Will there be a post-war card again like the 52 Mantle ?

[larietrope]

Did the 52 Mantle hit at the perfect time ? Decades ago not many would have said a post-war baseball card would command over a million dollars.
Do you think there will ever be a "big one" like the Mantle to hit or is it all over past the 52 Mick ?

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by larietrope

Did the 52 Mantle hit at the perfect time ? Decades ago not many would have said a post-war baseball card would command over a million dollars.
Do you think there will ever be a "big one" like the Mantle to hit or is it all over past the 52 Mick ?

It won't happen again.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[1952boyntoncollector]

Will never have one again where it isnt condition sensitve. Maybe cards that are PSA 10s etc.

But to me a real card with value means if it had a rip in it or part of it is ripped off...its still worth $500+...... The 1952 Mantle is still worth that if its ripped apart and taped together. You wont see that with any other card post war that we dont know about.. ...

Playing games with POP due to artificial scarcity of PSA 10s is a whole different animal..

you could have an aaron judge PSA 10 that is POP 1 40 years ago thats worth money....but one that is ripped apart and taped together will be worthless for example

[mattjc1983]

Agree with Jason. I don’t think the artificially-created scarcity of the modern era can ever create the level of demand that exists for the natural scarcity of vintage
cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Volod]

Originally Posted by larietrope

Did the 52 Mantle hit at the perfect time ? Decades ago not many would have said a post-war baseball card would command over a million dollars.
Do you think there will ever be a "big one" like the Mantle to hit or is it all over past the 52 Mick ?

My guess is that in the next post-war, apocalyptic period, anyone left will not be worrying about the auction price of sportscards.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by Volod

My guess is that in the next post-war, apocalyptic period, anyone left will not be worrying about the auction price of sportscards.

So at this rate, like sometime next year?

[chalupacollects]

No, never again... the card companies long ago ruined that...maybe a 1 of 1 Mike Trout auto rookie 4 color patch card graded gem mint 10. If that even exists... and if he is in top 5 all time in top offensive categories and unanimous HOF first time ballot.... lol

[Leon]

Not baseball but...

Jordan rookie

.

[RaidonCollects]

I think it could happen. The '68 Ryan/Koosman and the '89 UD Griffey are already very popular, but not as much as the Mantle. Mickey Mantle defined the 1950s and 60s for baseball, and until someone else does that, there will not be another '52 Mantle. Also, I think that even with manufactured scarcity there can still be huge demand for some cards, take the 2008 Topps Kershaw for example.

Just my thoughts

Owen

[irv]

Originally Posted by RaidonCollects

I think it could happen. The '68 Ryan/Koosman and the '89 UD Griffey are already very popular, but not as much as the Mantle. Mickey Mantle defined the 1950s and 60s for baseball, and until someone else does that, there will not be another '52 Mantle. Also, I think that even with manufactured scarcity there can still be huge demand for some cards, take the 2008 Topps Kershaw for example.

Just my thoughts

Owen

The Ryan RC is already there. Only 1.2 or 1.5 CDN for this one!
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1968-Topps-17...item2387fdcdbe

[steve B]

I doubt there will be another 52 Mantle sort of situation anytime soon. It's got all the things that make for a really expensive collectible.

It's not common at all, but not so rare that someone couldn't find one.
The subject is incredibly popular, even across generations.
Bonus for the subject being possibly the biggest star from the biggest media market, And that he was that star at just about the perfect time.
It's got a good backstory, maybe not as good as the Wagner, but the fewer produced/not necessarily available everywhere/Excess unsaleable inventory being dumped off a trash barge by the company is a pretty good one.

Today there's too much access to the players for them to be as revered as the players in the 50's.
The PED era leaves most of us with just a bit of doubt/mistrust.
Cards are widely collected, so most get saved as opposed to thrown out.
Companies just don't usually operate in ways that would lead to a great backstory, and if for some reason they did we're all too jaded to find it amazing.

Imagine if Mantle had played for Kansas City, and was regularly in the paper for drinking too much and saying crass things, and the High numbers had hung around the warehouse for a decade or two until they got sold to the Christmas racks makers. No matter how great he was his card would be just another star card.

[nat]

"Imagine if Mantle had played for Kansas City..."

...the Yankees would have traded Johnny Hopp (or whomever) for him, and everything else would be unchanged.

[Jenx34]

Just to add to what others have said....

