The most grossly overrated card of all time...

[1963Topps Set]

In my opinion, is card # 311 from the 1952 Topps set.. Mickey Mantle.

First of all, I am tired of the card as being presented as his "rookie" card. It is not. That honor belongs to the 1951 Bowman card.. Yes.. Bowman trumped Topps here.

Secondly, While I understand it is a "high number", the card was double printed. That means there are plenty out there! In all grades too.

While the Mantle card has the value, I feel the Mathews card (# 407) is far tougher and rarer then Mantle. That's the one that should be getting the accolades.

I'll add 1952 Topps card # 1 Andy Pafko in a close second. It is a dammed common for crying out loud! I don't care if it's card number 1, it is Andy Pafko, a name that has been far from a stumbling block in putting ANY other set together!

What card would you nominate as the most grossly overrated card of all time?

[cardsfan73]

I would say the Pafko card get's way more hype than it deserves.

While the 52 Mantle is not his rookie card it is the first Topps card of Mantle. Sure it's double printed but it's a double print in a very hard to find series. The combination of it being the first regular release Topps card (an iconic brand) of Mantle (an iconic player) and the fact that there always has been and always well be a very high demand for this card leads me to say that there is no way this card is overrated in my opinion.

I would agree that the Matthews card deserves more love than it gets.

For me I always felt the 1958 Topps #433 Pancho Herrera error got way to much hype. I always looked at as more of a printing flaw than a true error card. That's just my humble opinion though.

Fun topic!

Thanks,
Scott

[MattyC]

People can talk about the double print all they want, the card is not nearly available in eye appealing condition to satisfy demand.

It's a beautiful image in the inaugural Topps set-- the company that would dominate the hobby for decades to come-- of the athlete that became an icon and hero to many.

We can dissect all the reasons why, some due to sheer good fortune, some due to genetic gifts-- that Mickey Mantle became the immense star he did. But he was. And the card is what it is: a very desired piece. It is the the key in the first Topps set.

That said, I think the Bowman RC is immensely underrated. It is a beast to find with eye appeal.

[SMPEP]

I agree that the 52 Pafko is very overpriced ... but it is a 1.5Xs print (meaning most first series cards were printed 3 times on the sheet ... Pafko was only printer 2 times on the sheet). So it does deserve a small premium (especially since the first series was less printed than the 2nd and 3rd series). The 4th and 5th series do not get the premiums they deserve. The 6th does though (and then some).

I'll also add the 1933 Goudey Ben Bengough in this regard. I bought mine using a Beckett's price guide and thought I'd gotten the deal of the century when I got mine for $20. Still a decent dealer for the beater I got, but hardly the steal I thought I had.

[glynparson]

of the same old argument and points that i have been hearing since i entered this hobby in 1980. The Mantle is still the most desirable topps card and probably always will be. For those that think Pafko is overpriced please call me with any you have in EX or better for sale at cheap prices. Mathews is a tougher card than Mantle and high grade copies do sell for a small fortune not exactly a crd you can steal from even a semi-knowledgable dealer. People love the 1952 topps set and The Mantle is an absolutely gorgeous card. The first not always the most desirable, See Michael Jordan for a modern example. Fleer in high grade more desirable than Star i high grade. Star rarer but since only Beckett grades you are better off with a gem mint fleer "Rookie"
Also even though a double print its not like you see one at the local mall show very often.

[ALR-bishop]

Glyn-- don't beat around the bush. Tell us what you really think about the 52 Mantle.

[Volod]

Hey, if Topps had finished printing team cards in its actual inaugural year, we would have this card, and all of the blather about Mantle's rookie card would never have come up.

[Exhibitman]

I'd go with the 1952 Topps Pafko in less than ex-mint condition. It is a common card, not a SP, and not a condition rarity in lower grades. In top grade, sure, there should be a condition premium based on kids' stacking habits. I can see that. But there is no such thing as a crappy condition premium yet dealers persist in asking far over common prices for it.

[brian1961]

Andy Pafko was a star at the time of the 1952 Topps set. Maybe not a Hall-of-Famer, but definitely a star.

Early in this millennium came the beautiful story of the Chicago area collector/dealer who deliberated long and hard for a first series unopened pack of 52 Topps he saw at a major show, then upon buying it he drew out a perfect Pafko, the one that came out PSA 10, which was puffed by Mastro Auctions in a beautifully done single-page offering, and sold for a king's ransom. As a result, this influenced many dealers and collectors to jack up the value of their own lesser condition Pafkos. Understandable, to a point. After all, it is card #1 in the most popular post-war set in the hobby.

---Brian Powell

[ALR-bishop]

Steve---did you make that card ? If so do you have an extra for sale ?

I have a set of the 51 Team card, dated and non dated ( 18)

[Hammerin'Hank]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

In my opinion, is card # 311 from the 1952 Topps set.. Mickey Mantle.

