Mantle cards

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

I have been reading and posting to this site for over a year now.

General consensus puts Willie Mays as the top all-around post WW2 player. Of course, Ted Williams is a top mention. Aaron is also sometimes mentioned in discussion. But Mantle struggles to get the same publicity/props.

How in the heck do his cards command upwards of triple the prices of Mays and Aaron? Perhaps I can see a small premium due to several factors, but the price disparity seems way too far apart.

Comments? steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Mantle's popularity is unsurpassed and people who don't collect BB cards per se go after his stuff. Mantle is still a god in NYC and a few other places.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al

I went to the 64 series in St Louis and saw him...and Raris play ( who became a Cardinal in 67...I was there for that series too). Can not explain it either. More interesting to me is the fixation on the 52 Mantle ( although I have both variations of that card myself). It is not scarce in all kids of conditions, and yet sells, in great condition, for more that the 61 Dice, 67 Stand Up, and 67 Punch Out ( not to mention the 66), which are much rarer. The 52 Mantle is much to post war collectors as the Wagner is to pre war, even though much more available

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

The exaggerated hype is driven by Bronx Baby Boomers.

Mantle is about the 10-15th best Postwar Player IMO
He only had 4 seasons of 100+ RBIs out of 18 seasons, and he batted 3/4 on the Yankees.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al

I should have known Frank E was somehow behind it all

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

A cards price is linked to popularity of the player and not necessarily the player's talent. If Mantle had played his entire career with St. Louis, his cards would not be anywhere close to what they are today. Being a Yankee made his cards worth so much. Mick was a god in the Golden Era Yankees. I believe Mays had much more talent. I have a few good Mays cards that I felt like were bargains compared to Mantle. A 52 Topps Mays is on my want list. I already have the 52 Bowman. I'm also in the market for a signed Mays ball.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

If you grew up following (or just watching) Mantle play, as I did (from 1951 to 1964), you would better
understand his popularity. And, you didn't have to be a Yankees fan to appreciate Mantle.

Like Babe Ruth....Mantle hit some prodigious Home Runs and he was a WINNER....and the fans loved this.

Baseball seasons are long and drawn affairs and the real excitement boils down to September and Oct-
ober. And, that's what we remember the best....World Series time. Mantle was in 12 World Series.....he
is the all-time Major League leader in World Series HR's, Runs scored, and RBI's. He is 2nd in most Hits.
His clutch HR's and outstanding catches in World Series play are still clear in my mind. Especially in 1956,
watching Don Larsen's perfect game.

Mays was only in 4 - W.S., and Aaron in only 2 - W.S. I think this is what sets Mantle apart from them;
and, is the main difference between Mantle and them with respect to their BB card values. Mantle was
a phenomena and the law of "supply vs demand" continues to drive up his card values.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

mantle was a better player than mays. he was the best player on the best team in baseball from 1951 thru 1964.as ted pointed out,if you didn't watch baseball then you might just look at the stats and think mays was better. but,if you really look into the stats,you will see mantle was a better player than mays. he got on base and made a lot less outs than willie did. willie was a great player,just not as good as mantle.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I certainly respect my learned colleagues, even though they are obviously Yankee fans. Clearly that malady obscures the facts from penetrating their awareness.

But to suggest that Mantle was in the same league as Mays stretches the imagination. I too was a fan throughout the fifties, in NYC. And I am sure that a careful analysis of the facts will indicate that Mantle was the third best center fielder in NY at that time.


Edited to add: after a quick fact check -

"made a lot less outs than willie did" ?? Wait! One of these guys was a lifetime .300+ hitter, and the other was not. Guess which is which.

Mantle was Mr. October - Mantle's lifetime World Series batting average is .257

And his All Star game record is worse (.233) - they didn't even let him play in four of the All Star games he was selected for.

Mays hit over .300 and appeared in every AS game - often as the leadoff hitter.



Now look at Snider - during the '50s no one hit more HRs, and there is more ...

[Archive]

Posted By: CN

I never saw Mickey in his prime but being from NYC and talking to my Father and uncles nobody captivatitated New York likke Mantle did for at least 15 years and most of my family were National League Fans but Mantle was the Golden Boy in NEW YORK which was the media capital of the world for over 15 years.CN

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Gilbert, that is a very superficial analysis of Mantle's career.

"One of these guys is a .300+ hitter, and the other was not. Guess which is which" The rate at which one makes outs is more accurately measured by on base percentage. Of Mantle and Mays one had a career OBP of .421 and the other .384. Guess which is which.

Mantle hit .257 in the post season. True but he also OBP'd .374 and slugged .535. Mays' numbers were .247/.323/.337. Somehow you left that out.

Mays was fun to watch in all star games but the stats are irrelevant as they were compiled in exhibitions.

Duke was a great player and is probably underrated but both Mays and Mantle beat him in the major career stats.

Mays may well have been better than Mantle but to suggest that to believe Mantle was in Mays' league "stretches the imagination" or that Yankee fans can't be objective about Mantle is false.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad L.