There can't be another card like the '52 Mantle because:
1. Cards have been somewhat commoditized (is that a word?). There are printed values so the awareness of even every day non-collectors is there? How many people try to sell their baseball card collections and think they are sitting on a lot of money before ultimately realizing the junk era wasn't going to be their retirement?
2. Piggybacking off that, many people see baseball cards as an investment now. It's no longer a hobby. What Beckett and PSA have done to the hobby is kill the casual hobby part of it. For many that's not a bad thing, but it changed everything.
3. I'm not into modern cards at all, but it does seem interest is higher than it has been in a long time. But that interest is in how many autos, relics, etc you find, and the rest are throw aways. That may not be a ton different from earlier years... We were all looking for the superstars when we opened packs, but we weren't looking so that we could turn around and sell that autographed card for $1,000 right out of the pack.
4. I also wonder what so many options will do to the business 10-15 years ago. How many different cards can Topps make? Topps, Topps Chrome, Stadium Club, Finest, Allen & Ginter, Gypsy Queen, Archives, Heritage, Definitive Collection, Fire, Gold Label, Topps Now, Bunt, Museum Collection, Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Platinum... Hell my head hurts now. Will too many options cause confusion over what to collect and ultimately lead to people losing interest or will one of these become that Holy Grail if a player becomes a superstar?
5. Lastly, as someone else pointed out there is too much access. Too much baseball on TV. There is no longer any mystery about a player. Word of mouth details about players lives is now photos and social media put out immediately. Even though everyone know who Mickey Mantle was, it was still rare to be able to see him play unless you were in an American League city. How often could you watch the Yankees on TV in the 50's? With no mystery, I believe, nothing like the '52 Mantle can happen again.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by nat

"Imagine if Mantle had played for Kansas City..."

...the Yankees would have traded Johnny Hopp (or whomever) for him, and everything else would be unchanged.

Hah, KC was a long-time NY farm team - even after it putatively joined the majors - so, the Yankees would have just brought him up by demoting a couple of marginal players to the A's. If he had been found by another team before the Yanks, that team's owner likely would have turned him over for a case of cracked bats. Roger Maris was an example of that process.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not baseball but...

Jordan rookie

.

Interesting thought. Jordan is the only player (other than perhaps Tom Brady) since Mantle who has dominated like Mantle (one of just seven players in all of baseball history who created more than 200% of the runs created by a league average player in the course of his entire career (with the others being Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Gehrig and Joe Jackson--Mays and Aaron, in comparison, were each in the 180% range); 12 pennants won in his first 14 years, and seven WS championships). On the negative side regarding the '86-87 Fleer: print run has been estimated at 200,000.

Highest regards,

Larry

PS: Jordan probably is the only athlete since Mantle to have made a similar impact on the professional sports scene.

[RaidonCollects]

Just adding to my previous statement, the Mantle card had so many different factors which contributed to the cards' fame.

1. He was a superstar, everyone knew his name by the mid-50s.
2. Iconic design ('52 topps).
3. Relative level of scarcity (while there are rarer early mantle cards like the '52 Berk Ross, the 52 Mantle's popularity was immensely boosted by it's notoriety for being tougher than many other 52 cards).
4. Interesting stories about the card, such as the tale of the NYC Harbor '52 high# cases (even if it may be made up).
5. Made in a important year for the player (most of the time a rookie, or in this case a year off being a rookie).

An example of a card that comes fairly close is the Billy Ripken 89 Fleer, which fits into 1, 3 and 4 (less so 1, but he was still a very noteworthy player).

The chances of this all happening again in the near future are quite low, but I think it is entirely possible.

Just my thoughts,

Owen

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Interesting thought. Jordan is the only player (other than perhaps Tom Brady) since Mantle who has dominated like Mantle (one of just seven players in all of baseball history who created more than 200% of the runs created by a league average player in the course of his entire career (with the others being Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Gehrig and Joe Jackson--Mays and Aaron, in comparison, were each in the 180% range); 12 pennants won in his first 14 years, and seven WS championships). On the negative side regarding the '86-87 Fleer: print run has been estimated at 200,000.

Highest regards,

Larry

No one cared about how many runs Mantle hypothetically created. No one was playing fantasy baseball in 1952. If it was Willie Mays or Eddie Mathews on the Yankees, hitting 500 Hrs and winning 12 pennants and 7 championships in 14 years, their card would be the million dollar card and Mantle would be much less.

It is the first major set for a company making baseball cards for 65+ years aligning with a 2nd year card of the star of the greatest dynasty in baseball history.

[jason.1969]

The key requirement we may never see again was that cards were assumed to have no actual value at the time, hence were not generally retained or preserved. Nowadays, just about everything is an instant collectible, hence sought after, preserved, hoarded, etc.

