Selling 80% of your collection for ‘52 Mantle - would you?

[Chris-Counts]

If you don't need the Mantle to complete your 1952 Topps set or a complete run of Mantle cards, what's the point? There are far better looking Mantle cards (1953 Bowman, 1956 Topps, etc.) available for a fraction of the price. If you're looking at it as an investment, a good argument can be made that the 1952 Topps Mantle card is the most overrated of all cards. It's not very rare at all, just super-hyped. I believe the 1951 Bowman Mantle or the 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson are far better investments if that's what you're after. The same goes for 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps cards of Willie Mays.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

If you don't need the Mantle to complete your 1952 Topps set or a complete run of Mantle cards, what's the point? There are far better looking Mantle cards (1953 Bowman, 1956 Topps, etc.) available for a fraction of the price. If you're looking at it as an investment, a good argument can be made that the 1952 Topps Mantle card is the most overrated of all cards. It's not very rare at all, just super-hyped. I believe the 1951 Bowman Mantle or the 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson are far better investments if that's what you're after. The same goes for 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps cards of Willie Mays.

+1 Well said and I could not agree more.

[Exhibitman]

The Gehrig is already at $198,000 plus vig, so 80% of my collection won't do it. More like my collection plus a quart of blood and a kidney.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

If you don't need the Mantle to complete your 1952 Topps set or a complete run of Mantle cards, what's the point? There are far better looking Mantle cards (1953 Bowman, 1956 Topps, etc.) available for a fraction of the price. If you're looking at it as an investment, a good argument can be made that the 1952 Topps Mantle card is the most overrated of all cards. It's not very rare at all, just super-hyped. I believe the 1951 Bowman Mantle or the 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson are far better investments if that's what you're after. The same goes for 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps cards of Willie Mays.

As a collector, I've always been about more cards of lesser value: why have one really nice Ruth when I can have ten messy ones instead? 10 Ruths are better than one, duh! As a collector, give me a run of Mantle cards instead of a 1952 T. If I am trying to make money, though, I don't see it that way. I would rather put my eggs in one marquee card than in a card I hope might some day become a marquee card. The Mantle is so expensive that a small % movement on price equates to a much larger % movement on a cheaper card. A PSA 1 Robinson can be had for about $3,000-$3,500; a Mantle is $25,000+. A 10% bump on the Mantle is an 80% bump on the Robinson, in $$ terms. Is it more likely that a Mantle will go up 10% or a Robinson will go up 80%? I realize that the investment on Robinson is much smaller, but is it necessarily a better way to make money? If that's the goal. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

As a collector, I've always been about more cards of lesser value: why have one really nice Ruth when I can have ten messy ones instead? 10 Ruths are better than one! As a collector, give me a run of Mantle cards instead of a 1952 T. If I am trying to make money, though, I don't see it that way. I would rather put my eggs in one marquee card than in a card I hope might some day become a marquee card. The Mantle is so expensive that a small % movement on price equates to a much larger % movement on a cheaper card. A PSA 1 Robinson can be had for about $3,000-$3,500; a Mantle is $25,000+. A 10% bump on the Mantle is an 80% bump on the Robinson, in $$ terms. Is it more likely that a Mantle will go up 10% or a Robinson will go up 80%?

Adam-

Not sure I completely agree with your math here, or at least the premise behind your math seems flawed to me. If you were to spend $25k on either one 311 Mantle or spend the same $25k on a fistful of Robinsons, then a 10% change in either one gets you to the same result.

Having said that, there's always room to argue about which of those pieces are more likely to move up (or down). But on percentage terms, if you're investing similar amounts overall in cardboard (whether one piece or multiple pieces), then you should get to the same place.

The only way your math makes sense is if a hypothetical comparison involves pocketing the savings and investing it elsewhere for little or no return, or somehow leveraging up on the Mantle but not on the Robinson. But I'm guessing that for most of us, if we have $25k to invest in cardboard, and if the first card we buy only costs $3k, then we're going to spend the remaining $22k on additional cardboard.

[Leon]

I asked this same question to John Spencer, Hey Yoda(about 25? yrs ago?) when I was buying his E102 Cobby for 1k.....more small value or less large value....so, I went with best value for me....
.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

As a collector, I've always been about more cards of lesser value: why have one really nice Ruth when I can have ten messy ones instead? 10 Ruths are better than one, duh! As a collector, give me a run of Mantle cards instead of a 1952 T. If I am trying to make money, though, I don't see it that way. I would rather put my eggs in one marquee card than in a card I hope might some day become a marquee card. The Mantle is so expensive that a small % movement on price equates to a much larger % movement on a cheaper card. A PSA 1 Robinson can be had for about $3,000-$3,500; a Mantle is $25,000+. A 10% bump on the Mantle is an 80% bump on the Robinson, in $$ terms. Is it more likely that a Mantle will go up 10% or a Robinson will go up 80%? I realize that the investment on Robinson is much smaller, but is it necessarily a better way to make money? If that's the goal. Not that there's anything wrong with that...