Alright, I'll be the one to say it. Unfortunately, being the era that all of the mentioned ball players played in, I'm sure race played a factor in the fans perception of Mantle/Williams vs. Mays/Aaron. I am in no way a racist person in my personal/professional life, or in my life as a sports fan (or in any aspect of my life for that matter). But the 50's and 60's certainly had their share of problems in the area of race relations, and I suspect that young white boys (and white adults) would flock to an "All-American" looking white player, more than an African-American player during those times. I'm not saying all would, but that would be a factor much more than it would today. I'm also not taking away any of the talent of any of those players. I think they were all extremely talented athletes and all deserve the praise and admiration that they've received (and continue to receive).

Peace.

*edited for grammar

[Archive]

Posted By: G. Maines

Brad: I agree that I would think that race in the 50s would have an impact on a fans objectivity regarding athletes. But it did not. It wasn't an issue with reporters, announcers, nor others in a seemingly authoritative capacity. And therefore, my recollection is that it was not a factor among fans.

And Howard - this is all largely tongue-in-cheek. Ted and I have been skirmishing on this subject for years (and neither of us analyzes the facts fairly).

But the Duke was way better than Mantle, and almost in Mays league ... for a while. And Mantle getting walked?
Yep, that is what he did allright. Him and Eddie Yost. Wait for someone to drive them in. Good thing that Berra went up to the plate to hit.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

I started this thread because Mantle cards seem over valued.

However, to give Mantle his due, he is on top in a couple categories:

1) His "runs created" numbers are superior to other top hitters of his era - very, very important stat !!!

2) He hit 'em longer and farther than any hitters of his era - the stuff of which top quality ball park memories are made.

But I still get the 3 Aaron cards as opposed to the one Mantle.

Steve.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I could fill up pages here talking about Mantle, but you answered your own question with......

"His "runs created" numbers are superior to other top hitters of his era - very, very important stat"

And, this is why I contend "Like Babe Ruth, Mantle was a WINNER". It isn't accidental, or perhaps
coincidental, that from 1952 to 1964 Mantle's Yankees won the American Championship 11 times,
and won 8 World Series. He was one of main forces why the Yankees won a lot of games during
those 13 years with his great clutch hitting, his all-around great plays, and his teamsmanship (I
recall him laying down many bunts to start a rally, or drive a runner in from 3rd). Batting lefty,
Mantle was the fastest runner in the American League getting to 1st base (3.0 seconds).

But, here is the real story behind the reason why Mantle cards are so high priced relative to other
players of his era. In 1980, when this hobby started to grow, three 1952 Topps Mantle cards were
sold in a Philadelphia auction for an unprecedented price of $10,000. This made the National news-
papers. Prior to this sale, a 1952 Topps Mantle in ExMt condition typically sold for about $500. Since,
that day in 1980, Mantle's card values have never looked back. There you go, that's basically how
Mantle's cards arrived at the prices they sell for.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

From Baseball reference:

Mickey Mantle

---------- BA - SLG% - OBP%

Reg. Season .298 .557 .421

Post Season .257 .535 .374

And was 7-5 with Yankees in World Series, yes 7 titles, but also lost 5 World Series.

Not the dominating numbers you expect to see.

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

Isn't it reasonable to expect a players numbers to be lower in World Series play than the regular season? After all the player is facing what should be one of the best pitching staffs from the opposing league. Not the good and the bad he faced over the course of an entire season.

So it just may be me, but I don't think comparing his numbers from the regular season to the World Series is a good argument.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Are you serious ?

Your comment is way out of whack......."Not the dominating numbers you expect to see."
Comparing Batting Averages is utterly ridiculous, as Tim very astutely just pointed out.

Judging from your latest post...I guess you did not pay much attention to my earlier post on this thread. I will repeat
it for you, in terms of the most DOMINATING NUMBERS in Mantle's World Series record that are more meaningful than
any other #s......

HR's.......18.......1st in Majors

RUNs......42.......1st in Majors

RBIs.......40.......1st in Majors

HITs.......59.......2nd in Majors

WALKs....43.......1st in Majors

I saw Mantle play from his rookie year (1951) to his last year (1968). My memories of his playing days are very clear.
And, if you did not see him play, you will never really appreciate what he did for the game, and his contribution to all
those Yankees victories (which you have now diminished).

Tell us, what other BB team in the string of any 16 years has won that many League Championships and World Series
(1949 to 1964) ? ?

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

I agree Mantle was most dominant for a stretch of years.

But TRIPLE the prices of Aaron, Mays or Koufax ? He wasn't triple good compared to the other stars - thats all I was saying when I started the thread - "Mantle cards over valued."

I am simply trying to validate my claim with a few numbers.

steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I don't know why we bother posting on this thread, because I don't think anything we tell you is registering with you.
I already gave you the event in 1980 that escalated Mantle's card values....I'll repeat it.....

"But, here is the real story behind the reason why Mantle cards are so high priced relative to other
players of his era. In 1980, when this hobby started to grow, three 1952 Topps Mantle cards were
sold in a Philadelphia auction for an unprecedented price of $10,000. This made the National news-
papers. Prior to this sale, a 1952 Topps Mantle in ExMt condition typically sold for about $500. Since,
that day in 1980, Mantle's card values have never looked back. There you go, that's basically how
Mantle's cards arrived at the prices they sell for."

