offended by my use of the C-word, my apologies except for that Canuck from Toronto....

[g_vezina_c55]

Im in quebec like many know and i try do to my best to write in english.
Try to write corectly in french my friend amd we will laught together hehe
When i goes to show in boston back then i tried also my best to speak and i can say 99.9% of us people are absolutely cool with me and my poor language.

[steve B]

Yes, "rookie card" is a hobby invention. But at the time, not an unreasonable one.

And it was around at least a few years before 1980.

The reasons they were worth more were
The general human obsession with things that are "first"
Before the mid-late 70's maybe a touch earlier, most cards were bought by kids. And most kids only collected for 3-4 years. At the time, many players didn't become stars right away. So the chances of having a players first card were fairly slim, and the chances of that card surviving the new hobby/mom cleaning/interest in cars/girls/ move to college .....were poor.
Using the 54 Aaron as an example, if you got one, which card went in the spokes? The established star? Favorite player? Local hero? Or that kid in Milwaukee who hit 13 homers? And if 54 was the last year you were into cards, it likely got tossed with the rest of the collection a few years later.

So yes, there's a reason rookie cards especially in better condition are worth more.

Calling the 52 Mantle a "rookie card" is generally ignorant. I have a hard time taking someone seriously if they call it that. Especially dealers.
The 52 Mantle is the most overhyped double printed card of a great but somewhat hyped player in a regional market that thrives on hype. (Any questions how I rate the card? )

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by steve B

Yes, "rookie card" is a hobby invention. But at the time, not an unreasonable one.

And it was around at least a few years before 1980.

The reasons they were worth more were
The general human obsession with things that are "first"
Before the mid-late 70's maybe a touch earlier, most cards were bought by kids. And most kids only collected for 3-4 years. At the time, many players didn't become stars right away. So the chances of having a players first card were fairly slim, and the chances of that card surviving the new hobby/mom cleaning/interest in cars/girls/ move to college .....were poor.
Using the 54 Aaron as an example, if you got one, which card went in the spokes? The established star? Favorite player? Local hero? Or that kid in Milwaukee who hit 13 homers? And if 54 was the last year you were into cards, it likely got tossed with the rest of the collection a few years later.

So yes, there's a reason rookie cards especially in better condition are worth more.

Calling the 52 Mantle a "rookie card" is generally ignorant. I have a hard time taking someone seriously if they call it that. Especially dealers.
The 52 Mantle is the most overhyped double printed card of a great but somewhat hyped player in a regional market that thrives on hype. (Any questions how I rate the card? )

Steve-You make a good point, but ten or twenty years later when that kid is deciding what to throw away and what to save, which cards do you think will be saved? Also, Carter, Burdick, etc—did they place any significance on rookie cards? I think not. I don’t recall any real hype about rookie cards till the late-1980s/early 1990s. However, your dates may reflect the birth of the term.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Burdick was a set collector though - I don't think he was much of a baseball fan. I think rookie card sets like the HOF rookie set tend to be popular among those who are fans first and collectors second as the idea of having one card each of a lot of all-time great players may be more appealing than collecting company issued sets.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Steve-You make a good point, but ten or twenty years later when that kid is deciding what to throw away and what to save, which cards do you think will be saved? Also, Carter, Burdick, etc—did they place any significance on rookie cards? I think not. I don’t recall any real hype about rookie cards till the late-1980s/early 1990s. However, your dates may reflect the birth of the term.

Neither Steve nor Jay is 100% correct, but Jay is closer. I don't have time for a full post on this subject (which I've been meaning to write one of these days), but here are the essentials.

As several people have noted, the modern concept of a "rookie card" did not exist in the early hobby. As I documented in a previous post (here: http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=233772), it was not until the mid-1960s that dealers even began consistently charging a premium for cards of star players, let alone "rookie cards". When the term "rookie card" was used in the hobby in the 1960s and 1970s, it referred to those multi-player "Rookie Stars" cards that Topps put out every year during that time. During this period, "sophisticated" collectors took pride in not caring who was pictured on a card, only about how rare it was and whether they needed it for their set.

