Why is (this card) worth more than (this card)?
 

I'll go first.

I've never understood why the 1941 Play Ball Joe Dimaggio goes for more than the 1939 Play Ball.

I don't get it. :cool:

Artwork is incredible

More people enjoy colorful action shots than black and white portraits.

+1

Look at the pop reports

Every thread needs a card
-

I've tried to get psyched up about other DiMaggio cards, but in the end I always find myself grabbing the 41 PB to hold and enjoy over them. Tried the Zeenut Batting, the '37 OPC, even the WWG. The latter has some serious flavor I'll admit, with the mugshot photo and "deadpan Joe" on the reverse. But in the end the 41 PB in my opinion just has an elegance and that color that make it "the one" to represent him in a collection. And there is of course it being from that one iconic season. Found this one at a local shop and loved the registration and centering. So many are blurry.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...69e62e6c7e.jpg

great looking cards :)

I need one of those!

.

why is a
1914 cracker jack mathewson worth more than a
crofts cocoa/candy mathewson

To Me it is interesting that the 1917 CM Ruth or Boston Store Ruth does not get more Love, Attention, and valuation.
Compared to the 1921/22 Throwing Pose Ruth.

The 1917 Ruth has same throwing pose, lower total population and the prices do not seem to get the same valuation as the 1921/1922.

I understand the 1921/22 is the Early years of the Yankees but it is Ruth in a Red Sox Uniform and it is the same pose.

Things that make me go hmmm

If the 1939 Play Ball was his definitive rookie card, then it would be more valuable. But there are other pre-1939 cards featuring Joe that have a better claim for rookie status, so what people have previously mentioned is the reason.

Brian

Never been a huge Joe D fan but his 41 Play Ball is in my top 10 best looking cards. Ditto for 48/49 Ted.

Definitely the 1941 Play Ball of Joe DiMaggio is a great card, but like Matt said previously registration is key, as can be seen in his perfectly registered card.

Brian

I agree. As a net54 newbie one thing I also want to add that is a complete off topic is that Warren Spahn is very underrated. Anyway, back to the topic at hand…

I’ve always chalked it up to 41 PB is a popular pre-war set to collect for people for people on a budget. It’s small, good looking, full of Hall of Famers, and there are no “impossible” cards.

I understand why the 41 is an important card but then again, why isn't the 61 Maris on a higher scale than the 62 Topps. Because the 62 Topps shows 61 HR's on the back? I doubt it, and don't say because 62 are tough on the borders. All cards are prone to chipping really. Back to the DiMaggio, my favorite of his has always been the 39 PB. The 40 black and white doesn't do it for me and the 41 looks identical to the 40 but with color and the photo doesn't really stand out where's the 39 PB seems to capture the youthful looking Yankees Clipper in a real photo.

I was fortunate to get this off someone back around 2015. Although I have sold many cards from my collection that I owned back then, this is one of those cards that is perhaps going to be with me when I pass and I am okay with that.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...d4d6af48_z.jpg

Here's a fun post I wrote about this card.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=294088

My favorite Joe D card, the R303B. I also prefer the 41PB to the 39, just a nicer looking card in color.

I find that my aesthetic preferences are more or less uncorrelated with the preferences of the hobby in general. In some cases I diverge pretty dramatically. I think, for example, that about 95% of T205s are ugly, compared to about 50% of T207s. The b/w American Caramel issues and 1939 Playball cards look great to me, but 1941 Playball and 1949 Leaf are garish at best, and hideous in quite a few cases. The '52 Topps Mantle I think is the absolute least attractive of all his Bowman and Topps cards from 1951-1956, and don't get me started on the #144 Ruth Goudey (let alone his atrocious-looking M101-5/6s).

I used to be genuinely disappointed that everyone else seemed to have such tacky taste, but now I'm just happy with all the money my unusual preferences have saved me.

This subject has been covered ad-nauseum, but I have yet to read a real reason as to why the 52 Topps Mantle is so insanely more valuable than the 51 Bowman?

Have a gorgeous 2.5 in November. Right down your alley, nobody has been able to figure it out.

Will try and get a scan up.

