Jackie Robinson/Willie Mays

[G1911]

I would guess Robinson would be more 'card recession proof' than Mays. Mays is a series of great statistics, Robinson is the star feature of a popular narrative that will not fade away from memory as the generation that watched these players unfortunately dies off. Jackie will continue to be talked about by MLB frequently, mentioned in school curriculum's on the Civil Rights Era, and has his number 42 hanging among the retired greats in every stadium. If one cares about investing or selling, Jackie seems to be about as safe a bet as one could possibly make on steady values.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by G1911

... Robinson is the star feature of a popular narrative that will not fade away from memory as the generation that watched these players unfortunately dies off. Jackie will continue to be talked about by MLB frequently, mentioned in school curriculum's on the Civil Rights Era, and has his number 42 hanging among the retired greats in every stadium. If one cares about investing or selling, Jackie seems to be about as safe a bet as one could possibly make on steady values.

Agree completely.
Not even close. Jackie Robinson. I mean, it's not even a comparable thing. It wouldn't matter if Willie Mays had hit 800 homeruns and was elected "Greatest Dude Ever".
Jackie Robinson's social contribution will make him second only to Mickey Mantle and, perhaps, Babe Ruth, in investment potential.

[Phil68]

As I think about it...it's interesting that Mays is so far behind Mantle in terms of desirability. I understand post-seasons and exposure...Yankee mania, blonde hair, blue eyes. That would account for some difference. The difference, however, is astounding. Obviously, we're all thinking race.
I can't fathom another plausible reason for such an amazing disparity.
If Mays had broken the official color barrier--and not Robinson, I believe he'd be comparable to Mantle in terms of prices.

[Mark70Z]

Plausible reason (at least from my perspective) = he’s not very nice off the field. I wouldn’t collect any of his stuff myself just for that reason; doesn’t matter how good he was on the field.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Plausible reason (at least from my perspective) = he’s not very nice off the field. I wouldn’t collect any of his stuff myself just for that reason; doesn’t matter how good he was on the field.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but what, exactly, would be the issue(s)? When did you have your encounter with Willie Mays?

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Phil68

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but what, exactly, would be the issue(s)? When did you have your encounter with Willie Mays?

Each and every time at shows. Sold off stuff collected of his years ago. Also, witnessing him treating others badly as well.

Now, I don’t have a problem with someone else collecting Mays. He was a great player and is still widely collected.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Good conversation, guys! Jackie Robinson is huge in baseball terms, and really transcends the game itself. Mays may have been the most gifted ever, but he somehow doesn't transcend the way Robinson does for most people. Add to that the surly nature Mays often projected, and it seems to diminish his popularity.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

Plausible reason (at least from my perspective) = he’s not very nice off the field. I wouldn’t collect any of his stuff myself just for that reason; doesn’t matter how good he was on the field.

I agree (to an extent; I had to collect Mays for my 1953 Topps project but probably wouldn’t have otherwise). I think Mays outliving Mantle has hurt his collectibility. I’ve heard stories that sometimes Mantle could be a jerk, but they are in the minority, and he hasn’t been a jerk to anyone since 1995. Mays was a jerk to somebody yesterday. Mays is chasing a ghost.

As for OP’s question, Robinson, for the reasons others have mentioned.

[samosa4u]

Mark,

Willie Mays' behavior off the field has nothing to do with the value (or future value) of his cards. Mantle behaved even worse than he did, but people forgave him.

I still think that having only one ring is what hurt Mays the most. It also didn't help that he went to San Francisco. If he had remained in New York and had won five championships, then his cards would definitely be more sought-after today.

I also agree with many of the reasons given here regarding Jackie being the better investment. He will definitely be discussed for a long, long time.

[Gr8Beldini]

"Who was the better player" usually does not drive price. Nor does a player passing away. When a player dies, there might be a little more demand initially, but everybody dies and ultimately that initial price bump will level off. What drives price, more than anything else is "iconic." There is no better example of this than Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente. There aren't 5 players in history that were better players than Hank Aaron, yet Roberto Clemente, an EXACT contempory, will sell at a higher price in almost any set. While Hank is respected for his greatness, Roberto is Revered. It is why Nolan Ryan cards sell for more money than Tom Seaver cards. It is why Bob Gibson cards sell for much more than Juan Marichal cards. Marichal was the better pitcher but not nearly as iconic as Gibson. It is why there is tremendous demand for the rookie card of Steve Dalkowski. Never threw a pitch in the majors but is a legend. Joe Morgan was a significantly better player than his teammate Pete Rose, but in almost any set, Rose's cards sell for more (usually much more). Joe Torre was a better player than Tony Conigliaro but who's cards are more in demand (thereby more expensive). Two teammates Jack Morris (HoFer) vs. Mark Fidrych (one year wonder). Which rookie card will sell for more money? Jackie Robinson was a great player but he wasn't any better than Tim Raines. The demand for Jackie's cards is driven by his status as a cultural icon, not because he was a very good baseball player.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

