What Would You Rather Have Mantle or Mantles?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Seven

I'll take the 52 Topps Mantle, Ill then sell the PSA 7 and downgrade to a nice looking 3 and use the money to buy the other cards I want.

That’s a great plan to me.

[jingram058]

Money is money. I will graciously accept any 1952 Topps Mantle cards any of you well-heeled guys would like to give a poor, down on his luck collector. Mailing address upon request!

[brian1961]

Johnny, a very interesting question. I would most assuredly want the 1952 Topps. To me, I believe Mickey's 1952 Topps is one of his most beautiful cards. When I first got the one I once owned, in early 1973, it was truly breathtaking. I owned that gem for 22 years.

Due to circumstances that were under my own control, I needed to raise money for a down payment on a house. I HAD to do something for my wife, our son, and myself. Bless her heart, my dear wife was not pressuring me one iota. Be that as it may, I wanted to do something. I made a hard decision to consign my cherished 1952 Topps Mantle. I would judge it as a PSA 6 at best. The year was 1995. When I consigned the card, I had no idea Mickey was sick with cancer.

However, I chose to keep my two favorite Mickey Mantle gems, because I believed in my heart I would never be able to replace them. It has been a tsch over 25 years now, and I was correct in my assessment; there have never been two Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantles to match the two I am extremely privileged to own. My second one has an example that tops it grade-wise, and one that would match it; nevertheless, the centering of the highest-graded 1954 is too noticeably off left-to-right. That beauty is centered within the parameters of PSA's guidelines not to have a qualifier.

Earlier this year, a 1955 was submitted to PSA, and they graded it PSA 9 MINT!!! Sadly, however, it was collared with a qualifier. I've not seen it, but it must be extremely stunning.

Most of my comments do not fit your OP, Johnny. I guess I just want to say that as much as I loved and miss my 1952 Topps Mickey, and would choose it over a collection of other gum Mantles, I rate, and have felt this way for a long time, the Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantles over the 1952 Topps. Collectors will almost always want the 1952 more, and I don't blame them. However, as a collector who has owned nice examples of both, I rate the Stahl-Meyer Franks as the summit---hands down. Why? I love the Stahl-Meyer's appearance---mesmerizing, the enthralling background story of the promotion from whence it came, and the fact so very, very, very few survived in high-grade condition.

I chose to keep my 1953 & 1954 Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantle king-sized gems. I have never regretted my decision. While I do not have the expertise to load up images of my pair of Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantles, should any of you own a copy of NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, feast your eyes on pages 73, 261, and 279. Nothing more will need to be said.

Cheers. --- Brian Powell

PS---Johnny, I am by no means trying to derail your fine thread, merely expressing that in Mickey Mantle card collecting, it is by no means all about the 1952 Topps, or the rest of Mick's 21-gum salute from Topps and Bowman.

[drcy]

Since for many it's solely about money, I'll change my answer:

Whichever is worth the most money. No need to list cards or even say if cards are involved.

[pawpawdiv9]

i once owned every year and oddball issues from the 50-60's.
I sold them off to buy my 52.
Then i enventually got the 51.
So, from a investment situation- i'd pick the 52 all the way.
As a collector, i always loved the 51, 53, 56. Beautiful cards no doubt.

[Gorditadogg]

Good question, and there are several ways to look at it.

1. As a collector, would you rather spread your budget around on a lot of cards, or do you like to concentrate on just a few gems?

2. As a Mantle collector, do you like the 52 Topps #311? Have you always wanted to own one?

3. From an investment standpoint, is there a difference where you put your "Mantle money"?

The first two questions depend on individual preferences. As to the last question, my take on it is that it doesn't matter too much. As I have looked at prices over the years, and tracked the values of my own Mantle collection, I think that Mantle cards all move together.

There are differences in each individual card of course, but I think a lot of that is due to small sample size and differences in eye appeal across a grade. For example, 10 years ago you could have bought a 52T #311 PSA 5 for $15,000. That card now is worth $100,000 or so. But you also could have bought two 56T #135 Gray Backs in PSA 9 for $15,000, and today those cards are worth well over $100,000 each!

You can look at other individual Mantle cards and see how they match up with the 52T. Some have done better, some worse.

I think overall PSA 9's have done better than lower grades, but other than that I don't see much in terms of differences in appreciation from one card to the other. Bowmans or Topps, 1950's or 1960's, base card or AS/MVP, $100 card or $100,000 card, none of it has mattered. All Mantles have moved up together.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Good question, and there are several ways to look at it.