(By the way, Steve is correct to say that before 1980 most baseball cards were bought by kids -- and that remained true for quite a while after 1980 -- but we're talking about the organized hobby that had existed since the 1930s. Whatever kids were doing, the adults who collected baseball cards in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s did not care in the slightest about owning the first card of a given player, as opposed to any other card of that player. Also, Steve is incorrect to say that the monthly Beckett guide began in 1980 -- the first issue was not until September 1984, by which time the rookie card craze was in full swing.)

The first time people in the hobby began caring about a player's first card came when Hank Aaron approached and then broke Babe Ruth's career home run record in 1973-74, and for a few years after that. Aaron's 1954 Topps card began commanding a significant premium on the open market, and a lot of old-time collectors were not very happy about it. When Jim Beckett distributed his first card price survey in late 1976, he asked about the price of only one non-rarity star player card -- the 1954 Topps Aaron. When Beckett presented the results of the survey in the March 31, 1977 Sports Collectors Digest, he called it "Aaron's rookie-year card #128" (see footnote 1 on page 50 below), and discussed the controversy over its pricing on the following page. (My full post about Beckett's first price surveys is at http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=216495)



By this time (the mid-to-late 70s), prices of star player cards had begun to rise steadily, and cards from early in the careers of superstars were starting to command the biggest premiums. See my post of Lew Lipset's report on card auction prices in 1977-78, including a June 1978 column focusing on the 1952 Topps Mantle. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear anywhere in these columns:

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=243152

See also these articles from Baseball Hobby News in 1979 about the state of the hobby, including rising prices. I don't think the words "rookie card" appear in these articles either, but editor Frank Barning did discuss the top young players to invest in, which would become a key element of the rookie card craze in the following decade.

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241548
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=241741

In 1980-81, the price of the 1952 Topps Mantle skyrocketed beyond what anybody had though possible, and at the same time people started paying more attention to rookie cards of star players, initially just established superstars, but also younger stars. Starting in the early 1980s, the term "rookie card" became more and more prominent in the hobby press, and it expanded into popular knowledge later in the decade when the hobby approached the peak of the boom. I remember all this, because I was an active collector starting in the mid-70s, when the concept of a "rookie card" was essentially unknown, and I was still a very active collector in the early 80s when it became ubiquitous. I may post more about this later, with documentation, but that's the basics.

[Jeffrompa]

Is ugly so that settles that ...

[icollectDCsports]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

I remember all this, because I was an active collector starting in the mid-70s, when the concept of a "rookie card" was essentially unknown, and I was still a very active collector in the early 80s when it became ubiquitous. I may post more about this later, with documentation, but that's the basics.

Great info and a joy to read. Thanks for putting all this together and posting.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Steve-You make a good point, but ten or twenty years later when that kid is deciding what to throw away and what to save, which cards do you think will be saved? Also, Carter, Burdick, etc—did they place any significance on rookie cards? I think not. I don’t recall any real hype about rookie cards till the late-1980s/early 1990s. However, your dates may reflect the birth of the term.

It was much earlier. The 1963 Topps Pete Rose was the first hyped "rookie card." By 1979-1980, it was selling for over 100.00. In 1982, it was counterfeited. By 1985, it was over 1000.00.

New rookie cards were definitely being hyped by 1983 (Fleer Ron Kittle) and 1984 (Mattingly and Strawberry). Also with the Cubs reaching the postseason in 1984 for the 1st time since 1945, Ryne Sandberg's 1983 rookies were also being hyped.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Topps itself was designating cards as rookie cards as early as 1960, not sure I understand some of what was posted above about it being n 80s phenomenon.

[CW]

Interesting discussion on the "rookie card" term. Excellent post there, David.

I guess my theory for why the '52 Topps Mantle would ever be considered a "RC" doesn't hold much water since the term did not exist until the late 70s. I figured the specific term "rookie card" wasn't used by collectors in the 50's, but I assumed collectors put importance on a player's first card. I see now that this is not the case.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

It was much earlier. The 1963 Topps Pete Rose was the first hyped "rookie card." By 1979-1980, it was selling for over 100.00. In 1982, it was counterfeited. By 1985, it was over 1000.00.

