1951 Wheaties Premium Photo Mickey Mantle

[Timbegs]

I wanted to add an update to the thread but also not overdo it, still being a new guy and all. Here's where we're at:

The card lot that I won arrived last week. All 4 items look pretty nice in hand and obviously I immediately took a closer look at the Wheaties card. I guess card is a bit of a misnomer, as it is more photo than card, but I consider it a card (and I have the microphone so YOU WILL LISTEN! - Robbie Hart ). Anyway, the corners seemed a little rounded - not too bad - and it seemingly had no creases (no lab but good eyesight and a small LED flashlight with a dark basement). And then all of a sudden I realized that I have absolutely no idea how to grade it since it is unlike any card I have ever handled. As a card, I would call it a hopeful '4' but I really don't know if the standards I am applying hold any water. Like I said, it's more photo than card and its 5x7 size and lack of comparable cards I've ever handled kind of leaves me up in the air. I will stress that I truly don't care about the grade it receives; it's rarity* and it's image - he looks like a high school senior - more than do it for me. This is probably the closest thing I'll ever have to a rookie card for my Mickey collection as I am way too cheap. Lastly, according to my calculations and tracking, I should get a receipt confirm email that it has arrived at SGC at some point today. I will post again when the card is finally home to me again, hopefully by middle of next week...

*I'll mention again, I would love to see other people's copies - graded or ungraded - for the point of both comparison AND drool inducement. In my research, I know some people on here have one (or more) and I'm curious if they know more about the withertos and whyfores of how their scale is applied to this type of issue.

[Bestdj777]

Delete.

[Zach Wheat]

Here is mine.....I got this at a Sterling auction maybe 3-4 years ago. I purchased this even though it isn't a card because I am a Mantle collector. The size of the card is somewhat cumbersome....

Z

[bswhiten]

Here is mine... There are two PSA 9's out there somewhere.

[pawpawdiv9]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

Here is mine... There are two PSA 9's out there somewhere.

*It live, but my intention is about the description. The hype about the rising prices on 52's and the ocean dumping (which has nothing to do with the item) and so on and the glory of it being a rookie 1951. And being offered #1 in the AH lisiting.
I would love to see all the hard data put forth on this board to dis-prove the fact. Love to see mention 52 world series and etc.
Check out the PSA 9
http://www.smalltraditions.com/Rare_...-LOT31405.aspx

[Timbegs]

While I truly was hoping to wait until I had card in hand and post the photo with the news, I have to share the outcome now:

When I logged on to the SGC website yesterday, I was doing so because I hadn't since I got one of those super emails. If you are like me, then you'll agree with me; one of my favorite things is when they notify you that your card arrived safely. Major sigh of relief and then...well...you know what you are in for and Tom Petty was totally correct: the waiting IS the hardest part. Since I had put it in for 3 day service and it's an oversized card, I anticipated it taking a little bit longer - as indicated on the website. The 5x7 card size (and therefore, insert and holder size) isn't super common so I completely understand. It hadn't even been three full days yet anyway. However, I clicked on the invoice and there it was: a shipped date and a grade of 40 (3). This is a moment of pure joy for me; most of my Mickey cards are 3-5's and I try not to dip below a 3 (I have one still that I will upgrade eventually). So like I said originally, this was going to be all mentioned when I have card in hand (sounds like Monday) but when I logged back in today, the population report had already been updated! I wanted to credit SGC for their terrific turnaround time and updating of the population report. They now have 12 graded, and seeing that 1 under the 40 column and knowing it will soon be in my hands is a feeling unlike any I've had as a collector and one that, frankly, I may never have again.

As such, I wanted to share my excitement with all of you and add a note of gratitude as well. I won't go into great detail but there is literally no chance I even find this card for sale were it not for having joined this wonderful community. I don't know if there really is a ball field out in Iowa where the legends still play baseball but when they disappear into the corn after the game, I bet they log on to Net54...

You bet your bottom dollar a picture will be posted.

Thanks to all and please keep posting any more photos of your own, information you may have or anything else related!

Tim

[Bestdj777]

Told you it was real Glad to see you got a solid (and seemingly fair) grade on it! It's going to really like sharp in that holder.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by Timbegs

So like I said originally, this was going to be all mentioned when I have card in hand (sounds like Monday) but when I logged back in today, the population report had already been updated! I wanted to credit SGC for their terrific turnaround time and updating of the population report. They now have 12 graded, and seeing that 1 under the 40 column and knowing it will soon be in my hands is a feeling unlike any I've had as a collector and one that, frankly, I may never have again.

As such, I wanted to share my excitement with all of you and add a note of gratitude as well. I won't go into great detail but there is literally no chance I even find this card for sale were it not for having joined this wonderful community. I don't know if there really is a ball field out in Iowa where the legends still play baseball but when they disappear into the corn after the game, I bet they log on to Net54...

You bet your bottom dollar a picture will be posted.

Thanks to all and please keep posting any more photos of your own, information you may have or anything else related!