The question I have is how much Mantle's value is buttressed by a fan base that actually saw him in his prime and idolized him. These fans would be at least 65-70 by now, hence unlikely to influence the card market 50 years from now. By then, Mantle goes from being the God of their youths to "just" a Top 15 or so player. I'm sure the iconic past of the card will hold some influence but I don't think the influence will be total or permanent.

Jason

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

No one cared about how many runs Mantle hypothetically created. No one was playing fantasy baseball in 1952. If it was Willie Mays or Eddie Mathews on the Yankees, hitting 500 Hrs and winning 12 pennants and 7 championships in 14 years, their card would be the million dollar card and Mantle would be much less.

It is the first major set for a company making baseball cards for 65+ years aligning with a 2nd year card of the star of the greatest dynasty in baseball history.

They care about analytics now, and have a great deal since Bill James began to publish his Baseball Abstract in the '80's. Come on in out of the 1950's--in addition to Mantle's superiority over Mays and Aaron during the time they were all active (which goes to quality, rather than quantity established through longevity), it certainly didn't hurt that Mantle's teams won the pennant in 12 of the first 14 years of his career, or that he averaged a home run every 12-point something times at bat FOR TEN, YES TEN, YEARS! And for educational purposes, Mantle's runs created are certainly not "hypothetical." James' arrived at a formula for predicting the number of runs a team would score by an extremely thorough mathematical consideration of both positive and negative events in relation to run scoring which was proven to be incredibly accurate. He then concluded that there was no reason the same formula could not be applied to individual players. wRC+ performs a similar function, while OBPS comes close to doing the same thing in a somewhat shorthand manner.

For your information, Eddie Mathews is ranked as the second greatest third baseman of all time (third by Bill James, behind Schimidt (#1) and Brett (#2)) and may well have become number one but for a significant shoulder injury he suffered in 1962. He had 370 HR's before he was 30, prior to that injury.

Study the game's history (reading about it should be enjoyable and not work), which becomes even richer as SABER and analytics advance with time, and learn something! You might even want to watch a little "MLB Now" on your cable network, a show which devotes quite a bit of time to baseball analytics. The latter will have an even greater, not lesser, impact over time.

Regards,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

The key requirement we may never see again was that cards were assumed to have no actual value at the time, hence were not generally retained or preserved. Nowadays, just about everything is an instant collectible, hence sought after, preserved, hoarded, etc.

The question I have is how much Mantle's value is buttressed by a fan base that actually saw him in his prime and idolized him. These fans would be at least 65-70 by now, hence unlikely to influence the card market 50 years from now. By then, Mantle goes from being the God of their youths to "just" a Top 15 or so player. I'm sure the iconic past of the card will hold some influence but I don't think the influence will be total or permanent.

Jason

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Bill James ranked Mantle as the 5th greatest player to play major league baseball, with thorough consideration of all the factors that entailed, in his last historical baseball abstract, which is a rating he beyond any reasonable dispute earned in the course of his career. Yes, others posted higher total numbers, but James and I are both talking primarily about quality of play over a substantial period of time, rather than quantity (does anyone really consider Craig Biggio on a par with numerous other HOF'er's simply because he got 3,000+ hits over a long career? Don't expect a run on Biggio cards anytime soon!).

I was asked by dealers I have known for many, many years at the National in Chicago what was going to happen to the value of Mantle cards once those who actually saw him play passed on. My answer was simple, and one I would classify as a basic truism: exactly the same thing as happened over time to Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner and other such cards. The fact that there are more of the Mantles may well make them more cyclical in their appreciation, but I don't think you will go wrong over the long term in tucking away some of his very toughest in the highest grade you can find or afford now.

Happy collecting,

Larry

[geosluggo]

I once held a raw '52 Mantle in my grubby childhood hands in the mid-1970s. It belonged to my friend's dad and even then the card had a mythical status. Can't imagine there will be another like it. I remember people hoarding rookie cards of Todd Van Poppel and Gregg Jefferies and other speculative phenoms in the late '80s and early '90s. I had shelved my collection then and, seeing that hysteria, I figured I'd never be able to get back into it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Bill James ranked Mantle as the 5th greatest player to play major league baseball, with thorough consideration of all the factors that entailed, in his last historical baseball abstract, which is a rating he beyond any reasonable dispute earned in the course of his career. Yes, others posted higher total numbers, but James and I are both talking primarily about quality of play over a substantial period of time, rather than quantity (does anyone really consider Craig Biggio on a par with numerous other HOF'er's simply because he got 3,000+ hits over a long career? Don't expect a run on Biggio cards anytime soon!).


