1951 Mickey Mantle TYPE 1 Photo Used to Create His 1952 TOPPS Card is now at 20K...
 

NOT counting the juice! And there's still 3 1/2 Days left! Just how high do you think it will go?

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=130834

Ridiculous:rolleyes::p

actually
 

I actually had/have my eye on it and still might but it's getting out of hand. If it goes very much more I am not sure I could justify it. Great photo though.

I should add that when I say "justify" it, that pertains to my own situation. Whomever ends up with it needs no justification, it's a great photo.

The most prolific image of Mickey Mantle. It doesn't get much better than that.

I remember as a kid in the 80's going to card shows and seeing that 1952 Mantle in dealer cases for $500. Always, wanted to buy it, but I never had enough paper route money in my pocket.

Can't wait to see the final price on that Type I Photo.

Jimmy, its an iconic image, although not the best print (they did not do a good job on removing the masking), and my guess is it will go to a certain collector who already has a gem mint '52 Topps, as well as deep pockets and loves vintage photos - strike any notes?

This is one of the only early Mantle photos that I don't have and would be in except for the unrealistic price. With the Roger's acquisitions not likely to end in the near future, I believe additional Type 1 examples will surface and sell for much less.

As a Type 1 Joe Jackson just sold for $32,588 in REA's latest auction, it will be interesting to see how the Mantle photo compares. If there is at least one strong underbidder, I believe it could easily top the Jackson sale and wind up (with hammer fees, etc.) in the $45,000 - $50,000 range.

I am sure you have seen that there are also a number of very nice, early Gehrig and Joe D photos - good luck if you bid.

Craig

I'm definitely curious as all hell to see how high it can go.

I do agree with Craig about the whole Rogers acquisitions making it possible to find another, but I still think this is gonna get a LOT of action towards the end. The fact that in terms of the hobby, it's gotta be one of (if not THE) the most recognizable images of any player, doesn't hurt the fact. Saying that this could rival the Horner portrait of Wagner in terms of significance and price isn't hyperbole, and certainly, something that iconic is bound to make a lot of people super passionate (especially those with deep pockets) as the clock winds down.

No matter what, if you're a photo collector, I think you gotta smile knowing that this will bring more positive attention to a part of the hobby that is still capable of growing by leaps and bounds.

And Craig, any idea where/when this photo was taken? Obviously it was before the start of the '51 season, and I've seen a lot of other photos of him from the same ballpark, but I've never been able to track down a date. That sort of info would be vital for a painting! :p

Graig

Hi Greg - good to hear from you again! The date is 3/19/51. The ballpark is more difficult. The Yankees began their 1951 spring training in February at Phoenix, Arizona (switched from Florida for only this year).

I have several classic Type 1's of Mantle dating from Feb 5 - 28, 1951 in the same Phoenix ballpark ( as indicated by the signs in the background ). These all appear identical to the portions of the signs that can be seen in the '52 Topps photo (especially the original Corbis image which has not been cropped).

The Yanks began their '51 exhibition games with a three game series against the Cleveland Indians at Tucson, AZ on March 10 - 12. They then went on their west coast tour starting in Hollywood, then SF, Oakland and winding up at Bovard Field, USC on 3/26/51.

I also have several iconic '51 Type 1's of Mickey (LH vs RH, Kneeling with bat looking pensive, '51 Bowman pose, etc.) and on those which still have a paper caption, LA is listed as the location. However, since the signs in these somewhat later photos appear to be identical to those in the earlier photos listed above in Phoenix, my guess is that the Yankees training camp in Phoenix, Az is indeed the location of the '52 Topps photo.

In addition,since the captions for these LA photos are all rather generic and simply used to add even more hype for the new "wunderkind" as he arrives in each town, I believe they just used photos of Mickey that were taken between Feb 5 and early March in Phoenix.

Hope this makes some sense. I could be wrong but based on the photos that is my best guess.

Cheers,

Craig

Hey Craig,

Thanks so much for your input - that was exactly the kind of info I was hoping for.

So, I guess it's safe to assume that those shots in this park were taken in Phoenix in Casey's rookie school, before the real spring training began? I've been looking online for a bit to get more info about the ballpark, but can't seem to find the name of the place. Back to the ol' research drawing board...

Either way, the fact that we've narrowed it down to that makes me VERY happy.

Now, hows about you letting us see some of those Mantle photos you mentioned? :)

Thanks again,

Graig

Ah-hah!