First of all, I am tired of the card as being presented as his "rookie" card. It is not. That honor belongs to the 1951 Bowman card.. Yes.. Bowman trumped Topps here.

Mickey may be a borderline top 10 player of all time but his card values are that of the bonafide greatest player ever........which he plainly was / and is not.

[MattyC]

If card values were tied strictly to player performance, historical pricing would look a lot different across the board. There are so many intangibles that come into play, determining which players and cards become popular. I mean, Eddie Plank doesn't come to mind as a top 3 pitcher of all time, yet his t206 card is among the most expensive across all grades in the hobby. Also, some players had high peaks, that created enduring fan love, others had more longevity. So performance itself can be viewed in different ways, in terms of what makes a Top 10 player to each person. There are names like Rogers Hornsby and Stan Musial and Yogi Berra whose performances statistically would seem to demand greater card values, but collectors just have yet to fight enough over those cards at auction to raise the prices.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Hammerin'Hank

Mickey may be a borderline top 10 player of all time but his card values are that of the bonafide greatest player ever........which he plainly was / and is not.

It's more that he was the star of 6 World Championship teams. Similarly, Joe DiMaggio is looked at as far better than his stats/advanced stats. Championships do carry a lot of weight. Just look at Bill Russell in the NBA or Joe Montana in the NFL.

[1963Topps Set]

What about Yogi? He has 10 rings, 3 MVPs, yet is a fraction of Mantle's cards.

[MattyC]

I have also felt Yogi never gets his props in the card hobby. Perhaps it was because he was overshadowed by others on his own team, and there was only so much fan adoration to go around. Perhaps the unsung, unglamorous nature of his position? Perhaps the lack of an "it" card that looks badass and captured the minds of collectors during his playing days? Perhaps his lovable but not "stud" image that boys wanted to emulate? Just stabs at the reason, but whatever the reason(s), it seems he never caught fire in the card hobby. That said, his cards are far from cheap, especially in high end.

[1963Topps Set]

Yogi a stud? LOL!!!

[Volod]

At the risk of turning the thread into an undergrad psych discussion, i would suggest that people generally have a tendency, or need, to set up exalted figures to genuflect toward - "kings" of sport that "tower" over their colleagues, regardless of what the stats show. Thus, card collectors view Ruth, DiMaggio and Mantle as Yankee royalty, and players such as Berra and Maris as just spear carriers, no matter what they may have accomplished. You can see the same idolatry in other sports, as well.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 1963Topps Set

What about Yogi? He has 10 rings, 3 MVPs, yet is a fraction of Mantle's cards.

Mantle led the AL in OPS+ every year from 55-64, except 57 (2nd to Ted Williams) and 63 (hurt). He should have been MVP every year during that period except 59 and 63.

Mantle led the AL in
Runs- 5 times
Triples -1
HR- 4
RBI- 1
BB -5
BAve - 1
OBP - 3
SLG - 4
OPS - 6
POS+ - 8
TB - 3
Triple Crown -1

Yogi never led the AL in any category. For 10 years Mickey Mantle was Babe Ruth/Michael Jordan. Berra was like Scottie Pippen. Berra was MVP in 1955 with an OPS+ of 120, Mantle led the league with 180.

[jason.1969]

I will go in a different direction here and avoid choosing a single card. Rather, I will go with Rookie Cards in general as the most overrated in the hobby--at least to me.

If the world were ending tomorrow and I would never have the chance to sell or trade cards again, I would take nearly ANY Willie Mays/Hank Aaron over any rookie card issued after 1954. And I would certainly take the 1976 All-Star Rookie cards of Rice and Lynn over their true 1975 multi-player RCs. Ditto for '69 Ryan vs '68, '68 Seaver vs. '67, Carew, Bench, etc.

[jason.1969]

Another class of cards I think are overrated are PSA 9s and 10s. When I look at the sharp and centered 1975 set that Bill is building, with many PSA 8s, I just can't fathom how distinctions largely requiring a loupe to spot would justify 10x markups to price. I understand there is a rarity issue, but I regard this form of rarity as artificial. Were it not for the grading service assigning a numeral, I think we would generally view all cards in the PSA 8-10 spectrum as much, much more alike than different, perhaps only deciding on the rarest occasion that one looks ever so slightly better than the other and warrants a 10% markup.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Another class of cards I think are overrated are PSA 9s and 10s. When I look at the sharp and centered 1975 set that Bill is building, with many PSA 8s, I just can't fathom how distinctions largely requiring a loupe to spot would justify 10x markups to price. I understand there is a rarity issue, but I regard this form of rarity as artificial. Were it not for the grading service assigning a numeral, I think we would generally view all cards in the PSA 8-10 spectrum as much, much more alike than different, perhaps only deciding on the rarest occasion that one looks ever so slightly better than the other and warrants a 10% markup.