Larry

And I think that's also part of it. Until maybe the 70's -80's, there were players that were incredibly good, but for a few reasons didn't have long careers. Either from overuse, injury that nobody really knew how to recover from, or just getting tired of the grind and getting a better offer in business.

With the changes free agency brought for the financial end of things, came a change in how a career was viewed. Players and teams began taking a longer view, and eventually a more common view that the team they played for was just temporary until contract time or before if the team felt they could fill more lineup gaps with a trade.

So players actually took time to rehab injuries, with an eye to extending their career. Even at the now old fashioned 2-3 million a year why play hurt and shorten your career by even a couple years.

As a fan, it gets harder to really think of a player the way players in the past were viewed. When I was a kid, Yaz was always there, and the perhaps rose colored glasses kept him as a great player long past his prime. (Same for Rice) When the players move around more that just doesn't happen. I can only think of a couple recent players that even get close to that, Jeter and Ortiz.

Players aren't generally as flashy, and in some baseball ways that's not a bad thing. Would Mays famous catch happen today? With scouting and advanced video study he'd probably be playing deeper, and not have to make such a long run to get to the ball. Better for teams and players to be positioned better, maybe not as good for the fans.
Biggio fits that pretty well, 20 years without much in the way of injuries, a nice run of years well above average, stayed with the same team the whole time, and managed to average just barely over 150 hits a year.

So what we've ended up with are a lot (probably more than in the 50's) of players who are very good for a very long time, but aren't quite as electric as the top players back then.
It's hard to have someone become almost mythical like Mantle or Ruth without that flashiness, with loads of access, without the prolonged local adulation, and without as much press. NY players, even the merely above average get a lot more national press than almost anyone. Boston and Chicago would probably be a close second.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

They care about analytics now, and have a great deal since Bill James began to publish his Baseball Abstract in the '80's. Come on in out of the 1950's--in addition to Mantle's superiority over Mays and Aaron during the time they were all active (which goes to quality, rather than quantity established through longevity), it certainly didn't hurt that Mantle's teams won the pennant in 12 of the first 14 years of his career, or that he averaged a home run every 12-point something times at bat FOR TEN, YES TEN, YEARS! And for educational purposes, Mantle's runs created are certainly not "hypothetical." James' arrived at a formula for predicting the number of runs a team would score by an extremely thorough mathematical consideration of both positive and negative events in relation to run scoring which was proven to be incredibly accurate. He then concluded that there was no reason the same formula could not be applied to individual players. wRC+ performs a similar function, while OBPS comes close to doing the same thing in a somewhat shorthand manner.

For your information, Eddie Mathews is ranked as the second greatest third baseman of all time (third by Bill James, behind Schimidt (#1) and Brett (#2)) and may well have become number one but for a significant shoulder injury he suffered in 1962. He had 370 HR's before he was 30, prior to that injury.

Study the game's history (reading about it should be enjoyable and not work), which becomes even richer as SABER and analytics advance with time, and learn something! You might even want to watch a little "MLB Now" on your cable network, a show which devotes quite a bit of time to baseball analytics. The latter will have an even greater, not lesser, impact over time.

Regards,

Larry

Again, no one cared about any of that garbage you posted. They cared about the Yankees winning 7 championships and 12 pennants plus Mantle hitting a bunch of home runs, including 18 in the world series. That is why the 1952 Topps Mantle was the most important post war card long before Bill James and Baseball Abstract. I have a master's degree in statistics so you don't need to lecture me.

[clsports]

There are some very scarce cards being made today that are virtually unknown to most collectors. The problem being that there are waaaay too many cards being made recently that these cards get lost in the masses and are basically ignored. Someday, there may be a demand for one of these modern rarities and the collectors will take note and drive values up, but there are a lot of factors involved to make that happen if at all.

I like the Jordan rookie because that falls into the category of a completely ignored junk card that exploded in popularity years later. People realized how limited it was, but that card was unique in that had no competition and stands on its on merit. (Other than the Star rookies).

[irv]

Originally Posted by clsports

There are some very scarce cards being made today that are virtually unknown to most collectors. The problem being that there are waaaay too many cards being made recently that these cards get lost in the masses and are basically ignored. Someday, there may be a demand for one of these modern rarities and the collectors will take note and drive values up, but there are a lot of factors involved to make that happen if at all.

I like the Jordan rookie because that falls into the category of a completely ignored junk card that exploded in popularity years later. People realized how limited it was, but that card was unique in that had no competition and stands on its on merit. (Other than the Star rookies).