It was the old Phoenix Municipal Stadium used by the Phoenix Senators of the Arizona-Texas Leagues.

http://www.digitalballparks.com/Cact...uni_640_2.html
http://www.digitalballparks.com/Cact...uni_640_5.html
http://www.digitalballparks.com/Cact...uni_640_6.html

Yay! Now I can paint some of those scenes with confidence. And that's important!

Graig

Great job Graig!!! Glad I could narrow it down for you. Posted photos will come eventually - once I get a scanner and some free time.

Here is an auction scan of one I got a few years ago that shows Mickey and some other rookies with Casey at the "Phoenix Municipal Stadium" on March 1, 1951.

Graig - One more Type 1 taken at the same ballpark with Joe D on Feb.5,1951

Ridiculous??? Why do you say that? This is the ONLY confirmed example to date and I doubt there is more than 10 that exist period(probably less). I would say less than 5 will ever enter the market if I had to make a guess.

Those are GREAT shots, Craig. I can't wait to see more!

If you need any scanner advice, let me know!

Graig

It looks like the lot has already surpassed the Joe Jackson CONLON as well as the first two choices in this poll.

nice
 

Well, I might as well wished for a T206 Wags... The photo is now at 42.5k plus juice, so call it 50k....with days left. Heck, if a few whales with high grade '52 Mantles want it bad enough I think it could hit 100k, by the way it's going now. Congrats to the consignor.

Whoever wins this will have no need for a Mantle Rookie card IMO. I would rather have an original photo(handful known or less) then any card it was used for. But, that is just me... wish I could afford this particular example. Whoever wins it will make money if and when they ever sell again. I really believe that. It sure would be interesting to see what that minty original Wagner Horner photo would go for now(used for the t206 card).

Wow 42,500! I think we're going to need a new poll. It looks like over 45 is going to happen.

I am with you Ben on both counts. If I remember correctly the Wagner photo went for around $25,000 in Christie's auction of the Baseball Magazine archives and an oversized 1927 Ruth and Gehrig photo sold for somewhere near $30,000. I believe that the previous high for a Mantle photo
was around $6,000 - a bending bat photo in one of Henry's auctions a couple of years ago.

Does anyone know what the highest price ever paid (private or public) for a vintage baseball photo is? I have a strong feeling this '52 Topps photo will be the new king.

I just got the OK from the wife to sell the house so I can buy this photo. Score!!!

Seriously though, someone is getting an amazing piece. Wow.

I'm sorry but I ca't see how it's worth so much. I know it's rare but come on it's a photo. I have a photo of Joe DiMaggio playing first and I'm sure it's the only photo out there and its not worth more than $50.

What exactly do you collect that you hold in such high regard? So you think that your photo should be worth as much as the Mantle or vice versa? Interesting logic..

No I'm not saying my photo should be worth as much as the Mantle. I know the Mantle is rare and should be worth money, but come on 45K plus, 75k plus for the 1948 Ruth final day at Yankee Stadium. I know their rare pieces and are worth much, but it's still crazy money for A Photo.

And I collect game used items.

Why do you think they are crazy money for a photo? Is it because you do not collect/appreciate them or don't have that kind of money?

Have you paid 4, 5 or 6 figures for any of your stuff? If so, what did you buy?

You know why I think it's crazy, because it's a photo. That's it, just a photo. And no I have never spent above $1,000 on my collection, because I'm a small time collector and don't make that type of money. And I do like wire photos and own several.

Ben, now you're just being a dickhead. The guy can have an opinion without having your cash flow requirements. This is exactly the bullshit I was talking about. Do you have an insecurity that forces you to belittle people who can't spend as as much on their collections as you do?

That was not my intention at all actually...I am tryiing to get an idea of why he thinks photos are not as important as game used items. He has probably spent much more on his items on average than I or anyone have spent on photos.
Myself, I do not own or have interest in owning game used stuff. PRIMARILY because they cost too much and I am not educated in the field/don't feel comfortable buying them with all the stuff in Harpers.

My post is in no way to talk about how much money one has or does not have. It was to understand why people think certain items are are/aren't worth crazy money .

As far as requirements and dickheads go, I am not concerned with things like that as clearly you are.

Please do not start crying poor mouth. We know what that Ruth photo went for in that last auction. You're doing fine.

Brock,
I am a collector too. I have spent/overexteded myself several times but for the most part, have less than 100 dollars in each photo on average. I went on your site and you said you have owned items other have dreamed about as well as made 50x more on an item. That is great!
My point was not to belittle you on money as I had/have no idea what position you are in nor do I care. So I hope you didn't take it that way.

