Cards from when the player was a player...

Wagner
Cobb
Ruth
W Johnson
W Mays
Mathewson
T206 Demmitt StL
T206 O'Hara StL
GC Alexander
W Spahn

Top to invest
 

Ruth
Wagner
Cobb
Joe Jackson
Mantle
Young
Mathewson
Gehrig
Johnson
Anson
Kelly
Mays
DiMaggio
Robinson
Williams

All depends on the card/set its from

+1 plus sports wise baseball was it, also television was blossoming.

Perhaps the author had it right -

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Boy-Mick.../dp/0060883529

Yes, and I think Mantle 'awareness' due to the 1952 Topps is one of the factors that goes into driving overall Mantle prices, and I think it is a big one. I know it is flawed inductive reasoning, but we can eliminate many of the other factors that might otherwise explain it:

--As the stats guys have already argued, Mantle towers above other, better players in terms of overall card prices. There has to be a reason for Mantle's prominence that is not performance-based.

--Some of that is Yankees mystique, but not a lot of it. Joe DiMaggio has as much Yankee mystique as anyone, The Yankee Clipper, Mr. Marilyn Monroe, so why does Joe DiMaggio show up consistently in the undervalued lists?

--There is also an argument that the boomer generation with fond Mantle memories distorts the pricing curve. I get that boomers were the generation that kicked off the card collecting craze, and that they knew of Mantle through all of those post-season nationally-televised World Series appearances, but generations have never been the prime drivers of prices on the best cards. No one alive today saw Cobb or Wagner play; doesn't seem to have messed with their card prices.

--Race is a factor, I think, but a diminishing one as the more racist generations die out. I was born a generation after integration of the game, around the time Jim Crow was outlawed, and collectors my age idolized many black players: Aaron, Clemente, Gibson, Brock, etc. In my childhood group of white kids in NYC, for example, I was an Aaron fan and one of my best friends was a Clemente guy. I don't think race per se is a big factor in the value differences.

--I also have to cite hobby-related card behavior as a factor in the hobby's perceptions of these players. Mays was a dick at shows. Mantle wasn't. I know I was a Mays fan but dumped my Mays collection after 'meeting' the man at a show. I have to believe that there is some percentage of collectors who were similarly turned off by certain players at shows and other encounters.

You would have to be 65 or older to have a clear memory of Mantle playing, and even older to have a clear memory of him when he was still great. I wonder what percentage of purchases that generation is still responsible for?

Check these out, Peter. These are the 2 oldest complete-game telecasts of major league baseball known to exist, games 6 and 7 of the 1952 World Series. You will see for yourself a youthful Mantle "when he was still great":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN2VxjMMwf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqZnPQnxO9U

Not a good comparison. 1953 Topps does not have the following or the prestige of 1952 Topps. PSA puts it best:

"This set is regarded today as the "Holy Grail" of modern day cards, in fact it is often compared to T-206 White Borders and 1933 Goudey when the topic of conversation evolves around the greatest card set ever produced. As time goes by and new generations of collectors enter the hobby, the stature of the 1952 set continues to grow. The same can be said of card #311 Mickey Mantle, perhaps the most recognized card in the world today with the exception of the T-206 Wagner."

Also, a big price differential between Mantle and Mays in other sets would be in alignment with a theory that Mantle's hobby prestige is tied to the 1952 Topps high number story.

My sense is that for cards of about the same overall pop, in grades not considered tough, Mantles are 1.5-2x Mays in most cases. I have not researched that currently admittedly. I did look at just one example for the hell of it -- PSA 7 1958s -- and this seemed true.

Back in the day, all the neighborhood kids (me, too, although I was a Dodgers fan) felt that while Willie was great, special even, Mickey was magic.

Two that come to mind as really undervalued are Bench’s rookie in PSA 8 or higher and Staubach in football. Staubach’s rook in an 8 right now is a steal. Especially when you compare it to Bradshaw…..

