Why is (this card) worth more than (this card)?

[luciobar1980]

I'll go first.

I've never understood why the 1941 Play Ball Joe Dimaggio goes for more than the 1939 Play Ball.

I don't get it.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Artwork is incredible

[chadeast]

More people enjoy colorful action shots than black and white portraits.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by chadeast

More people enjoy colorful action shots than black and white portraits.

+1

[nineunder71]

Look at the pop reports

[Casey2296]

Every thread needs a card
-

[MattyC]

I've tried to get psyched up about other DiMaggio cards, but in the end I always find myself grabbing the 41 PB to hold and enjoy over them. Tried the Zeenut Batting, the '37 OPC, even the WWG. The latter has some serious flavor I'll admit, with the mugshot photo and "deadpan Joe" on the reverse. But in the end the 41 PB in my opinion just has an elegance and that color that make it "the one" to represent him in a collection. And there is of course it being from that one iconic season. Found this one at a local shop and loved the registration and centering. So many are blurry.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by chadeast

More people enjoy colorful action shots than black and white portraits.

If the 1939 Play Ball was his definitive rookie card, then it would be more valuable. But there are other pre-1939 cards featuring Joe that have a better claim for rookie status, so what people have previously mentioned is the reason.

Brian

[Carter08]

Never been a huge Joe D fan but his 41 Play Ball is in my top 10 best looking cards. Ditto for 48/49 Ted.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Never been a huge Joe D fan but his 41 Play Ball is in my top 10 best looking cards. Ditto for 48/49 Ted.

Definitely the 1941 Play Ball of Joe DiMaggio is a great card, but like Matt said previously registration is key, as can be seen in his perfectly registered card.

Brian

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

I'll go first.

I've never understood why the 1941 Play Ball Joe Dimaggio goes for more than the 1939 Play Ball.

I don't get it.

I’ve always chalked it up to 41 PB is a popular pre-war set to collect for people for people on a budget. It’s small, good looking, full of Hall of Famers, and there are no “impossible” cards.

[Foo3112]

I understand why the 41 is an important card but then again, why isn't the 61 Maris on a higher scale than the 62 Topps. Because the 62 Topps shows 61 HR's on the back? I doubt it, and don't say because 62 are tough on the borders. All cards are prone to chipping really. Back to the DiMaggio, my favorite of his has always been the 39 PB. The 40 black and white doesn't do it for me and the 41 looks identical to the 40 but with color and the photo doesn't really stand out where's the 39 PB seems to capture the youthful looking Yankees Clipper in a real photo.

I was fortunate to get this off someone back around 2015. Although I have sold many cards from my collection that I owned back then, this is one of those cards that is perhaps going to be with me when I pass and I am okay with that.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Foo3112

I understand why the 41 is an important card but then again, why isn't the 61 Maris on a higher scale than the 62 Topps.

1962 Topps Maris is a condition rarity being card #1 in the set.

[packs]

I don't understand why Topps Tiffany cards are worth more than the general issue cards. The Tiffany sets were issued in complete set form direct from the factory. It should infinitely more difficult to find any of the general cards in a 10 than any Tiffany card but the prices for each don't work out that way.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't understand why Topps Tiffany cards are worth more than the general issue cards. The Tiffany sets were issued in complete set form direct from the factory. It should infinitely more difficult to find any of the general cards in a 10 than any Tiffany card but the prices for each don't work out that way.

Print run. Tiffany’s are already condition sensitive and most of the early print runs are only 5,000 or 10,000. It’s a lot easier to find base gems in a print run of 5 million than 5,000.

[Casey2296]

Here's a fun post I wrote about this card.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=294088

[puckpaul]

My favorite Joe D card, the R303B. I also prefer the 41PB to the 39, just a nicer looking card in color.

[darwinbulldog]

I find that my aesthetic preferences are more or less uncorrelated with the preferences of the hobby in general. In some cases I diverge pretty dramatically. I think, for example, that about 95% of T205s are ugly, compared to about 50% of T207s. The b/w American Caramel issues and 1939 Playball cards look great to me, but 1941 Playball and 1949 Leaf are garish at best, and hideous in quite a few cases. The '52 Topps Mantle I think is the absolute least attractive of all his Bowman and Topps cards from 1951-1956, and don't get me started on the #144 Ruth Goudey (let alone his atrocious-looking M101-5/6s).

I used to be genuinely disappointed that everyone else seemed to have such tacky taste, but now I'm just happy with all the money my unusual preferences have saved me.

[jingram058]

This subject has been covered ad-nauseum, but I have yet to read a real reason as to why the 52 Topps Mantle is so insanely more valuable than the 51 Bowman?

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by jingram058

This subject has been covered ad-nauseum, but I have yet to read a real reason as to why the 52 Topps Mantle is so insanely more valuable than the 51 Bowman?

The 1952 Topps is a much nicer looking card, in a more impressive size than the 51 Bowman, and is in a more significant set. All my opinion, but I prefer my 52 Topps to my 51 Bowman. I see the appeal of the 51 Bowman as it’s his rookie card, but, if that wasn’t the case, I don’t think there be any discussion or debate about what is the better card. Add in the fact that people have been convicted 52 Topps high numbers were dumped and that a first Topps issue is the equivalent of a rookie for Mantle, and it all makes sense, to me anyway.

[pclpads]

I think the same arguments for JD's '41PB over his '39 can be made for Teddy's '41 PB. Admittedly, his '39 is an action shot, while his '41PB is a head shot, but for me, the color just jumps out. Maybe someday I'll own one . . .

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jingram058

This subject has been covered ad-nauseum, but I have yet to read a real reason as to why the 52 Topps Mantle is so insanely more valuable than the 51 Bowman?

It is because the 1952 Topps High numbers are the toughest cards from the Topps and Bowman sets to find. Even though Mantle is a DP, the fact that he was the big name in the high series drove demand for the card and it became the post war card to own.

The 1951 Bowman is a beautiful card where as the 1952 Topps Mantle is the ugliest card ever made. Its yellow bat is as ridiculous as the caricature on the 1951 Bowman Paul Richards. There really shouldn't be a price discrepancy between the two, but there will probably always be price memory driven by 70s and 80s set collectors.

[BobbyVCP]

Do you think since 1941 is the year of the 56 game hitting streak it might have something to do with the increased value.