Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Counts
If you don't need the Mantle to complete your 1952 Topps set or a complete run of Mantle cards, what's the point? There are far better looking Mantle cards (1953 Bowman, 1956 Topps, etc.) available for a fraction of the price. If you're looking at it as an investment, a good argument can be made that the 1952 Topps Mantle card is the most overrated of all cards. It's not very rare at all, just super-hyped. I believe the 1951 Bowman Mantle or the 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson are far better investments if that's what you're after. The same goes for 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps cards of Willie Mays.
|
As a collector, I've always been about more cards of lesser value: why have one really nice Ruth when I can have ten messy ones instead? 10 Ruths are better than one, duh! As a collector, give me a run of Mantle cards instead of a 1952 T. If I am trying to make money, though, I don't see it that way. I would rather put my eggs in one marquee card than in a card I hope might some day become a marquee card. The Mantle is so expensive that a small % movement on price equates to a much larger % movement on a cheaper card. A PSA 1 Robinson can be had for about $3,000-$3,500; a Mantle is $25,000+. A 10% bump on the Mantle is an 80% bump on the Robinson, in $$ terms. Is it more likely that a Mantle will go up 10% or a Robinson will go up 80%? I realize that the investment on Robinson is much smaller, but is it necessarily a better way to make money? If that's the goal. Not that there's anything wrong with that...