The 1952 Topps Mantle is Overpriced and Over-hyped

[z28jd]

That title is a quote from someone who most people here will recognize. From the May 11, 1980 issue of The Pittsburgh Press:

[cardsagain74]

Gotta love how "customers" is in quotes, along with the rest of the mocking tone of the article.

[Yoda]

Brings back a lot of memories of deals done with Mike W. And Wayne V.

[Exhibitman]

[jchcollins]

Maybe true now, as it was true then - depending on your perspective. How many desirable hobby items, money aside - are truly scarce to the point where you can't find one even if you have the cash to pony up? I'm not a prewar guy per se, but I know that most items in this realm that people on this board are going to be concerned about are prewar items. So there is that.

But that aside, there are plenty of postwar vintage cards that aren't truly rare or scarce by the factual definition of those words that still sell for big $ and have for decades now. I'm guessing Mike Wheat eventually got comfortable with that notion based on what I know of him in the hobby.

Reminds me of the article that came out I'm guessing at some point close to this one of the guy who burned his '52 Mantle in a trash bin with a bunch of other cards in protest over the MLB strike of 1981. I'm guessing if that guy lived for much longer after he did that, he lived to regret it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Maybe true now, as it was true then - depending on your perspective. How many desirable hobby items, money aside - are truly scarce to the point where you can't find one even if you have the cash to pony up? I'm not a prewar guy per se, but I know that most items in this realm that people on this board are going to be concerned about are prewar items. So there is that.

But that aside, there are plenty of postwar vintage cards that aren't truly rare or scarce by the factual definition of those words that still sell for big $ and have for decades now. I'm guessing Mike Wheat eventually got comfortable with that notion based on what I know of him in the hobby.

Reminds me of the article that came out I'm guessing at some point close to this one of the guy who burned his '52 Mantle in a trash bin with a bunch of other cards in protest over the MLB strike of 1981. I'm guessing if that guy lived for much longer after he did that, he lived to regret it.

A dealer being comfortable with a card and its hype and overpricing shouldn't be a surprise, that's just how things are.

But he's not wrong, aside from the hype, that double print really doesn't have much going for it.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Reminds me of the article that came out I'm guessing at some point close to this one of the guy who burned his '52 Mantle in a trash bin with a bunch of other cards in protest over the MLB strike of 1981. I'm guessing if that guy lived for much longer after he did that, he lived to regret it.

If memory serves me right, some were saying that wasn't an actual '52 Mantle, just a photo cut from a magazine.

[BioCRN]

89 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr is far from rare and over-priced + over-hyped considering it's massive availability...but everyone wants one.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

89 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr is far from rare and over-priced + over-hyped considering it's massive availability...but everyone wants one.

I remember when those 1985 Topps McGwire USA rookie cards were like that once.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by BobC

I remember when those 1985 Topps McGwire USA rookie cards were like that once.

At least they still have some value. 1983 Topps Traded Ron Kittle broke a few people in a short amount of time.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

At least they still have some value. 1983 Topps Traded Ron Kittle broke a few people in a short amount of time.

LOL!


You are correct sir. Right up there with the Gregg Jefferies rookie cards.

[Seven]

The card has transcended the Hobby. This we know. It represents 1950's, post World War 2, Americana. It's such an iconic image at this point, that you have people that don't know a thing about cards buying it. Like everything else, I wish it was available at the price it was in the 1980s!

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Well, guys, I was born in the early 70s. Do I own a '52 Mantle? Nope. Would I like to someday? You betcha. I love the way it looks and have always admired it, irrespective of its value. From my vantage point, it is a very desirable baseball card in a set I happen to like.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[pokerplyr80]

Couldn't agree more Matt. Every time a thread like this comes up the haters come out. The card's iconic status hasn't changed in the 40+ years since this article was published, and it won't be changing any time soon.

And as Matt said if you think they're too common, try to find a centered example with decent eye appeal.

These are my two favorite cards in my collection.

