What are the best vintage, investment-type players in your opinion?
 

Curious your thoughts on the best players and or cards to invest in for vintage as of this time in our history September 2024.

Here’s my two cents - would love to hear yours.

Joe Jackson
Josh Gibson (what little there is)
Early Negro league players that were the first major league baseball players
Jackie Robinson lower pop cards
Ted Williams seems completely undervalued - But that has always been the case so take heed
Willie Mays and Hank Aaron also seem undervalued - But that is always been the case with them too in my opinion so might never change in our lifetime
1914 crackerjack cards and 1915 crackerjack cards (Not enough to go around)


Just a few that popped into my brain would love to hear your opinions. Thanks!

It blows me away how strong and dare I say "over valued" Mickey Mantle has always been. I would love someone more knowledgeable to explain it. He was great, but not as great as numerous other players that are valued far less in collecting.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Same answer I would always give: Ruth, Cobb and Mantle. The "undervalued" game is not worth playing IMO.

Maybe vintage Japanese cards. Of course I don't know, but as MLB studies their long-term plans to expand their international market I would think Japan would be at the top of the list. If true, the demand for Japanese cards would rise significantly. How much? Who knows. Take a look at how the landscape has changed since Ichiro came on board in 2001. Now with Ohtani, picture the landscape in 5 years.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Mantle is the perfect storm. Yankees. 50s. Sorry to say this, but white where Mays and Aaron -- both probably better players -- were not. Switch hitting and power/speed things. Folk hero personality and looks. Mystique of playing through pain. And, taking into account the astonishing number of walks, his metrics really are great.

I suppose that explains it pretty well. Still puzzling to me though. Stan Musial, Teddy Ball Game, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron. Absolute studs of that era but they pale in comparison to the "Mystique of the Mick".

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Sometimes it’s not meant to make sense. The market takes on a life of its own, and people pay the piper because they can’t live without it.

Look at Joe Namath in football. Pete Maravich in basketball. Popularity can be fueled by intangibles.

Conversely there are lots of players who just don't generate as much excitement as their numbers would suggest. But don't fall into the "underrated" trap -- it's not like after decades, that's going to suddenly change.

investment cards
 

Uniship/Eric-

Interesting question for those who stay on the topic. It seems like you are
well aware of all the obvious individual players and were maybe looking for
some "under the radar" good bets. The 1914/15 CJs are a great start. I'd also
go with the tougher 19th century HOFers in the Old Judge set, and other
even tougher issues, as supply/demand takes hold. Just a guess:)

Trent King

I claim ignorance on pre 1900.

The inaugural 5:

Cobb
Wagner
Ruth
Mathewson
Johnson

Cy Young
Joe Jackson
Jackie Robinson
Mantle
Mays

Thorpe

Sets - t206, 1914 CJ, E107, T3, E94, W600, Rose Co

Undervalued cards, IMO

T204 Johnson
Tip Top Wagner
1925 Exhibits Gehrig
Dietsche Cobb, throwing and batting

New York is a big market. Yankees have a lot of fans. Fans overvalue playoff performance. Mantle won a lot, and played great (18 WS HRs) during an era when there were no playoffs to navigate through because the winners of the AL and NL went straight to the World Series. He's been a hobby legend ever since.

Shhhh

As much as I love doing it myself, and cannot follow my own advise, I would tell someone to avoid set building is they want to collect as an investment long term. Younger generations simply don't care about it. The hobby has changed. I wouldn't buy T206 commons, that's for sure.

Focus on tier 1 MLB players and Negro League stars. And focus on the best eye appeal examples you can find. Avoid lower tier HOFers and commons.

You said it in a nutshell; this explains it probably better than anyone else.

Ideally, Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, certain Mantle cards (e.g., 1951B, 1952T), certain cards of top tier HOFers, some key RCs (e.g., Aaron, Mays, Koufax, etc.), Anything of the foregoing players in rare types, so you can set your price when you want to sell.

Turning this into a Mantle appreciation , but who was a dangerous switch hitter before he came along ? Ripper Collins ? Roger Connor ?
And even after he retired there was nobody til Eddie Murray (249th on the OPS list)
(And yeah I looked it up)

+1

Good list, Ryan.