I was just trying to make a point in that we all are passionate about different things in the hobby.

I think it is crazy to spend 100k on cards that are massed produced or millions on jerseys(without provenance) or 100k on a signed baseball without seeing it in person.
I do think that this photo is worth every penny it goes for though. I guess we are all crazy. :)

Are you on medication?

If red wine qualifies, yes.

And you neatly avoided my point.

What was your point?

You spent over $5k on a photo. You clearly have an interest in photos. Brock doesn't think theyre all that special and that's an indirect affront to photo collectors. So...

You challenge him by looking for some idea of what he thinks would be worth the kind of money in question. Thankfully he didn't take the bait. As a lover of Type I's I couldn't care less if someone thinks photos aren't worth the money.

Jake, That is a fact...I did spend that on a photo and it was worth every penny.
I do not care what you love or couldn't care less about...also fact.

You are saying I have monetary interest in photos and I felt threatened by one comment on net54? Drink more wine...
I don't think photo collectors have anything to worry about as far as investment goes based on current prices realized.
PS: I stand by the fact that it will be fun meeting you at the national. If Leon throws another dinner party, you are cordially invited to sit by me. I am putting my request in advance as I am sure people will be fighting over you.:)

$50K is a lot of money for this photo.

There I said it.

David, do you authenticate for Beckett? It is a lot of money but I do believe whoever wins it, will make money if they should ever sell it again.

If an item is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, then the Mantle photo is worth tens of thousands of dollars. At least 2 people think so, or it wouldn't have been bid up to that. If you or I are not willing to pay that much for it, that's fine, but it doesn't make the photo "worth" any less.

There's value as in "it's worth this much to me," and then there's consensus opinion of value (which seems to be the point of the original poll). In this case, whatever the range on the consensus opinion would be, clearly it's much more than $50.

like

If the photo is original and the only known example, I agree it is a significant baseball photo.

[QUOTE=Forever Young;998442]Jake, That is a fact...I did spend that on a photo and it was worth every penny.
I do not care what you love or couldn't care less about...also fact.

You are saying I have monetary interest in photos and I felt threatened by one comment on net54? Drink more wine...
I don't think photo collectors have anything to worry about as far as investment goes based on current prices realized.
PS: I stand by the fact that it will be fun meeting you at the national. If Leon throws another dinner party, you are cordially invited to sit by me. I am putting my request in advance as I am sure people will be fighting over you.:)[/

Whats with this business about meeting me at the National? Its been brought up multiple times now. Please kick my ass in front of hundreds of people over comments on message board so I can have you locked up. Please. I mean wtf is your problem??

Good point. Hasn't it been established that its not the only known example?

Actually it's the only known one at this time.

[QUOTE=Splinte1941;998480]There is nothing more to it than I think you are a colorful character and you will be fun to meet in person. I never brought up fighting.. I believe you did actually..lol. I am an adult(well most of the time) and have no interest in that sort of behavior.

I stand corrected Leon. I thought someone had mentioned it was confirmed that at least another example in a private collection.

Leon is correct. Jake is incorrect.

[QUOTE=Forever Young;998485]You're full of shit, but I believe it was Jimmy, the other tough guy, who was advocating my demise at Booth # 206 at your hands.

[QUOTE=Splinte1941;998492]be careful on the cussing....

[QUOTE=Leon;998496]I'll stop. Sorry.

Ben got a good deal on his Ruth photo from SCP. It's an iconic photo that was used on a number of cards such as the 27 Honey Boy. Iconic photos or photos from famous photographers like Conlon, Thompson, Oeyen, etc will bring top dollar. Same thing for photos used on cards as collectors like companion pieces. I am not surprised by the price of this photo b/c I always questioned the price of the 52 Topps Mantle b/c it's not that scarce. PSA has graded over a thousand of them and yet the price is still so high. If you think about it, this might be the highest price card relative to it's scarcity (or non-scarcity). (86 Jordan probably wins tho.) Now the Type I photo is truly rare. So where does that put the price? Right where it's going in Legendary.

And I thought there was only this kind of angered debating style and profane behavior on the signature side.

If you have the means and you like something, spend away. It's nobodies business how people should spend their money and Ben (who is wrong, photos are lame and Phil just said I'm getting a good old Maryland lecture for typing that) likes it enough to start a thread that should be respected. It's a historic if one of a kind.

Faberge Egges, artwork, upside down stamps, new cars, cardboard, outdoor pizza oven, whatever. Enjoy collecting.

DanC

P.S: I think you should arm wrestle him at the dinner.