It is almost all this. There was a time when Mays and Mantle cards were the same price. The 1952 Topps Mantle was still one of the top 10 cards in the hobby and the 1953 Topps Mays was more valuable than the 1953 Topps Mantle.. A group of New York dealers started buying up Mantle cards driving up prices and creating demand. Mantle became the player to collect and new collectors entering the hobby since have been drawn to the player with the highest values.

DiMaggio is hurt by several factors. No Topps cards and a lack of cards overall. His career numbers were hurt by him being a right handed hitter in Yankee Stadium and missing 3 years to WWII. He only had 2241 hits and 361 HR.

Mantle on the other hand broke Babe Ruth's World Series HR record and was part of the 1961 HR chase. When he retired he was #3 all time in HRs behind Ruth and Mays. The collectors of this boom time remembered Mantle more than DiMaggio and chased his cards.

I'm not seeing how DiMaggio is "hurt." His cards seem to me to command very strong prices. I mean the vintage ones, not the dubious 90s autographs.

Agreed. I think DiMaggio commands very strong prices overall as well. His cards are always going to have the Marilyn Monroe mystique, the 56-game hitting streak, "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?"

Probably not that many people know the song any more, but

Joe, Joe DiMaggio
We want you on our side

So evocative of that age...

By the way, ironically, Paul Simon's boyhood hero was ... wait for it .... Mantle, but as he explained, he needed a lyric that fit the tune.

And another cultural reference of course, the "Great DiMaggio" of Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea."

Not to mention TWO of the greatest nicknames ever.

So you're saying that you believe a major factor in Mantle being priced much higher than Mays is due to the 1952 Topps card itself and the fact that getting a Mantle was more difficult than getting a Mays and that this single difference in what is probably the most collected/coveted set in the hobby is at least in part responsible for the delta between Mantle and Mays and that it perpetuates across other sets?

I'm not sure I'd pitch my hat into that ring, but I suppose it's possible. I thought you were just saying that the only reason there was a difference between Mantle and Mays in the 52 set was because Mantle happened to be in the high number series and that if the two cards were swapped in that set that the Mays would be the more valuable card. I didn't realize you were also attributing their deltas in other sets back to that 52 set as well.

I think Mantle is in the right place in the hobby. I haven't seen anyone explain why a Triple Crown winning, three time MVP and seven time World Series champion shouldn't be the toast of the hobby.

He accomplished an impossible feat. I'm sure there is another instance or two out there, but he took over for DiMaggio, already a huge Yankee legend and giant of the game. Mantle went on to be even better than he was.

Can anyone think of another instance where a torch was passed like the one from DiMaggio to Mantle? Who did Mays take over for? Who took over after him? How about Aaron?

Mantle was under immense pressure and it would have been easy for him to be Bobby Murcer, but instead he was Mickey Mantle.

Not quite the same but Yaz and Williams.

That is a good comparison but I would say the careers were switched in that instance. I don't think anyone thinks Yaz was better than Ted. I would also say Yaz did not have the pressure Mantle did, considering Ted never won and neither did Yaz.

Why would who played before or after someone affect their card prices?

I've never seen anyone pumping Jim Gilliam because he inherited Jackie Robinson's torch.

I think Packs is just saying that in New York, there was added pressure on Mantle to perform because he took over for a beloved legend of the game in centerfield. And not only did Mantle rise to the occasion, but he has outshined DiMaggio, which adds to Mantle’s mystique.

By the way the succession in right field in Detroit, where Harry Heilmann took over for Sam Crawford is also one of the better torch handoffs. Hasn’t done anything for Heilmann’s cards though. Obviously Crawford did not have the mystique of DiMaggio.

Eric it is an interesting question that you pose but I was not sure if you were seeking the guys who are undervalued or guys who are the best investments because those to me are two different concepts. Undervalued does not always make it a good investment.

That said I think that Foxx and Frank Robinson are undervalued but not sure they are great investments. I think great investments are players who remain popular consistently year over year. Your list has some great names for both types of approaches. There are lots of players who might see spikes in their cards but then interests vanishes.

Personally I mainly buy what I like. I am cognizant of whether it is a good use of money but that is not usually the driving force.