Ruth
Wagner
Cobb
Joe Jackson

Every city has an altar on which the great local players are put and worshipped as gods, but the golden New York shrine is just soooooooooo much higher than any other one in the world.

how to make a buck
 

Well, start with the word "rookie" attached to any great player. Rookie card, rookie photo, rookie jersey, rookie glove....You get the idea.

Pre-1900 Buck Ewing, John Ward, Ed Delahanty, Albert Spalding
Post 1900. Thorpe, Alexander, DiMaggio

I was fortunate enough to live in the New York area growing up in the 50's and see many games with my Dad at Ebbets, Polo Grounds or the old Yankee Stadium.
To understand Mickey's Zeus-like status, you had to see him play, which I did. He had a certain mystique; grace in the field, roaming center field, and when he came to bat, the crowd hushed in anticipation of might happen. I still can remember when he hit 2 HR, one from each side of the plate against the Indians.
How any of this translates to his card values, I am unsure, but he sure was something special.

Mickey
 

Living on the East Coast 60's-80's then Military Service through 1994 then back to East Coast until now, Mickey Mantle is loved by all. Huge Redsox fans including myself loved the player and idolized him. Grown men cried when he died. He was well loved by all..

While racism was surely more prominent back then, I don't think it's necessary to describe the delta between his prices and other black stars of his day. As someone else pointed out earlier, Stan Musial and Ted Williams were every bit as good as Mantle, and they were white as well. But their prices are below even Mays and Aaron. I think the Yankees factor and World Series performances are sufficient to explain the delta. That and he was well-liked in general. I suppose you could argue that a black athlete may not have had access to the same media privileges that Mantle was given, so in that way it was more challenging for them to build up a fan base, and that by extension having that larger fan base is what allowed his legacy to flourish as well as it has? I don't know. But that feels like a stretch to me. Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays both had plenty of access to the media as well.

IMO it's one of many factors, not the sole determinant. But my best guess would be that if Mantle had been Black, it would not have turned out the same for him in the context of his time.

Nuances of race and his peers aside, was there anyone with a fist full of cash that Mantle would say "no" to when it came time to ask him to pitch a product?

Dude had crazy mainstream coverage pushing a wide variety of everything.

Bread, photo film, cigarettes, quitting smoking programs, hotdogs, watches, etc etc...beer, obviously...

I think it's safe to say, baseball card collectors in today's world care nothing about the color of ones skin.

I agree, and of course that is as it should be, but we are now taking as a given Mantle's status as the most iconic post-war player, maybe ever, which to some extent has been handed down. So I don't think we're saying different things. If the hobby collectively had a completely clean slate to write on, does it still really rank Mantle above (far above) everyone else?

I grew up in the 60s. It was a given that Mantle was godlike. My friends and I loved Mays too, but it wasn't the same. You opened packs wanting Mantle above everyone else. To a large extent that engrained thinking lives on.

Yastrzemski.

I'm a West Coast guy, to me Willie Mays is the greatest post war player and along with Cobb is arguably the GOAT. That's why I own a Mays rookie and not a Mantle rookie, I'll buy a 51B Mantle at some point but it's pretty far down the list. But that has nothing to do with ones skin pigment.

Personally, I think the race argument is tired and outdated.

If somebody likes Mantle more than me, great, I'm a Mays guy. Who cares what the color of their skin was when it comes to collecting baseball cards.

Again, you're right now, but my point is that there is a historical aspect to Mantle's transcendence that lives on today and as much as we would like to pretend race was just as irrelevant back then, I don't think it was. And again, I am not saying the only reason people elevated Mantle above everyone else is that he's white, not at all.

Race was relevant back then, it's not now.

You're missing my point entirely. It's OK maybe I am not communicating it.

"If Mantle was black" is not a good argument, it's a tired argument.

Do you think he would have achieved the same mythical stature?

I think we are overthinking this.

Mays's hobby status (card prices) would be closer to Mantle's if Mays was card #313 instead of card #261 in the 1952 Topps set. Mantle became iconic in the hobby in large part because of the legend of the last series of 1952 Topps: the mass retail returns, the garbage scow in the harbor, the Mr. Mint 'find', etc., until "the Mantle" (and you know when someone says it that way it is exactly what they mean) transcends the hobby itself, like the Wagner. From that base, the prices on every Mantle card get pushed higher much as every Wagner card gets pushed higher.

