[MattyC]

I respect your opinion, and agree that it is all about parsing how different people collect-- some focus strictly on the game and player stats, others on hobby and card collecting history, too. I personally find cards like the Goudey Lajoie to be fascinating, famous pieces to the hobby, even though the card's value would seem not to correlate to the player's stats. If card values and stats were linked that rigidly then Babe, Lou, and Ted Williams cards should and would be worth a ton more. Berra had many seasons with 20+ HR and even fewer than 20 Ks, among numerous other gaudy numbers for his position, and his RC seems downright tragically undervalued in that light (of correlating card value more rigidly to player stats). I think, if we are looking at stats and impact to the game, the rookie card of Babe Ruth stands to be worth more than the T206 Wagner, but that's just not the case.

But whatever the factors that conspired to make Mantle and that card the beloved legends they are now to so many, I just don't see those minds ever changing. There are paintings some may believe more beautiful or less hyped than the Mona Lisa, but that image will always be iconic, and occupy that exalted perch. So to me, the factors that helped the #311 attain its status are somewhat moot, since it occupies the Post War baseball card throne, and no card will unseat it. But obviously no one is forcing anyone to buy one-- if someone doesn't like the card like others do, to each his own.

I just don't see increasing amounts of collectors doing a comparative stat analysis on baseball-reference, and suddenly the card loses its aura and status. I wish for some cards the reverse would be the case, especially for Gehrig, Ted Williams, Musial, Berra, and DiMaggio, to name a few. Take DiMaggio's Zeenut Batting-- quite rare, his first appearance, amazing numbers, lost time for the war, but for some reason it costs a fraction of what some high-graded modern cards sell for.

In the end, only time will tell. My friendly bet is that a decade or two from now, the card is still going strong as ever.

One point I would hang a lantern on is the notion of the card being rare or not. Rarity alone is not always the main driver of a card's value. I think demand relative to supply trumps sheer numerical rarity. And those after the card, from around age 30 to age 60, will likely be around for the next twenty years. And I don't see their interest in the card waning due to a stat-driven epiphany. Yes, there are over 1000 Mantles, but how many are terribly OC or tilted or creased? How many highly desirable specimens exist, as compared to the wealthy collectors out there who seek the best-looking cards, and will bid against each other spiritedly to secure such a strong piece? I think that relationship will be what drives the prices of the best looking examples, over time.