[profholt82]

Now that's a great pic, Jesse. As great as the 52T Mantle is, I've always preferred the 51B. As a kid in the 80s, new to card collecting, it was all about the 52T, I'd see pictures of it, and I remember a feature story on it in Beckett. My uncle complained that he had one as a kid, but my grandma threw it out when he left for college. Haha, who hasn't heard a similar story? Beyond the T206 Wagner, I dont know that there's a more ubiquitous card when people think of the hobby.

But all of that said, I didn't even know about the 51B until years after I got into collecting when I found out it was his true rookie. People had always said the 52 was his rookie, and I had never questioned it. But when I first saw that 51B, I fell in love. What an amazing looking card. I think it looks so much better than the 52. Don't get me wrong, the 52T is an amazing card, and a cornerstone card for the hobby, but it will always be second fiddle to his 51B rookie to me. It's one of my all time favorite cards in the entire hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am not at all a hater, but it has always surprised me that in a hobby so consumed with rookie cards, a second year Card has achieved the stature it has.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am not at all a hater, but it has always surprised me that in a hobby so consumed with rookie cards, a second year Card has achieved the stature it has.

Being the most iconic card of one of the most iconic sets of all time certainly helps. While unusual it's not the only example. I remember a thread from a few years back in this very subject, second year cards worth more than rookies. Most other examples were due to the popularity of the issue or condition sensitivity (Thurman Munson).

And yes Matt that 51 Mantle won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I do personally feel the card is undervalued and have considered adding another. Even if I do, I will keep this one too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Being the most iconic card of one of the most iconic sets of all time certainly helps. While unusual it's not the only example. I remember a thread from a few years back in this very subject, second year cards worth more than rookies. Most other examples were due to the popularity of the issue or condition sensitivity (Thurman Munson).

And yes Matt that 51 Mantle won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I do personally feel the card is undervalued and have considered adding another. Even if I do, I will keep this one too.

Right, but compare it to the 52T Mays, also a second year card and while of course popular, not remotely in the same price class as Mantle. Not a high number, but Mantle being a double print makes up for a lot of that. I think it's hard to explain objectively. It's just one of those things.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Couldn't agree more Matt. Every time a thread like this comes up the haters come out. The card's iconic status hasn't changed in the 40+ years since this article was published, and it won't be changing any time soon.

And as Matt said if you think they're too common, try to find a centered example with decent eye appeal.

These are my two favorite cards in my collection.

Thanks, Jesse. And I agree. You hang a lantern on a great point. To many guys who collect, there are certain cards we love— and then there are centered examples of those cards. This is true whether it is a Goudey Ruth, e121 Ruth, m101 Ruth, e90-1 Jackson, d304 Cobb, or a 51-69 Bowman/Topps Mantle.

In the case of the 51B, anyone who thinks that card is common is speciously assuming the buyer wants ANY copy. But try finding a copy that is centered and focused. Entirely different ballgame. So many examples of that card are plagued by focus and registration issues, in addition to horrific centering.

In the case of the 1952 Topps Mantle, finding "a" copy is not hard. Finding one with centering like the one pictured below? Very hard. Most 1952 Mantles are very poorly centered. There was even that find a few years back of 5 copies, including one that graded out an 8.5— not one of them centered. Bottom line, certain cards centered are extremely rare, no matter the data of the "gen pop." That is precisely why the market evolved and there is now a massive premium for eye appeal and centering on certain cards.

PS: Jesse, glad to see my old 51B is loved and has stayed in one place all those years. I remember what seems like ages and ages ago, when I got that card at a Lew Lipset auction.

[Exhibitman]

When I was considering a 1952 Topps Mantle I had a lot of thoughts apart from the aesthetics of the card itself (FWIW, I think the card is really nice looking in the full border around the logo box version, but I understand that others may find the Flexichrome work to be lacking). What it boiled down to for me is: One of a handful of iconic players, Yankees dynasty, high # card from the most important postwar set, with what is now a fifty-year history of value behind it. With all that I don't see how the card is undesirable. We can debate price points but the overall premise of the OP amounts to picking an argument over the existence of gravity.