Those are manufactured scarcities and aren't viewed as true raritys.
However, with today's generation, that may change going forward?

[Jwkeen]

Another thing I believe made a difference is that New York was still the primary mecca for most news stories and especially sports. Also the fact that there were less teams to follow and a smaller geographical area. I think a lot of those on the west coast where there were no teams would have naturally chosen to follow New York teams and specifically the Yankees.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not baseball but...

Jordan rookie

.

I agree that the '86 Fleer Jordan card is the modern '52T Mantle. There are tons of Fleer Jordan cards out there, but there is always a market for that card; PSA alone has graded over 16,000 '86 Fleer Jordan cards.

For modern collectors, the Jordan image on that card is every bit as iconic a post-war card as the '52 Topps Mantle.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by irv

Those are manufactured scarcities and aren't viewed as true raritys.
However, with today's generation, that may change going forward?

What always strikes me as funny is how many manufactured rarities there are before the modern era that are avidly sought with no stigma at all.

Outside of the 1/xx varieties which suffer from being such a regular part of a product today, there are other things that were produced in fairly low quantities that get no interest whatsoever. Like entire sets that are less common than the 86 Jordan but have values in the cents rather than hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Steve B

[irv]

Originally Posted by steve B

What always strikes me as funny is how many manufactured rarities there are before the modern era that are avidly sought with no stigma at all.

Outside of the 1/xx varieties which suffer from being such a regular part of a product today, there are other things that were produced in fairly low quantities that get no interest whatsoever. Like entire sets that are less common than the 86 Jordan but have values in the cents rather than hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Steve B

I agree, some things in this hobby just don't make any sense at all. (My Beehive hockey cards come to mind)
I am not sure, unlike the modern era, if scarcities back in the day were intentionally produced or not? I am guessing no?

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by irv

I am not sure, unlike the modern era, if scarcities back in the day were intentionally produced or not? I am guessing no?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but there are lots of intentionally produced scarcities from back in the day -- Nap Lajoie in the 1933 Goudey set, Fred Lindstrom in the 1932 U.S. Caramel set, William McKinley in the 1932 U.S. Caramel Presidents set, Earl Smith in the 1928 Harrington/Yuengling sets, 1923 Maple Crispette Casey Stengel, etc.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

Maybe I misunderstanding your post, but there are lots of intentionally produced scarcities from back in the day -- Nap Lajoie in the 1933 Goudey set, Fred Lindstrom in the 1932 U.S. Caramel set, William McKinley in the 1932 U.S. Caramel Presidents set, Earl Smith in the 1928 Harrington/Yuengling sets, 1923 Maple Crispette Casey Stengel, etc.

I knew about, Nap, but completely forgot about that one. I wasn't aware of the others, however, so thanks for info/education, Bored5000.

[steve B]

Ivy Andrews in The George C Millers, the winners in the union oil sets, 62 Topps presentation sets, Topps, Fleer and Score tiffany sets......probably a few I've missed.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ivy Andrews in The George C Millers, the winners in the union oil sets, 62 Topps presentation sets, Topps, Fleer and Score tiffany sets......probably a few I've missed.

Weren't there individual cards made by Topps in 71 or 72 of kids who won a contest?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by irv

I knew about, Nap, but completely forgot about that one. I wasn't aware of the others, however, so thanks for info/education, Bored5000.

No problem, Irv. Almost all of the manufactured rarities from the 1920s and '30s were done so to avoid giving out a prize for redeeming a completed set. In the 1932 U.S. Caramel Presidents set, common cards can easily be found for under $100. Even a nice Washington or Lincoln can be had for just a couple hundred dollars. William McKinley, meanwhile, sold for $96,000 in the 2014 REA auction.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ly-discovered/

The SGC 10 McKinley card currently at auction in REA is at $27,000

Another legendary rarity is the "Strongman" card from the 1935 Schutter-Johnson "I'm Going to Be" set. That set listed various occupations and the Strongman card was the near impossible card so that the company would not have to give away too many prizes. The only known "Strongman" card sold for $22,000 at REA in 2014.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...iving-example/

Another legendary non-sport rarity is the "Cowboy Outfit" card from the 1933 Wild West Series. The card was intentionally short-printed so that manufacturer Gum Inc. would not have to give away too many complete cowboy outfits.

A raw "Cowboy Outfit" card sold $4,100 at REA in 2013.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...-premium-card/

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Weren't there individual cards made by Topps in 71 or 72 of kids who won a contest?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Yes, I forgot those.