1. As a collector, would you rather spread your budget around on a lot of cards, or do you like to concentrate on just a few gems?

2. As a Mantle collector, do you like the 52 Topps #311? Have you always wanted to own one?

3. From an investment standpoint, is there a difference where you put your "Mantle money"?

The first two questions depend on individual preferences. As to the last question, my take on it is that it doesn't matter too much. As I have looked at prices over the years, and tracked the values of my own Mantle collection, I think that Mantle cards all move together.

There are differences in each individual card of course, but I think a lot of that is due to small sample size and differences in eye appeal across a grade. For example, 10 years ago you could have bought a 52T #311 PSA 5 for $15,000. That card now is worth $100,000 or so. But you also could have bought two 56T #135 Gray Backs in PSA 9 for $15,000, and today those cards are worth well over $100,000 each!

You can look at other individual Mantle cards and see how they match up with the 52T. Some have done better, some worse.

I think overall PSA 9's have done better than lower grades, but other than that I don't see much in terms of differences in appreciation from one card to the other. Bowmans or Topps, 1950's or 1960's, base card or AS/MVP, $100 card or $100,000 card, none of it has mattered. All Mantles have moved up together.

Thanks Al, I appreciate your response as well sir!

I guess my thought/situation is. I have always dreamed of owning a 52 Topps type 1 Mantle. I've always bee a Exmnt-Nrnt+ Vintage Card Collector. There is nothing at all wrong with lower grade cards, it's just not my thing.

So here is what I'm considering do I sell all the beautiful PSA/SGC 7.5's and 8's I have to fund the purchase of a killer EXMT-NRMNT Graded Example of the type 1 52 Mantle? That's the only way I would be able to afford to buy a 52 Topps Mantle in the grade/condition I collect.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Johnny, a very interesting question. I would most assuredly want the 1952 Topps. To me, I believe Mickey's 1952 Topps is one of his most beautiful cards. When I first got the one I once owned, in early 1973, it was truly breathtaking. I owned that gem for 22 years.

Due to circumstances that were under my own control, I needed to raise money for a down payment on a house. I HAD to do something for my wife, our son, and myself. Bless her heart, my dear wife was not pressuring me one iota. Be that as it may, I wanted to do something. I made a hard decision to consign my cherished 1952 Topps Mantle. I would judge it as a PSA 6 at best. The year was 1995. When I consigned the card, I had no idea Mickey was sick with cancer.

However, I chose to keep my two favorite Mickey Mantle gems, because I believed in my heart I would never be able to replace them. It has been a tsch over 25 years now, and I was correct in my assessment; there have never been two Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantles to match the two I am extremely privileged to own. My second one has an example that tops it grade-wise, and one that would match it; nevertheless, the centering of the highest-graded 1954 is too noticeably off left-to-right. That beauty is centered within the parameters of PSA's guidelines not to have a qualifier.

Earlier this year, a 1955 was submitted to PSA, and they graded it PSA 9 MINT!!! Sadly, however, it was collared with a qualifier. I've not seen it, but it must be extremely stunning.

Most of my comments do not fit your OP, Johnny. I guess I just want to say that as much as I loved and miss my 1952 Topps Mickey, and would choose it over a collection of other gum Mantles, I rate, and have felt this way for a long time, the Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantles over the 1952 Topps. Collectors will almost always want the 1952 more, and I don't blame them. However, as a collector who has owned nice examples of both, I rate the Stahl-Meyer Franks as the summit---hands down. Why? I love the Stahl-Meyer's appearance---mesmerizing, the enthralling background story of the promotion from whence it came, and the fact so very, very, very few survived in high-grade condition.

I chose to keep my 1953 & 1954 Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantle king-sized gems. I have never regretted my decision. While I do not have the expertise to load up images of my pair of Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantles, should any of you own a copy of NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, feast your eyes on pages 73, 261, and 279. Nothing more will need to be said.

Cheers. --- Brian Powell

PS---Johnny, I am by no means trying to derail your fine thread, merely expressing that in Mickey Mantle card collecting, it is by no means all about the 1952 Topps, or the rest of Mick's 21-gum salute from Topps and Bowman.

Thanks Brian, I l appreciate your response !!

[Brian Van Horn]

Mazeroski October 13, 1960 home run ball.