FWIW, Beckett’s 1985 guide lists the price of a 1963 T Rose in Mint condition at $300.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

FWIW, Beckett’s 1985 guide lists the price of a 1963 T Rose in Mint condition at $300.

Rose broke Cobb's hits record in 1985 driving the price of the 1963 Topps Rose through the roof.

[Baseball Rarities]

I think that it already had skyrocketed in anticipation of Rose breaking the record. In comparison, here are a few other notable Mint Card values from the same 1985 guide:

1951 Bowman Mantle $400
1952 Topps Mantle $2,100
1954 Topps Aaron $175
1955 Topps Koufax $60
1955 Topps Clemente $100
1968 Topps Ryan $36

Beckett did not list the 1963 Rose as a $1,000 card in mint condition until 1994.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by rats60

It was much earlier. The 1963 Topps Pete Rose was the first hyped "rookie card." By 1979-1980, it was selling for over 100.00. In 1982, it was counterfeited. By 1985, it was over 1000.00.

New rookie cards were definitely being hyped by 1983 (Fleer Ron Kittle) and 1984 (Mattingly and Strawberry). Also with the Cubs reaching the postseason in 1984 for the 1st time since 1945, Ryne Sandberg's 1983 rookies were also being hyped.

DITTO
And I'll add this to rats60 post....Rose had a great 1979 season with the Phillies (BA= .331). Followed by a great World Series in 1980 (BA= .400) which helped the Phillies win the W.S.
The excitement for Rose's 1963 TOPPS card was unbelievable. At the Willow Grove Show in 1981, it was selling for $100+. I had stocked-up with Rose rookies for that show. They were
all sold Friday nite. I don't recall Rose's rookie card selling for 1000 during the late 1980's. But, I do recall selling them for $500-800 in near Mint condition during that timeframe

In 1977, when I started collecting BB cards again, the 1951 BOWMAN Mickey Mantle card was unknown by many in the hobby.....and, an ExMt card was selling for $50.

In 1977, the 1952 TOPPS Mickey Mantle (ExMt) card was selling for $300-400. And in 1980, it sold for $3000 at an Auction in Philadelphia.

Anyway, the 1951 BOWMAN Mantle is obviously his 1st card (or if you prefer, rookie card).

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I think that it already had skyrocketed in anticipation of Rose breaking the record. In comparison, here are a few other notable Mint Card values from the same 1985 guide:

1951 Bowman Mantle $400
1952 Topps Mantle $2,100
1954 Topps Aaron $175
1955 Topps Koufax $60
1955 Topps Clemente $100
1968 Topps Ryan $36

Beckett did not list the 1963 Rose as a $1,000 card in mint condition until 1994.

That's odd because I have the November 1984 price guide, it has Rose at 350 and the rest of those cards all lower at a time when everything was going up in price.

Beckett may not have had it listed for 1k, but mint ones were bringing that. Do you have a monthly from around September 1985 when he broke the record? I know it was at least 700+.

Beckett was slow in those days at raising prices. For example he listed 83T Sandberg at 3.25, but they were 5.00-6.00 all summer long. My guide had 52T Mantle at 1400, yours had it 2100, but I turned down 3000 for mine.

[VoodooChild]

As a 10 year old starting to collect in 1984, rookie cards were definitely being hyped. My local card shop had Rose, Seaver, Brett, Yount RCs, etc. showcased. I don't remember exact prices, but my parents would give me $5 and I know those were out of my league. Even as a 10 year old, I was drawn to the older cards. That shop also had a Clemente RC and I do remember it was $100. I also remember buying some 1960's Clemente's with my $5 budget so I know RCs carried a pretty big premium back then.

My dad did end up buying me that Clemente RC in 1985 for my 11th birthday. Knowing my dad, I'm sure he negotiated and the card (which I still have) is not mint, but we didn't know about price guides back then.

It wasn't until around 1986-87 that I remember the rookie card craze getting out of control.

As for Mantle, the '51 Bowman is what I've always considered his RC.

[Fred]

It's not like the term "rookie" was coined in the 80's. I've been collecting for a while and don't remember people using the term "rookie card" (as people now use it) until the early to mid 80's. Yes, they had cards that had multiple rookies on the same card but I don't recall people calling the first player card (where the player is solo) a "rookie card" back then. That term (rookie card) seems to be used so loosely these days. I've seen people apply it to post cards and other issues that people may not consider cards.