Tim

Congratulations, Tim. I am so very happy for you! Thanks for beautifully sharing your feelings and joy. WHAT EVER YEAR the premium is from, and WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY A TEST ISSUE HAILING FROM A GENERAL MILLS PROJECT EXECUTIVE, that is one beautiful Mickey Mantle item. I have always loved this picture of Mickey. The mesmerizing look of concentration in his eyes.....

Looking forward to seeing a picture of your bounty.

Hey, you never know, some day later on this year you might pull off another good find for your collection.

Do you think it's about time you buy a copy of my book, NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN? If not, no hard feelings, but I think if you relish an item such as the Wheaties Premium, you would get a kick out of what you'd read in NEVER.

Enough of that. Just keep enjoying your latest prize, and savor the memory of the "1" underneath the SGC POP category for "40".

Take care. ---Brian Powell

[brian1961]

Zach, the Wheaties may not be a card, and it is over-sized, but the photo is marvelous. The look in Mickey Mantle's eyes is mesmerizing. I love it. For what it's worth, I think a very appealing display will have a nice mixture of standard size, the small round Salada Coins, larger cards (Stahl-Meyer Franks and the Exhibits), and then the majestic pieces (1960 Post Cereal and the 1950s Wheaties Premium). It's all about sheer looks and eye appeal of the items. I think you did great in your selection, bro.

Since we have come to find out Don Wingfield snapped Mickey's picture on October 6, 1952, that was an extremely significant time frame in his career. Mickey was the main significant difference for the Bombers in defeating the Brooks in that knockdown drag out 1952 World Series.

Just my two cents, bro. ---Brian Powell

[whiteymet]

I was the guy who first broached the question in the old thread about why this is considered a 1951 issue.

It has been proven conclusively it is not from 1951.

I think someone should do the same research on the other photos in the set to see if they can be dated. I am betting on mid 50's say 55 or 56.

Ashburn won the batting title in 55 and the Indians won the pennant in 54 so the inclusion of Feller, Rosen and Lemon, and Yogi and Campy won MVP's in 55.

I know they each won others earlier, Campy 53 and Yogi 54, but with the Ashburn connection I am betting on 55 or 56.

Fred

[Timbegs]

Fred,

I am aware of all your good work. And the dating of the Mantle photo seems plausible though I don't know if it's 100% conclusive. My sister in law makes the same face in every photo she posts on snapchat and Instagram so I'd be comfortable with 90-95%.

Hope that's ok. Also, I know people had mentioned contacting General Mills - what about tracking the photo from the photographers end?

I hope this is all ok - I own one now and I'm not trying to mess with its 1951 designation. I suppose without proof from General Mills or Wheaties this will be a 1951 'card.'

Thanks to those who posted theirs. Anyone else got one?

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Timbegs

Fred,

I am aware of all your good work. And the dating of the Mantle photo seems plausible though I don't know if it's 100% conclusive. My sister in law makes the same face in every photo she posts on snapchat and Instagram so I'd be comfortable with 90-95%.

Hope that's ok. Also, I know people had mentioned contacting General Mills - what about tracking the photo from the photographers end?

I hope this is all ok - I own one now and I'm not trying to mess with its 1951 designation. I suppose without proof from General Mills or Wheaties this will be a 1951 'card.'

Thanks to those who posted theirs. Anyone else got one?

Tim:

I did no work. Only asked the question. Others DOCUMENTED WHEN the photo was taken.

It's no skin off my nose if you accept it it 100% or the 90-95% you are comfortable with.

Just curious how you can not be 100% when the photo was taken at the World Series in 1952. What more do you need to convince you?

You say your sister in law makes the same face in all her photos? Is her entire pose the exact same? Her eyebrow not raised in one? Her elbow in the same exact position, her lips parted the same, her fingers on the same exact place on her bat, her hat the same distance from her ear?

Get what I am driving at?

When is your birthday? How can you be sure? Your parents told you, but other than that what proof do you have? I would be skeptical if I were you. :>) just as you are about when the photo was taken.

I do agree that it is too late to change any designation for the set. It will always be 1951 Wheaties even though there is now proof ( in some of our eyes) that it can't be 1951, and I have seen no proof it is even a Wheaties issue. It looks more like an early version of the Jay publishing photos to me.

Fred

[Bestdj777]

[Timbegs]

Fred,

If I saw a legitimate looking copy of my birth certificate with a date of yesterday - yes, I'd question it. And my sister in laws pictures would surprise you.

Funnies aside, I say 90-95 percent because in the earlier thread you contributed to we had a Getty Image with a date of '1955' that momentarily 'proved' the photo could not be from 1951. Then we got another photo that 'proved' the image was from 1952. Forgive me for being skeptical when we are relying on type set on the back of a 65 year old photo to determine the authentic date of it being taken. I mean, we've already had two examples that claimed to be conclusive 'proof' that this card was not a 1951 issue, one of which was already disproved. I could type 1951 on my senior portrait from High School but that doesn't make it from 1951.

Do YOU get what I'M driving at, Fred?