[insidethewrapper]

I think the following are good to hold up in value over time :

86 Fleer Jordan
90 Topps Frank Thomas No Name
81 Topps Basketball ( Bird & Johnson Rookie Card + Irving )
89 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.

[the 'stache]

The 2009 Bowman Chrome auto of Mike Trout is really, really popular. I sold mine (and really regret it; I'll have to buy it again when I get back to work). The guy's off to a ridiculous start to his career. If he can keep it up, there's only a finite number of these autos. The demand will continue to grow over time, and supply will become scarce, especially in the best conditions. Having a certified autograph only makes it more valuable.

But will it ever match the demand for the Mick's '52 Topps?

No.

[clsports]

Originally Posted by irv

Those are manufactured scarcities and aren't viewed as true raritys.
However, with today's generation, that may change going forward?

I am not talking about stamped 1/1, 1/5, 1/25, etc. cards from the manufacturers. I am referring to cards that are TRULY RARE. I know one card for example that I heard existed, but I have never seen one anywhere. Never on Ebay since it was printed. I looked on Google for images on other web sites and nothing. I will not name this card because I want it and have been looking for a long time to no avail. I am beginning to doubt it exists at all. I bet that card will never be worth much simply because there is zero demand. Well demand of 1. Me. Without demand there is no value. These cards have been thrown away or are sitting in someone's shoebox in an attic.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

Again, no one cared about any of that garbage you posted. They cared about the Yankees winning 7 championships and 12 pennants plus Mantle hitting a bunch of home runs, including 18 in the world series. That is why the 1952 Topps Mantle was the most important post war card long before Bill James and Baseball Abstract. I have a master's degree in statistics so you don't need to lecture me.

Well, it appears that you are not at all inclined to use it. The SABR and analytical movements are growing in strength and provide mathematical evidence with an ever-growing degree of certainty as to the relative ranking of players over various eras. Employing derogatory terms like "garbage" to such truly invaluable evidentiary matters brings to mind the old adage: "play the fool and people will certainly treat you as one." More and more books are being written based on SABR findings and analytical assessments, and that trend will with virtual certainty continue. Baseball card collectors read these books too. Only an ostrich lives its life by perpetually sticking its head in the ground.

Best of luck in your collecting,

Larry

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Well, it appears that you are not at all inclined to use it. The SABR and analytical movements are growing in strength and provide mathematical evidence with an ever-growing degree of certainty as to the relative ranking of players over various eras. Employing derogatory terms like "garbage" to such truly invaluable evidentiary matters brings to mind the old adage: "play the fool and people will certainly treat you as one." More and more books are being written based on SABR findings and analytical assessments, and that trend will with virtual certainty continue. Baseball card collectors read these books too. Only an ostrich lives its life by perpetually sticking its head in the ground.

Best of luck in your collecting,

Larry

The only "mathematical" evidence has been provided by Nate Silver discrediting much of this line of thinking. I have read a lot of this, including Bill James, but I have an education and a mind to think for myself. Some is sound, much is not. I am not going to just believe something because it is posted on the internet. Sadly many do.

As far as the 52T Mantle, it is what it is because of what I posted, things that preceded James and others. Nothing they say is going to change that.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

The only "mathematical" evidence has been provided by Nate Silver discrediting much of this line of thinking. I have read a lot of this, including Bill James, but I have an education and a mind to think for myself. Some is sound, much is not. I am not going to just believe something because it is posted on the internet. Sadly many do.

As far as the 52T Mantle, it is what it is because of what I posted, things that preceded James and others. Nothing they say is going to change that.

It's ok if you want to think that, just like my sister used to tell my then 3-year-old nephew, "it's ok to want that." The only situation where you are likely to get into trouble is if you expect others to follow your lead in this area. Personally, I think we can agree to disagree. Simply for purposes of your edification, my knowledge of the game, the work of SABR and baseball analytics, as well as baseball history, has not been gleaned from the internet. Instead, it has come from critically reading literally hundreds of baseball books of all sorts: biographies, analysis-focused books seeking to place players from different eras into their proper place in comparison with players of different eras, and even baseball fiction, in addition to watching literally thousands of games from the early '60's on, and playing as many in summer leagues, HS, and the over 30 fast-pitch hardball league against former pros, college players, and high school stars. There is much to be learned from such sources.