He achieved what he achieved,what if the sprinkler was set lower, what if he didn't have a drinking problem, what if his body wasn't prone to injury?

Didn't Mays achieve the same mythical stature? He did for me and many other collectors.

Is your issue that Mays rookie is cheaper than Mantle rookie? Who cares?

You're posting fantasy what ifs with racist undertones, yes, America was racist in the 50's, America is currently the least racist country in the world.

Can we please move forward and realize the dream of Martin Luther King?

Way back in this thread a guy asked a legitimate question why Mantle had the hobby status he did, given where he falls in terms of on field performance. I was simply trying to answer that question as best I could. You are raising a bunch of straw men, I have said nothing at all about present day America nor am I posting anything with racist undertones. Moving forward with Dr. King's vision does not mean not talking about racism particularly its historic impact.

Don't equivalent Mantle cards still outsell Mays pretty handily? Just to pick a few years, 56, 57, 58?

Right, but you answered with the race card like that is relevant today in the world of card collecting.
Why does a certain segment of white society always have to bring race into every discussion?

I can't answer that question. I can only say that in my opinion, Mantle being white, at that time, was one of a number of factors in why he achieved the relative stature he did. That's all. The question was asked, and I volunteered an answer.

I could easily ask the question you put a different way. Why does a certain segment of white society avoid honest discussions about race?

Because if all of our discussions lead with race like a certain segment of white society is prone to do we will never move forward as a nation.

Are you just as willing to call out the racist/sexist hate Catlyn Clark is receiving from the black/lesbian dominated WNBA?

Pretty good point here. And speaking of Namath, is there anyone more overrated in the realm of vintage card prices? I mean, come on . . . Joe Namath. The guy had more interceptions than touchdowns. Once again, it's the New York media factor.

Let's just assume that people pay more for Mantle because of his white skin.


Shall we call out that if Clemente was a white boy he wouldn't sell for as much and would be closer to Kaline?

Or that Robinson is valued mostly based on race?

In my little wing of the cigarette card boxing hobby it's pretty obvious that there is an explicit and constant race factor that values blacks significantly over whites.

Ali cards are worth a whole lot more as a shit-talking black muslim than if he was a shit-talking white christian.

Jack Johnson outsells Jim Jeffries, who had a far superior resume, by ~50X because of race.

Heck, check out Isaac Murphy's N162 vs. a white jockey. Why is he worth so, so much more?


I am sure we all feel equally troubled about these valuation differences.

I'll make it for you...

Peter is saying that Mantle likely benefited from being white, or had what many now refer to as "white privilege" in that had he been black, he may not have had the social impact that he did as a star white athlete. Perhaps he wouldn't have had as many endorsement deals or been on as many late-night talk shows, etc. Not because those promoting him were being actively racist, but rather just because they simply chose the star white guy because they thought he would be able to better connect with their customers or target audience. Surely his social persona helped to build his brand, and it is largely that brand that still lives on. That brand also contributes partially to the value of his cards even to this day.

There may be some truth to that viewpoint, I don't know. I wasn't around yet. But it is certainly plausible that had Mantle been black, he might not have had as many opportunities to build his brand and market himself to the extent that he did.

You can test this theory by looking at 1953 Topps where the Mays is short printed and the Mantle is not.

Combined, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Stan Musial played in a total of 64 World Series games and had a total of 237 at bats / 267 plate appearances.

Mickey Mantle played in a total of 65 World Series games and had a total of 230 at bats / 273 plate appearances.

I'm sure that added to the Mystique of the Mick.

Duly noted. I think everyone had hammered the points home 10 fold! [emoji1787] Makes me want to do a deep dive on Mick now. I honestly didn't know a whole lot about him.

O.P. I apologize for inadvertently helping to turn this thread into a Mantle biography.

My original post point was: Mantle is one of, if not the best, value investments for collectors.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Pretty simple. Chase scarcity and or sets with achievable numbers of subjects. E cards. E93, E95, E103, etc.

I'm not sure anyone can deny skin color generally played into public perception at the time but I don't think it had anything to do with Mantle becoming Mantle. There was so much more at play. He was taking over for Joe D and he didn't miss a beat. Mays wasn't stepping into shoes like that. Mantle deserves every accolade. What he did was next to impossible. How often does a player step into the shoes of someone like Joe D and plays even better than they did?

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?