Like I already mentioned, I am looking for a smoking gun. What you have provided is very solid circumstantial evidence but without the photographer testimony about the date I don't reach 100% certainty. I appreciate you jumping back in and I have read the other thread from start to finish. Great read, for sure.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Tim:

I did no work. Only asked the question. Others DOCUMENTED WHEN the photo was taken.

It's no skin off my nose if you accept it it 100% or the 90-95% you are comfortable with.

Just curious how you can not be 100% when the photo was taken at the World Series in 1952. What more do you need to convince you?

You say your sister in law makes the same face in all her photos? Is her entire pose the exact same? Her eyebrow not raised in one? Her elbow in the same exact position, her lips parted the same, her fingers on the same exact place on her bat, her hat the same distance from her ear?



Get what I am driving at?

When is your birthday? How can you be sure? Your parents told you, but other than that what proof do you have? I would be skeptical if I were you. :>) just as you are about when the photo was taken.

I do agree that it is too late to change any designation for the set. It will always be 1951 Wheaties even though there is now proof ( in some of our eyes) that it can't be 1951, and I have seen no proof it is even a Wheaties issue. It looks more like an early version of the Jay publishing photos to me.

Fred

Would have been a lot easier to simply get another photo of Mantle in the same pose at the same angle than to clean up the '52 photo and add the pinstripes. Far from proven it is the very same photo. I seem to recall that Bob Lemke categorized it as being from '51 based on them originally coming out when a Wheaties exec retired (Mantle's consent to use the photo was reportedly never obtained) and that person's statements regarding the date of origin. But to each his own. That the grading companies have not changed the date of issue may or may not be significant, but I think it's hardly likely that they simply are ignorant of the threads appearing on Net54. For my money, it will stay a 1951 issue long after all the posts here have been forgotten. Quite a nice early Mantle in any event, and it is in fact a card rather than an actual photo, as it has a halftone printing dot pattern.

Just my buck and a half's worth.

Regards,

Larry

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

I was the guy who first broached the question in the old thread about why this is considered a 1951 issue.

It has been proven conclusively it is not from 1951.

I think someone should do the same research on the other photos in the set to see if they can be dated. I am betting on mid 50's say 55 or 56.

Ashburn won the batting title in 55 and the Indians won the pennant in 54 so the inclusion of Feller, Rosen and Lemon, and Yogi and Campy won MVP's in 55.

I know they each won others earlier, Campy 53 and Yogi 54, but with the Ashburn connection I am betting on 55 or 56.

Fred

Fred,

Prior to the original series of posts or somewhere along the way, I called one of the General Mills archivists to get their input on the promotion. After a week or so, they indicated they searched their records and they did not actually have any record or information on the series of photos which we now call the 1951 Wheaties Premiums. Oddly, they did have information on the NY promotion featuring tin trays in '52, which they indicated was exclusively limited to NY.


Z

[Timbegs]

Fred,

My last post, after re reading it, sounds snotty. Sorry, that wasn't my intent. What I mean is this - I'd like to see the Sporting News where the photo was originally inserted or something more meaningful. An invoice, order form, someone who pulled it from a box (or however it was acquired, since that seems to be in question as well). I am motivated purely by curiosity. It's a pretty interesting card with a pretty interesting story. As a Mickey Mantle fan, I don't care if it was released in 51 or 55 - I'd just like to know.


And 95% is a pretty high degree of certainty, anyway.

I think we've seen four so far - all graded. Anyone else got one? Anyone have an ungraded copy or copies? Let's see em!

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by Timbegs

Fred,

My last post, after re reading it, sounds dooshy. Sorry. What I mean is this - I'd like to see the Sporting News where the photo was originally inserted or something more meaningful. An invoice, order form, someone who pulled it from a box (or however it was acquired, since that seems to be in question as well). I am motivated purely by curiosity. It's a pretty interesting card with a pretty interesting story. As a Mickey Mantle fan, I don't care if it was released in 51 or 55 - I'd just like to know.


And 95% is a pretty high degree of certainty, anyway.

I think we've seen four so far - all graded. Anyone else got one? Anyone have an ungraded copy or copies? Let's see em!

I sold my ungraded copy a while back, but it was pretty well worn--I wish I had a photo of it. As for pulling these from a box, etc., I think that is highly unlikely. I honestly am not sure these were ever directly distributed to the public. If you look at the pop reports, the vast majority of these are in high grade, suggesting that they could have made there way directly into the hands of adult collectors. The one I had was one of the only ones I've seen that exhibited real use and looked to have been out there in the general public for some period of time. Just my thoughts.

[drcy]

They aren't photos, but lithographs on stock comparable to the Dexter Press Premiums. So if someone wants to call them cards, that should be fine. Without clicking on the link and reading all that, I had always heard that they were un-issued test issues (or prototypes or whatever you wish to monicker them) and originated from a General Mills executive.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by drcy

They aren't photos, but lithographs on stock comparable to the Dexter Press Premiums. So if someone wants to call them cards, that should be fine. Without clicking on the link and reading all that, I had always heard that they were un-issued test issues (or prototypes or whatever you wish to monicker them) and originated from a General Mills executive.

David,

That would explain why the General Mills archivists had nothing in their files regarding this....

Z