May you get all you seek from collecting,

Larry

[jason.1969]

I tend to view the sabermetrics with a big grain of salt, particularly when comparing across eras. Taking basketball as an example, where I think the point is more easily made, analytics would speak to the tremendous dominance of George Mikan over his 1950s peers much more than--for example--Hassan Whiteside over his peers today. That said, I have to beleive that Whiteside would completely shut down Mikan and dunk all over him if a time machine allowed for such a match.

Similarly, I imagine there are guys playing baseball today with WAR at zero who would dominate high-WAR players of a century ago.

Something incredible about baseball is that we can even consider the possibility that Babe Ruth might actually have possessed more baseball talent than Willie Mays or Jose Altuve, whereas in basketball, track, swimming, football, and just about all other sports it would be laughable to even make a comparison across decades or centuries.

So my main point is that sabermetrics answers some questions well and others not at all. But coming back to Mantle, I do beleive his perceived greatness will diminish over time as ballplayers continue to get faster, stronger, and more athletic. He may become more Mikan and less Ruth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[jason.1969]

Will offer the player/card that I believe has the best chance to go 100x present value. It's not Mike Trout, Aaron Judge, Kris Bryant or anyone else we've already imagined as a future Hall of Famer. To an extent, the bubbles are already inflated around those players.

In fact, it's not even a current player. And for that matter, his sport isn't even baseball. Good chance you can't stand him and think he sucks, but I won't go there at the moment.

I'm talking of course about Colin Rand Kaepernick.

"WTF?!?!?!" you ask! But here's why I think his odds are higher than anybody else.

Let's say history remembers him as an anti-American, troublemaking, borderline NFL talent. And maybe there's a 90% chance we end up there. Then clearly his cards are nothing special...kindling, birdcage liner, etc.

But now let's say his movement has the opposite effect on America and his legacy as an athlete-activist is mentioned in the same breath as Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali. America would have to change a lot for this to happen. A whole lot. And maybe a team would even need to sign Kaep and then make a surprise Super Bowl run. But I'd say the chances of any of this are higher than any card we're hoarding today blowing up 100x.

Add to it, perhaps, the fact that many collectors have burned or discarded their Kaep cards--or at least said eff it to third party grading and encapsulation, meaning scarcity at high grades could kick in too. (And many of his RCs were already scarce to begin with.)

I'm not positing this to elicit any love/hate responses about the man himself. Rather, I'm offering a scenario I consider as plausible for how any collectible we already know about could somehow increase 100x.

One could argue that a "common player" like Grant Dayton could win the next 14 Cy Young Awards and then be elected POTUS, in which we'd see 100x as well. True, but I think Kaep has the much more plausible path to cardboard royalty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[profholt82]

Mantle came into superstardom right at the time when baseball cards were becoming more popular and common among children. Topps had just begun its annual set. And there were more children growing up in the US during the 50s and 60s than in any era previous or since (the baby boom). So that card really was a zeitgeist of sorts for the hobby.

I think if you looked at the history of sports in America, guys like Ruth, Bobby Jones, Jack Dempsey, perhaps a few others, were all even more popular in their time than Mantle was, but nowadays the average person probably doesn't know who they were. As the boomer generation passes on, I think the Topps Mantle will become much less important than it is today.

[Jsquared123]

Among people my age (I'm 34) and younger who are serious or even casual baseball fans, Mantle has taken on more of the mythical Ruthian type persona from what I've witnessed growing up and now as an adult. We're nearly 50 years since Mantle last played and 22 since he passed. I remember that day pretty well actually. My father who actually worked with his mom by stadium as a kid and teennager in the 1950s and 1960s, called into WFAN the day after Mantle's passing to reminisce about Mantle and actually cried on air. I've never seen another grown man of 50 years old cry over the passing of a baseball player, athlete, celebrity or anything of the sort before or since.

Fast forward to today, the hobby is strong although taken over by the forced scarcity 1 of 1 refractor autograph game used jersey rookie cards graded a rainbow label 12 by BGS, there is a still a huge market for not just the 52T but any Mantle. I don't see that changing any time soon. The demand for vintage and the days of hobby simplicity will always be strong. Heck, I know I'm not the only 30 something on this board and I bet there are many younger than me. In the age of youtube and the internet, there is just enough footage and stories available to keep Mantle's legend alive and well for many future generations to come.

[packs]

The Trout Bowman rookie will in my opinion be an immortal card like the 52 Mantle. It's value is absurd already and it has the same hallmarks of the Mantle: it's not really even a rare card.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Jsquared123

Among people my age (I'm 34) and younger who are serious or even casual baseball fans, Mantle has taken on more of the mythical Ruthian type persona from what I've witnessed growing up and now as an adult. We're nearly 50 years since Mantle last played and 22 since he passed. I remember that day pretty well actually. My father who actually worked with his mom by stadium as a kid and teennager in the 1950s and 1960s, called into WFAN the day after Mantle's passing to reminisce about Mantle and actually cried on air. I've never seen another grown man of 50 years old cry over the passing of a baseball player, athlete, celebrity or anything of the sort before or since.