1962 Topps Maris is a condition rarity being card #1 in the set.

I don't understand why Topps Tiffany cards are worth more than the general issue cards. The Tiffany sets were issued in complete set form direct from the factory. It should infinitely more difficult to find any of the general cards in a 10 than any Tiffany card but the prices for each don't work out that way.

Print run. Tiffany’s are already condition sensitive and most of the early print runs are only 5,000 or 10,000. It’s a lot easier to find base gems in a print run of 5 million than 5,000.

The 1952 Topps is a much nicer looking card, in a more impressive size than the 51 Bowman, and is in a more significant set. All my opinion, but I prefer my 52 Topps to my 51 Bowman. I see the appeal of the 51 Bowman as it’s his rookie card, but, if that wasn’t the case, I don’t think there be any discussion or debate about what is the better card. Add in the fact that people have been convicted 52 Topps high numbers were dumped and that a first Topps issue is the equivalent of a rookie for Mantle, and it all makes sense, to me anyway.

I think the same arguments for JD's '41PB over his '39 can be made for Teddy's '41 PB. Admittedly, his '39 is an action shot, while his '41PB is a head shot, but for me, the color just jumps out. Maybe someday I'll own one . . .

It is because the 1952 Topps High numbers are the toughest cards from the Topps and Bowman sets to find. Even though Mantle is a DP, the fact that he was the big name in the high series drove demand for the card and it became the post war card to own.

The 1951 Bowman is a beautiful card where as the 1952 Topps Mantle is the ugliest card ever made. Its yellow bat is as ridiculous as the caricature on the 1951 Bowman Paul Richards. There really shouldn't be a price discrepancy between the two, but there will probably always be price memory driven by 70s and 80s set collectors.

Do you think since 1941 is the year of the 56 game hitting streak it might have something to do with the increased value.

This thread needs more card pictures anyway. Here is my favorite Spahn card.

The 1941 Play Ball is scarcer than the 1939, and a color image of Joe that is a classic pose. The 1939 is not, nor is it a rookie by any reasoned definition.

The 1952 Mantle vs. 1951 Mantle is a dead horse that has been beaten numerous times.

The 1961 and 1962 Maris are similar value in low grade. In higher grade card #1 carries a premium. This is normal. I like both.

The Tiffany is obviously superior to the regular set because it is a higher quality production of the same image, made in 1% or less of the quantity. Of course it will cost more.

Warren Spahn is underrated.

Love the Spahn! Hard for me to pick my favorite but that’s up there. Collected a Spahn run earlier this year. Love that he ends with a 65 Topps on the Mets. Anyone know why he never appeared on Bowmans after the first few sets?

Not really. The M101-4/5 Babe Ruth went from a nothing special card to his most expensive card in a MLB uniform because a minority hyped in as a rookie card. The 1951 Bowman Mantle is his true rookie card. In today's hobby where cards like the M101-4/5 Ruth or 1925 Exhibit Gehrig have taken huge jumps, there is no reason why Mantle's RC hasn't done the same and overtaken the 1952 Topps.

Spahn was in the first 6 Bowman sets from 1948-1953. I would guess he signed an exclusive contract with Topps as the reason he wasn't in the last 2. 1953 Bowman is my favorite Spahn card.

It’s a dead horse. People have been complaining about the 1952 Topps costing more and not being an actual rookie for literally my entire life. Nothing has changed, nor is it about too. No matter how many times this is discussed or how true it is that the 1952 is not a rookie, it’s value only continues to increase. The gap is huge, and it’s not changing.

I wonder how many fans appreciate that Spahn is the winningest left handed pitcher of all-time, knocking Eddie Plank into 2nd place. Says something about his endurance and playing in the modern era.

I couldn’t agree more. 17x all star, 2 no hitters, a Cy Young, 8x win leader, 3x ERA leader. Over 350 wins and let’s not forget took significant time off to serve in WWII right after he got started with his career. Not bad for a lefty from Upstate NY.

I don't wanna be 'that guy,' but if you referred to someone from Buffalo as an upstater, he would scoff at you and say, "It's Western New York." :rolleyes: