Quote:
Originally Posted by jchcollins
Assuming you know this, but his valuation has a lot more to do with hobby and time and place than it necessarily does with his stats or rank purely on the field in comparison with his contempoararies.
Mantle was the golden boy of 1950’s Americana. His phiz was constantly on TV due to the Yankees multiple WS appearances. For at least a bit, he was arguably the greatest player in the game. (I wouldn’t argue he was better than Mays). When the kids of the 1950’s took the hobby public in the early 1980’s, Mantle was their guy over Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial, - or anyone else. Having a high numbered ‘52 Topps RC that was at least for a large part of its history perceived to be rare didn’t hurt either.
|
All correct and I agree. But I was answering the precise question posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkhorse9
...what pre-war players generally come with a higher value than their actual accomplishments on the field.
Not saying they're bad player, but they cost more to acquire than similar talent players. I'm not talking about a single card either. This applies to all cards of that player.
|
For one, Mickey Mantle wasn't as good as Willie Mays. And arguably Mantle wasn't as good as Ted Williams and Hank Aaron or even Roberto Clemente and Stan Musial.