One of the most popular hobby publications was the SCD. Perhaps someone can try to find the time frame when the term "rookie card" was a common ad description.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by rats60

Beckett may not have had it listed for 1k, but mint ones were bringing that. Do you have a monthly from around September 1985 when he broke the record? I know it was at least 700+.

No, all that I have are the yearly guides. I got rid of all of my monthly Beckett guides years ago.

[drcy]

Despite the premise of this thread, I don't know of anyone who considers the 52 Topps to be Mantle's rookie card.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Seems to me, and I'm sure there are technical terms for it, the rookie card phenomenon is simply a natural byproduct to supply and psychology.

As a general observation, there are less 1980 cards than there are 1990, less 1970 than 1980, less 1960 than 1970, and on and on. Seems only natural that we would assume subconsciously that a player's first card is their rarest and be drawn to it above all others.

[Buythatcard]

I saw this excerpt on cardboardconnection.com:

"Baseball Rookie Cards versus 1st Year Prospect

Before the 2006 baseball season, the MLBPA announced some changes that were meant to make defining rookie cards easier. Both Topps and Upper Deck were on board but, honestly, things just got more confusing and a window for a new breed of pre-rookies opened.

With the rule change, official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster. In its most basic form, it was a great idea. Collectors chase rookie cards when they're first-year players. The rule has had great success in hockey. Although not an official rule, it's like this in basketball and football too as players generally make their team's rosters fresh after the draft and don't spend several years developing in a minor league system."

If we follow this, then the Mantle 51 Bowman is a 1st Year Prospect
card, while the 52 Topps is his Rookie card.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

I saw this excerpt on cardboardconnection.com:

"Baseball Rookie Cards versus 1st Year Prospect

Before the 2006 baseball season, the MLBPA announced some changes that were meant to make defining rookie cards easier. Both Topps and Upper Deck were on board but, honestly, things just got more confusing and a window for a new breed of pre-rookies opened.

With the rule change, official rookie cards were only made after a player appeared on a team's 25-man roster. In its most basic form, it was a great idea. Collectors chase rookie cards when they're first-year players. The rule has had great success in hockey. Although not an official rule, it's like this in basketball and football too as players generally make their team's rosters fresh after the draft and don't spend several years developing in a minor league system."

If we follow this, then the Mantle 51 Bowman is a 1st Year Prospect
card, while the 52 Topps is his Rookie card.

The '51 Bowman Mantle was part of the high number series. The low number series was released mid-April 1951. Mantle made his MLB debut April 17th, 1951. Since the high number series was produced after (look at your definition again) his major league debut, it is his rookie card. Now, if the '51 Bowman Mantle would have been released with the low number series, then it would not be his rookie card because the card was issued before his MLB debut. In that case, the '52 Topps would have been his RC.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Would love to hear the argument for the 1952 from the people who voted for it.

Says right on the slab - "Rookie Card"

[Buythatcard]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The '51 Bowman Mantle was part of the high number series. The low number series was released mid-April 1951. Mantle made his MLB debut April 17th, 1951. Since the high number series was produced after (look at your definition again) his major league debut, it is his rookie card. Now, if the '51 Bowman Mantle would have been released with the low number series, then it would not be his rookie card because the card was issued before his MLB debut. In that case, the '52 Topps would have been his RC.

Great point David. I was just quoting something I found on the Internet. I think the 51 Bowman is his Rookie card just because it was the first card that he appeared on.

[barrysloate]

When I first came into the hobby in 1982, I remember the hottest card in any dealer's showcase was the Pete Rose rookie. I recall prices is in the $250-300 range, and in some instances the card would be in a dealer's case with a "Not for Sale" sign next to it. It was that big of a deal.

With regard to the Mantle cards, the 1952 Topps is more iconic, more valuable, more aesthetically pleasing, in greater demand, and arguably the most recognized of all post-war baseball cards.

The one thing it isn't, and can never be, is Mantle's rookie card. The 1951 Bowman was issued and released a full year before it, so I see no debate whatsoever.