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

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Just convention. At least in the 90s, cards such as the Jeter are generally accepted as RCs if they are included in a major issue. E.g. 92 Bowman Mariano Rivera. As for Mantle, the discussion above is probably hypothetical because I doubt in those days Topps or Bowman ever issued a card of someone who had not been on a roster yet. If I am wrong let me know.

What about the 1960 Topps Yaz? He did not make his major league debut until 1961, yet as far as I know the 1960 card is universally considered his rookie card, and is treated as such by the market. In the 1950s it was not all that unusual for Topps (and sometimes Bowman) to issue cards of players who had not yet played in the majors, but were expected to. What about the 1954 Topps Aaron? I'm not sure exactly when that card (#128 out of 250) was issued, but he did not make his MLB debut until April 13, 1954. Or 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente, who debuted on April 17, 1955. This especially became true in 1960 when Topps began issuing cards explicitly designated as "rookie" cards for players who may not have made their MLB debut.

All this nitpicking seems pretty silly to me. The concept of a "rookie card" is a constructed one, basically invented around 1980 when card collectors collectively decided that a player's first card was more desirable than his later cards. There is nothing inherent about any card that makes it a "rookie card"; it's just whatever the community of collectors decides is a rookie card. Topps or Beckett can make rulings, but ultimately that only matters if collectors agree with them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

What about the 1960 Topps Yaz? He did not make his major league debut until 1961, yet as far as I know the 1960 card is universally considered his rookie card, and is treated as such by the market. In the 1950s it was not all that unusual for Topps (and sometimes Bowman) to issue cards of players who had not yet played in the majors, but were expected to. What about the 1954 Topps Aaron? I'm not sure exactly when that card (#128 out of 250) was issued, but he did not make his MLB debut until April 13, 1954. Or 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente, who debuted on April 17, 1955. This especially became true in 1960 when Topps began issuing cards explicitly designated as "rookie" cards for players who may not have made their MLB debut.

All this nitpicking seems pretty silly to me. The concept of a "rookie card" is a constructed one, basically invented around 1980 when card collectors collectively decided that a player's first card was more desirable than his later cards. There is nothing inherent about any card that makes it a "rookie card"; it's just whatever the community of collectors decides is a rookie card. Topps or Beckett can make rulings, but ultimately that only matters if collectors agree with them.

Interesting, I actually knew that about Yaz as many people mistakenly think he overlapped with Ted possibly because he has a 1960 card, but forgot. If you know of other examples from the 50s I would be interested.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting, I actually knew that about Yaz as many people mistakenly think he overlapped with Ted possibly because he has a 1960 card, but forgot. If you know of other examples from the 50s I would be interested.

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

At least they didn't depict them as 17 year olds in street clothes like some of the early 90s Bowman issues.

PS I really should bag this one in favor of the 1990 Tampa card.

[tedzan]

Here's my Jan 1986 SCD. Note the significant difference in $$$$ between the the real Mantle rookie (51B) and the his 2nd year card (52T). A factor of 5 to 1, which Mantle's
52T card's value has over his 51B card in this listing, has been (more or less) consistent since the 1980's.






......The $300 listed in this guide for Rose was really a "buy price" that most dealers were paying in the 1985-1986
timeframe. This card was so "hot" back then it was mind-boggling. Furthermore...."a rising tide lifts all ships"....was very apropo to describe the Rose card's affect on the rising
value of many other "rookie" cards of major BB Stars during the 1980's. It was a really great time to be in this hobby.









TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[MVSNYC]

I actually like his 51 Bowman card, a lot...but, here's my analysis.

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.

But...

His more desirable, more iconic, better looking, better investment card? The 52 Topps. The most important card, in the most important post-war set.

Look at some of the greatest players in history, and their "rookie" cards versus their "best" cards...not always the same, actually often different...

Cobb- T206, Cracker Jack
Joe Jackson- T210, Cracker Jack
Etc.

To me, "rookie" cards started mattering more in the 60's & 70's (and beyond), whereas 50's and pre-war, it's a more complicated formula, which leans towards rarity & beauty, which equates to desirability, and ultimately value.

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Sure, on land.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.


Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Hey Mike

SGC pop reports have approx. the same difference (factor of 1.25)

1951 Bowman = 565

1952 Topps = 470


Take care, good buddy

TED Z

T206 Reference
.