Love your thinking. +1. Over the years my collecting has really moved away from condition and become all about eye appeal, saving me much loot in the process for more cards. Especially when you crop those ugly holders out altogether, or buy raw, and enjoy the cards that way.

[brian1961]

I could not agree more about the looks of the 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle; it is so beautiful, peaceful, and extremely well-designed. I love the fact it was horizontal, which Bowman was wise to have some horizontal cards thrown into the mix for variety. Topps did this in '52, then later in 1971, with great effect (1971 Thurman Munson, one of my all-time favorites).

The size of the 51 Bowmans was a new standard for them. The Mantle would not have looked right in the size they used in 48-50. I liked their "new" size.

Then come '52, Topps rolled out their "GIANT SIZE" cards, as they worded it on their wax packs. Bowman countered in '53.

The competition gave us collectors among the nicest baseball cards ever rendered. ---Brian Powell

[MattyC]

I would love to have a binder set of 51B and 52B one day, just to page through the images.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Another class of cards I think are overrated are PSA 9s and 10s. When I look at the sharp and centered 1975 set that Bill is building, with many PSA 8s, I just can't fathom how distinctions largely requiring a loupe to spot would justify 10x markups to price. I understand there is a rarity issue, but I regard this form of rarity as artificial. Were it not for the grading service assigning a numeral, I think we would generally view all cards in the PSA 8-10 spectrum as much, much more alike than different, perhaps only deciding on the rarest occasion that one looks ever so slightly better than the other and warrants a 10% markup.

Never understood how the hobby guys on Net54 look down on the PSA 10's of the post war car. PSA did a great favor to the hobby to help find rarity in non rare cards. PSA is here to stay.

Saying 'were it not for the grading service assigning a numeral' that the cards would be graded the same....perhaps..but without Jordan or Pippen, the Bulls don't win 6 championships......the grading service assigning a numeral cant be discounted..its a huge thing...just like pippen and Jordan...

[1952boyntoncollector]

the reason the 51 bowman mantle has picked up is because the 52 topps mantle is picked up even more.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Never understood how the hobby guys on Net54 look down on the PSA 10's of the post war car. PSA did a great favor to the hobby to help find rarity in non rare cards. PSA is here to stay.

Saying 'were it not for the grading service assigning a numeral' that the cards would be graded the same....perhaps..but without Jordan or Pippen, the Bulls don't win 6 championships......the grading service assigning a numeral cant be discounted..its a huge thing...just like pippen and Jordan...

My issue is that the grade of 10 versus 9 is essentially arbitrary -- and some would say, probably with some justification, political. Crack some 9s and 10s out of holders, regrade them, and the results will be completely different. If you don't believe me, do it.

[Republicaninmass]

Going to crack some PSA 10s



BRB

[1952boyntoncollector]

expert opinions are always arbitrary....

its better than the alternative....heck every psa 5 on ebay the dealer says 'due for a bump, undergraded' every card that's raw that looks almost mint will be sold as mint..

people pay for the holder 'gasp' it happens...you don't need to keep submitting a cracked card if you already have a psa 10...theres value in that...

without a psa 10 or psa 9.... this is the scenario..

right now you can have maybe 54 1988 topps psa 9s and 44 psa 10s....but with no grading company we now have 2440 raw cards that are arguably 'MINT'....really lowers the value when the POP goes from 98 to 2440

for people not into grading..shouldn't be a big deal...they can buy away on raw cards or get the psa grade that's low enough they are getting it cheap.cause others don't want it in that grade..

i just think overall the psa grades is great for the hobby..and even better for the dealers......i just don't see why people complain..its win win...buy the cheaper psa cards or buy raw and you no longer competing in the graded environment..


..

[Hammerin'Hank]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Another class of cards I think are overrated are PSA 9s and 10s. When I look at the sharp and centered 1975 set that Bill is building, with many PSA 8s, I just can't fathom how distinctions largely requiring a loupe to spot would justify 10x markups to price. I understand there is a rarity issue, but I regard this form of rarity as artificial. Were it not for the grading service assigning a numeral, I think we would generally view all cards in the PSA 8-10 spectrum as much, much more alike than different, perhaps only deciding on the rarest occasion that one looks ever so slightly better than the other and warrants a 10% markup.

The only thing keeping SOME PSA 8s from being PSA 9s is the back centering.........which I don't care that much about......or at least I don't care enough to pay 10X the price. Granted plenty of PSA 8s have centering issues on the front as well.

I'd take plenty of well centered PSA 7s, with 1 corner having minor wear, over some PSA 8's that are not as well centered but have 4 perfect corners. In fact much of my collection is made up of well centered PSA 7s with 1 corner with minor wear. To me the eye appeal is great !

IMO 50/50 to 55/45 centering with 1 corner with minor wear > 65/35 to 70/30 centering with 4 sharp corners.