OT: Who Determined That Mantle's Rookie Card was the 52 Topps

[Buythatcard]

Almost every auction house is selling a 52 Topps Mantle. Even though there are many out there for sale, they are getting insane prices.
Mantle started his playing career in 1951 which is considered his true Rookie year. Since Bowman came out with his card in 1951, I would think that this is his rookie card.
It does not seem to be the case since all of his 52 Topps cards are sold as his Rookie card.
Why is his 52 Topps considered a Rookie card?
Also, which card do you consider his Rookie card?

[barrysloate]

I'm not sure how this can even be debated, since 1951 always comes before 1952 (my birth year). Calling the 52 Mantle a rookie card is simply a marketing ploy.

[ALR-bishop]

This has been discussed in prior threads more than once. Hard to argue with Barry's point that 1951 came before 1952 .

I guess you could call the 52 card his "Topps rookie card" and be correct.

[jasonc]

Definitely 1951 Bowman is the rookie. It's his first card from a major manufacture.

I would say the 1952 topps is the better, more iconic card though.

[yanksfan09]

1951 Bowman is only Rookie card

1952 Topps can be called First Topps card but that is it.

They are both iconic and gorgeous classic cards regardless of title in my opinion.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

This has been discussed in prior threads more than once. Hard to argue with Barry's point that 1951 came before 1952 .

I guess you could call the 52 card his "Topps rookie card" and be correct.

By that logic every card in the set except for a handful of '51 Red and Blue Backs and some All-Stars are "Topps Rookie Cards"

[Buythatcard]

With so much focus on the Mantle cards, nobody really pays attention the the Mays rookie card. He also entered the major leagues in 1951. Bowman has produced a card for him in 1951 and Topps did the same thing in 1952.
Yet, the 1952 Topps card is considered his Rookie card also.
Was there a time when the grading companies actually considered the 51 Bowmans their true Rookie card? If so, there must be an image of those actual cards.

[RedsFan1941]

nevermind

[kvnkvnkvn]

Nobody in this industry knows what a rookie card it...The rookie card is a joke...

It should be as simple as the first time a player plays during any one pitch in a major league game...

For modern cards, Topps Now cards should be the true rookie...

[Bicem]

Would love to hear the argument for the 1952 from the people who voted for it.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by kvnkvnkvn

Nobody in this industry knows what a rookie card it...The rookie card is a joke...

It should be as simple as the first time a player plays during any one pitch in a major league game...

For modern cards, Topps Now cards should be the true rookie...

Agreed. 1995 Topps Derek Jeter is a rookie card. 1952 Topps Mantle is not.

[vansaad]

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vansaad

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

Why doesn't it have the 1st Bowman logo?

[MattyC]

Haven't read this whole thing, but it would seem any longtime collector knows what's up:

The 1952 Topps Mantle is "the" card. Most popular of the two. Sort of the standard bearer of the Post War card hobby to the public.

The 1951 Bowman is Mantle's rookie card.

Though beauty is entirely subjective, I'd venture many collectors would say both are appealing to the eye.

For Mantle or Post War collectors, both are big cards to own.

And both present the collector with unique challenges, in terms of finding an eye appealing specimen. The 51B has endemic centering and focus issues. The 52T has endemic centering and tilt issues.

[Buythatcard]

Well as expected the majority of us believe that the 51 Bowman is the Rookie card. Since popular votes do not count, it appears that the 52 Topps is still the Rookie card.

Can you imagine if the grading companies started to label these cards correctly? Would the value of the Mantle 51 Bowmans jump while the Mantle 52 Topps decline?

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

Can you imagine if the grading companies started to label these cards correctly? Would the value of the Mantle 51 Bowmans jump while the Mantle 52 Topps decline?

Nothing would change, in terms of values. For one, most people buying the two cards know that the 51B is his rookie. Also, the dominance of the 52 Topps in regards to value is not a product of the grading companies' labels.

[vansaad]

Originally Posted by vansaad

How is this even an argument? The proof is right there on the card.

And here is the '52 Topps for comparison. Future star does not a rookie make.

[orly57]

Well done Aaron. Damn well done.

[darwinbulldog]

The poll is comparable to one asking people to vote on how many sides they think a triangle has. What's more interesting to me, than just asking people if they know the correct answer in this one particular case (Mantle), is to force people to operationalize their terms.

If a player has a card issued in 1909 but doesn't appear in a major league game until 1910, do you consider his 1909 card a rookie card?

If you say yes, then what you what you mean by rookie card is merely earliest card, and the M101-5 Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1989 Upper Deck Griffey Jr.

If you say no, then what you mean by rookie card is a card issued during the player's rookie year (and then we can further quibble about players who didn't exceed the rookie limits during their debut seasons or who didn't have any cards issued during their rookie seasons), and the Baltimore News Ruth is not a rookie card by your definition, and neither is the 1993 SP Jeter.

I'm fine with people using either definition, but there's not much benefit in using either of them if you aren't going to be consistent about it. That is, either you're in the pre-MLB-cards-count camp (i.e., the Baltimore News Ruth and the 1993 Jeter are rookie cards) OR you're in the nothing-prior-to-MLB-debut-counts camp (i.e., the M01-5 Ruth and the 1995 Topps Jeter are rookie cards).

In neither case does it makes any sense to call a 1952 Topps Mantle a rookie card.

[Buythatcard]

Since we are on the subject of Rookie cards. Has anyone ever noticed that Beckett.com has all the 33 Goudeys designated as Rookie Cards.

What's up with that?

[jhs5120]

Why can't both cards be considered rookie?

There are several players with "rookie" cards spanning multiple years. The term is "rookie" is subjective.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Why can't both cards be considered rookie?

There are several players with "rookie" cards spanning multiple years. The term is "rookie" is subjective.

Because there is debate over whether certain types of issues should be considered rookie cards. Regional issue, minor league, exhibit type cards, etc. may or may not be true RCs depending on who you ask. But a main stream card issued of Mantle in a Yankees uniform in 1951 is his rookie card. One issued the following year by another manufacturer is not, despite its iconic status in the hobby.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many feel these are RCs?

My answer is no. IMO a RC should only be from a nationally issued set (Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc.), nothing oddball, team issued, etc.. But I know that some people consider them RCs and I wouldn't argue the point. It's just my opinion.

And it's my opinion that a RC should only be issued after the player is a rookie. There are too many "rookie cards" out there (especially from the late '90s to early 2000s) of players that never even played in a MLB game. How can you have a rookie card if you were never a rookie?