And, this huge price jump on the 1952 Topps Mantle carried over to all his other Topps cards and eventually increased
the Berk-Ross, Bowman, DanDee, Red Man, etc. Mantle cards.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

Not trying to get in the middle of this with you guys but Steve I think Ted answered your initial question.

I understand how you're trying to understand the "logic" behind Mantles cards selling for much more than other players you consider to be on the same level as Mantle. But there are a lot of factors that drive a cards value and some of those ignore the logic you're trying to impose. Usually the market corrects the price spikes Ted gave an example of. However in this case they seem to be here to stay.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

There are lots of things that go into card values.

There is the "wow" factor. I bet most posters here could list a dozen cards rarer than the T206 Wagner, but that card has the cachet and therefore commands ungodly bucks. And that spills over to his other cards, especially the ones that share the same Horner photo as the T206. He was one of the greatest ever (I'll take him at short over anyone else) but that greatness alone doesn't explain the prices of his cards as compared to, say, Nap Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Collins.

Career stats are not the best indicator of a player's value because they reward longevity. Milt Pappas and Don Drysdale have virtually identical won-lost records; no one is confusing them. Sandy Koufax won about half as many games as Don Sutton, but if you had one game to pitch to save your life you are a moron if you put Sutton out there instead of Koufax.

I recall reading a comparison of the performances of the 3 NY centerfielders while they were head to head. Snider had the best overall performances during those years. Does that make him the best of the three? No, because he was in his peak performance years while the other two were just getting started. If you compare Mantle and Mays head to head using their best three seasons, Mantle is the better player. The more seasons you add, however, the better Mays looks. Mantle had higher peaks but fewer of them.

Card values are driven by post-playing days events, especially how these guys perform in front of us. Mantle was a usually cooperative and relatively gracious autograph guest who seemed to treat patrons with anything from courtesy to respect. He died under circumstances that brought him an outpouring of emotional support and he bore it with humility and dignity. Mays is a prick. He treats patrons with indifference on his good days, with outright rudeness and vindictiveness on his worst days. After seeing Mantle at autograph shows my respect for him remained about the same (he was before my time as a fan so I really haven't ever had the warm feelings about him that the baby boomer generation did). I was actually a bigger Willie Mays fan because I was 8 when he returned to NYC, got to see him at Shea Stadium in my first Mets game, and was definitely a fan. I collected every card of his, the full Topps run. When I finally got to meet him and he would not even say hello I was so turned off as a fan that I sold off the entire collection and now have only a few of his cards.

The only hero of my youth who has consistently maintained his grace and stature in my mind is Hank Aaron. Now there is a true gentleman and class act.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Larson

"The only hero of my youth who has consistently maintained his grace and stature in my mind is Hank Aaron. Now there is a true gentleman and class act".

Although I am not old enough to have watched Aaron in my "youth," (actually I may have caught some games from his return to the Brewers for his last year, but I would have been pretty young) but I agree 100% with your comment. Although some of the classic Mantle sigs I've seen, the ones with cleverly stated profanity, are pretty darn funny, lol.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hagar Henderson

Like I said, talent and a player's card value are not necessarily correlated.

Someone earlier mentioned race as a factor. I wasn't around in that era but of course I've read plenty in history books about civil rights and racism. Can someone tell me about what year race stopped being a factor as far as fans watching a ball game? Jackie Robinson came into the league in what, 1947? How long did it take the black players to win over the fans?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I was two years old when Jackie started with the Dodgers. We lived in NY. But I was not very aware of baseball until 1954. At that time, race nor religion was an issue in the sport. And I don't think it ever was much of an issue for the fans, because the media downplayed it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Larson

I'm not saying that it was the only factor (or even a main factor), but I think it was a factor. We are mostly thinking as "hardcore" sports fans and collectors. But even today, I can be at a bar or at a friend's parents house and hear racist comments directed towards black players. These are by no means "hate crime" type talk, but you know the word that is being "casually" thrown around (which I by no means condone or participate in). Now being that I still hear stuff like that today, I would find it hard to believe that older folks in the 50's and early 60's would not have been doing/thinking/saying even worse things, and that same said mentality would not have adverse effects on the overall perception of these players.

Now, the fact that we now live in a much more friendly and tolerable society (relatively speaking of course), I certainly don't think that any racist mentality from the 50's continued through today and affected sports card values of particular players in a major way. But racism still exists and Mickey Mantle was the "all american kid" whose reputation couldn't be hurt for any reason despite some of the less than stellar language the man would sign autos with, lol. I think even today, we as a sports loving society, are much more likely as a whole, to look down on the indescretions of a black player, than we are of a white one.

Yes, that's a sad fact, and I'm in no way saying any of the people here think with that mentality. But let's be real, those things are prevelant and do play a factor even with sports card values.

Peace.

*edited for some grammar and to add: I would find it hard to believe that players like Hank Aaron and Willie Mays didn't suffer through racist banter or even threats.