Hellmann is one of my favorite trivia answers: who hit over .390 four times but only once over .400? He’s the Maxwell Smart of baseball: missed it by that much.

Berra was a three time MVP and TEN time World Series champion, and he is nowhere near the toast of the hobby, value-wise.

I limited my answer to prewar, but looking at the hobby on whole, I 1000% agree with this.

Berra was an amazing player (maybe the best player) on an amazing team. Plus, he transcends baseball with all his sayings, the Yogi Bear thing, and he caught Larson's perfect game. And, he is very likable/well regarded.

And, unlike the Robert Redford-like Mantle, Yogi was more of a Cabbage Patch guy the ordinary fellow could relate to.

Spahn and Berra are the most under-rated post-war guys IMO.

I agree with this. Frank Robinson and Rod Carew are not far behind.

I wonder if Yogi suffers from the fact that he was such a funny and charismatic guy and did not exactly look the part of a top athlete. Without looking at his stats I wonder if too many people assume he wasn’t very good and is famous for being funny. Call it the Uecker effect.

Let's not go overboard. Yogi had a 59.5 WAR and ranks 6th among catchers. Mantle's WAR is almost double that. Great player, but not IMO somehow criminally undervalued.

Yogi has no bearing on the conversation. He wasn't a centerfielder, he didn't switch hit, and he wasn't talked about like the second coming, nor did he have the pressure to be one.

I can't overstate what Mantle was able to do. Rarely does any player live up the hype. Mantle exceeded all hype on the biggest team on earth at the time and was the generational player of his time after stepping into the shoes of the generational player of their time (DiMaggio). People are discounting this fact too much.

This is an example of how a player that won 10 World Series, made 15 straight all star games, won 3 mvps and had mvp shares in 14 of his playing years is as overlooked as he is. I guess focus on war predominates. Sad that yogi isn’t appreciated like he should be. Spahn’s whip pales in comparison to x and y too.

I think too, as I initially mentioned, that a big part of the Mantle mystique is the "what if" factor -- how much MORE would he have done if he had good legs?

Yogi was a catcher. It doesn't make sense to compare his popularity with Mantle, a switch-hitting centerfielder and ultra hyped prospect. It's like saying Pudge should have gotten more attention than Griffey.

A switch hitting CF who hit tape measure home runs and won triple crowns.

At least Heilmann did attain the elusive .400 average for a season. Al Simmons never did, despite hitting .381 and .390 over full seasons.

I would say both players are under-appreciated, but I think it will remain that way.

Heinie Manush will forever be the most anonymous 330 career hitter too.

1925 Heilmann leads the league with a .393 batting average and ties for the lead with 134 RBIs and led the league in good old WAR 7.0 ,
World Series winner Roger Pekingpaugh wins MVP with 64 RBIs and the batting average .294 - Heilmann finished fourth in the voting

And Peckinpaugh only appeared in 126 games and had 422 at bats. Its like like they put all the names of the players on the pennant winning team in a hat, and picked the winner at random.

Maybe he had those intangible leadership qualities that don't show up in the stats? :)
Forerunner to 1965 when Zoilo Versalles was MVP and Yaz whose OPS was like 150 points higher wasn't even in the top 5 I don't think.

Whatever you want to say about Mantle, he certainly did not exceed the hype. In his own words in the Ken Burns documentary, "Casey bragged on me so much saying I was going to be the next Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Joe DiMaggio all rolled into one, and it just never happened." As great as Mantle was, he certainly fell far short of people's expectations of him, partly because of his injuries, partly because of his alcoholism, and partly just because of his dedication to baseball, or lack thereof. As Mantle once told Bob Costas about Stan Musial, "He was a better player than I was because he was a better man than I was."

Mantle is as much about the Americana as it is the baseball. People who don't know or even really care about Baseball still know EXACTLY who Mickey Mantle is. He's of the same legendary status level as Ruth, and is literally the prototype of "All American" for all the reasons others have pointed out.

As for the best investment guys:

Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Mathewson, Wagner, Walter Johnson, Gehrig. Any rare or very tough pre-war HOFers. Guys like GC Alexander, Cy Young, Mordecai Brown, Cap Anson and so on are also in heavy demand and always will be.