Fast forward to today, the hobby is strong although taken over by the forced scarcity 1 of 1 refractor autograph game used jersey rookie cards graded a rainbow label 12 by BGS, there is a still a huge market for not just the 52T but any Mantle. I don't see that changing any time soon. The demand for vintage and the days of hobby simplicity will always be strong. Heck, I know I'm not the only 30 something on this board and I bet there are many younger than me. In the age of youtube and the internet, there is just enough footage and stories available to keep Mantle's legend alive and well for many future generations to come.

And the more objective analytical yardsticks that are applied to his performance, the better and better he appears. Study the subject and you will find that it was completely reasonable and logical that Bill James rated Mantle as the 5th best player ever to play major league baseball (Bill actually had Mantle 6th overall, behind Oscar Charleston, but sadly there is no real objective evidence to support Oscar's placement due to the ridiculous racial discrimination which banned him from playing major league ball in his playing days). A very interesting read on the subject is the book, "Mickey and Willie," by, I believe, Alan Barra (going by memory on the author's name), with two chapters devoted to objective, mathematical analysis as it existed at the time of the book's original publication (2013?).

And contrary to what you may have read above, objectively and logically, it is highly unlikely that the Yankees would have won 12 pennants and seven world championships in the Mick's first 14 years with any other player whatsoever of his time substituted for him on those 1951-1964 teams. IMHO, to contend otherwise is nothing more than errant nonsense.

Best wishes,

Larry

[jason.1969]

Modern analytics are definitely quantitative, but we should not confuse them with mathematical or scientific truth. They are imperfect even relative to what they purport to measure, which itself is only a proxy for greatness.

I'm not disrespecting Mantle or Bill James here...just disputing that there is or was any sort of rigorous proof that Mantle is/was one of the six greatest players ever.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Modern analytics are definitely quantitative, but we should not confuse them with mathematical or scientific truth. They are imperfect even relative to what they purport to measure, which itself is only a proxy for greatness.

I'm not disrespecting Mantle or Bill James here...just disputing that there is or was any sort of rigorous proof that Mantle is/was one of the six greatest players ever.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Then you definitely need to read and study more. It should also be noted that modern analytics are primarily qualitative, not quantitative, and it is beyond the bounds of reasonable dispute that, mathematically, they correlate extremely well with team performance. Since the team is the whole, and the players are the components that make up the whole, there is little reason to doubt that the analytics may be applied to individual players as well as the team with a very nearly equal degree of accuracy.

Please note that I am not speaking of "WAR" (wins above replacement) here, which I believe stands for worthless, analytical rat shit, because it employs estimates of defensive runs saved which it then integrates into a player's total "WAR" rating. MLB Now had the gentleman in charge of calculating defensive runs saved on as a guest, and broadcaster-reporter-writer Rosenthal got him to admit that a defensive run saved as credited to a player is not actually a defensive run saved, because the context in which the outstanding defensive play was made is ignored. Example: the shortstop makes a diving catch of a low liner headed up the middle, a ball that without the great catch would have been a hit, with two outs and a runner on third. Obviously, a run was saved defensively in that context. BUT THE POWERS THAT BE THAT CALCULATE SUCH THINGS ALSO CREDIT A DEFENSIVE RUN SAVED IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE TWO OUTS AND NO ONE ON BASE. Obviously, in the latter context, at best, only a (small) fraction of a run was saved--the probability that if the catch had not been made, and the batter's ball had gone through for a hit, the batter, now on first base, would ultimately have scored that inning (a probability which, as I recall, is somewhere between 10 and 15% at best).

Teams are going much further with analytics than this, and are using both public and propriety data comprehensively. Virtually every team has an analytics staff now--why? Because it clearly helps them win more games.

I would ordinarily say "just my humble opinion," but an "opinion" it most certainly is not.

Best of luck to you in your collecting,

Larry

[Neal]

Originally Posted by packs

The Trout Bowman rookie will in my opinion be an immortal card like the 52 Mantle. It's value is absurd already and it has the same hallmarks of the Mantle: it's not really even a rare card.

How many 52 Micks are in existence? Not comparing the two cards, but the Bowman Trout is under a 1000, methinks .... it is a rare card