The next bucket is the Clemente & Jackie duo. Always desirable, and value maintains really well. Koufax, Mays & Aaron fall into this camp as well. All Blue Chip names.

The last bucket is the Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams trio. While plentiful examples of all are easily found on the market, the demand is evergreen. Additional value for these guys skyrockets for inscriptions and tough equipment and item types.

See the "Trend in Wagner cards" thread. Part of it is that there was an irrational or even a suspicious run up, but I cannot imagine Ruth, Cobb or Mantle ever falling off a cliff the way Wagner just did.

As my dad loved to say about Berra's propensity to swing at bad pitches, "Yogi never saw a pitch out of the strike zone he didn't like." :D

People seem to be mixing up the terms "appreciated" and "valuable."

Yogi is greatly appreciated by baseball fans, it just doesn't happen to translate into bigger prices for his cards, which is quite nice for us buyers, but not so much for sellers.
There has always been a huuuuuuuuge amount of appreciation for him as a player and a highly-engaging person.

He's not underappreciated, his cards just happen to be undervaluable. :rolleyes:

When found in sets of roughly equal rarity, King Kelly is similar to Mantle in that his cards cost more than statistically "better" players in the same sets (such as Brouthers, Keefe, and Clarkson).

Rarity plays a large role in N172 and N173 pricing, so it's harder to gauge. But Kelly is probably the most common N173 HOFer (or close to it) and it has not hurt the price of his cards.

What's interesting is that the pricing seems to be because of Kelly's popularity at the time he played, due to his personality, nickname, book, stage performances, etc...but while many people saw Mantle play (or heard about him from their parents), we are many generations removed from Kelly playing, and his popularity seems to persist (at least as reflected by pricing).

Players who are "bad boys" or those who have "big" personalities seem to often sell for higher prices than other great players of their time. Kelly is an excellent example. Cobb, J. Jackson, Ruth, Mantle, and, to some extent, T. Williams also fit the bill. Unfortunately, being a nice guy is usually not a positive in regards to card pricing. For example, Musial was one of the nicest people in baseball and was also one of the greatest of all time, but his card prices don't reflect this. He wasn't flashy enough.

Hi, Michael.

Was a bad word ever written about Gehrig, Mathewson or Walter Johnson? Their prices are very strong. And Jackson I think sells not because he was bad, but because most feel he was wronged.

I think we can find examples of players commanding higher prices than expected for a number of different reasons. The Black Sox and Hal Chase because they were infamous/bad boys, Titus because he had a moustache when others did not, Ten Million because he had a cool name, Moonlight Graham because he was in a book and movie, Halla because he had a cool pose, Whitney because he had a dog, Zernial because he had six balls, Mossi because he had big ears, various mascot poses, etc.

Yaz for sure. He is the Mickey Mantle of the Red Sox, although not reflected at all in the pricing of his cards. His cards should spike for a week or so when he passes away as the nostalgia runs deep up here in New England. Of course I'm biased. He was the favorite player of my childhood.

Some earlier Ted cards have held strong, particularly '48 Leaf, although that might be a product of that set's popularity. It seems like it has been a good year for this set, despite us being well past Covid peak.

The 1975 Topps set is another. 50 year anniversary of that set and of the 1975 World Series coming up next year. Plus you've got those beautiful minis. Of course, this set is already popular and I'm biased.

Over the longer haul, Jackie Robinson will endure. As boomers continue to hit the nursing homes in ever increasing #s and 50s-70s vintage begins to decline further over the next ten years, Jackie will remain strong. As will Peewee Reese.

Curt Flood cards will get a bump at some point when he makes the HOF.

Of course this could all be conventional wisdom.

Curt Flood is a good one. I also hope he gets his due in time:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4e64e32f2f.jpg

I would pretty much go with this list....

It's interesting only one person mentioned Aaron. If future generations reject Bonds' record, the all time HR leader is going to be Aaron, as the likelihood of anyone surpassing him has to be pretty low.