"Who was the better player" usually does not drive price. Nor does a player passing away. When a player dies, there might be a little more demand initially, but everybody dies and ultimately that initial price bump will level off. What drives price, more than anything else is "iconic." There is no better example of this than Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente. There aren't 5 players in history that were better players than Hank Aaron, yet Roberto Clemente, an EXACT contempory, will sell at a higher price in almost any set. While Hank is respected for his greatness, Roberto is Revered. It is why Nolan Ryan cards sell for more money than Tom Seaver cards. It is why Bob Gibson cards sell for much more than Juan Marichal cards. Marichal was the better pitcher but not nearly as iconic as Gibson. It is why there is tremendous demand for the rookie card of Steve Dalkowski. Never threw a pitch in the majors but is a legend. Joe Morgan was a significantly better player than his teammate Pete Rose, but in almost any set, Rose's cards sell for more (usually much more). Joe Torre was a better player than Tony Conigliaro but who's cards are more in demand (thereby more expensive). Two teammates Jack Morris (HoFer) vs. Mark Fidrych (one year wonder). Which rookie card will sell for more money? Jackie Robinson was a great player but he wasn't any better than Tim Raines. The demand for Jackie's cards is driven by his status as a cultural icon, not because he was a very good baseball player.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=277906

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

" Jackie Robinson was a great player but he wasn't any better than Tim Raines.

This is nowhere near true. While Robinson's numbers alone obviously don't merit legendary status, he still had a career OPS of almost .900 and was a great second baseman. Raines hit with less pop and couldn't catch a cold in the outfield. He was obviously a much better base stealer, but that's it.

Also, Robinson's WAR per season is about the same as Mantle and Aaron. Yeah he didn't do it for as long, but he also missed most of his 20s. It's very debatable how iconic he is, but he was much better than any typical bottom tier HOFer

[MarcosCards]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

It is why there is tremendous demand for the rookie card of Steve Dalkowski. Never threw a pitch in the majors but is a legend.

Woah, this reference sent me on a Google search for information on Mr. Dalkowski. I thought I knew a lot about the 1963 set — but I didn’t know about this “iconic” card.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Mark,

Willie Mays' behavior off the field has nothing to do with the value (or future value) of his cards.

I disagree.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

I disagree.

I also feel the same way, Mark. It's not about Willie's statistics, it's not about Willie's awards, and it's not about Willie's one ring. Again and again and again, Willie Mays's rude, foul, repulsive behavior trumped everything to the little boy living within us collectors---who paid very handsomely to meet Say Hey and get his autographed----only to be treated so poorly, and be stabbed with a excruciatingly bad memory that will last the rest of our lives.

"Hey, I got a '53 Topps Willie Mays in PSA 10 Gem Mint condition! Wanna buy it for $XXX,XXX?

Sorry; I wouldn't want the card if you gave it to me. --- Brian Powell

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Phil68

As I think about it...it's interesting that Mays is so far behind Mantle in terms of desirability. I understand post-seasons and exposure...Yankee mania, blonde hair, blue eyes. That would account for some difference. The difference, however, is astounding. Obviously, we're all thinking race.
I can't fathom another plausible reason for such an amazing disparity.
If Mays had broken the official color barrier--and not Robinson, I believe he'd be comparable to Mantle in terms of prices.

I don’t think it’s race. The big players from the 1950’s who sell far above what their statistics would indicate are Mantle, Robinson, and Clemente. If being white drove card values, Al Kaline, who has about the same career statistical value in the same time at the same position on a probably more popular team would outsell Clemente. Instead Clemente easily triples Kalines values in most releases.


If being a white blonde Yankee drove card values (and there is a price bump for being a Yankee or a Brooklyn Dodger), Whitey Ford would outsell the Jewish Koufax instead of being available for like a fourth of his price.


The mixed race Jeter and Griffey Jr. dominate values in the modern era hobby, even though neithers stats warrant their elevation far above all their contemporaries.


I’ve never met a collector who seeks out blondes, or even white players in general (there are a number of Jewish race-based collectors). I don’t think Mantle collectors are looking at photos of Mickey and Willie, and deciding they don’t like Mays’ skin, so they’ll bid double on Mickey.


Players with great stories sell for more, whether it’s Robinson persevering through injustice, Clemente’s humanitarian work and tragic death, or Mickey’s public struggles both internally and with injuries, drink and sin, a classic American archetype narrative, it raises interest in that player.


Another big factor is that having an iconic card increases value across the board. Griffey is certainly aided in his hobby love by the classic 1989 Upper Deck. The high number 52 Mantle has been a hobby classic since the 70’s and has played a heavy role in making Mantle king of the postwar era. If Mays had been the one in the 6th series, things might have been different.


Mays doesn’t have the narrative, has a reputation as a generally surly man, (Brooks Robinson doesn’t have the narrative either, but his reputation for accommodating fans and being a kind man surely has helped his card hobby), and played for a less popular team that was nowhere near as successful as Mantle’s clubs. It’s also not like Mays is undervalued, he’s right there as the second most expensive non-rookie card in many sets, usually competing with Robinson, Clemente, Ted Williams and Aaron. If hobbyists were racially motivated to buy cards of whites, I don’t think we’d have the majority of the most popular 50’s players in the hobby being black. Mantle, Koufax, Ted Williams, Aaron, Jackie, Mays, and Clemente are generally the most collected players of this period and bring the highest prices. The one set Paige appears in without the rookie factor, he also outsells every white except Mantle.

[brian1961]

Astute observations, G1911, and a truly excellent post. I have noted over the last four decades of the hobby that Willie Mays seldom failed to let a fan down, whereas former players Brooks Robinson, Mickey Mantle, Ernie Banks, Warren Spahn, and several others seldom failed to endear themselves FURTHER at card shows as autograph guests. As you expressed, their kindness, or at least civility, to their adoring fans helped their cards and other items appreciate in value. -- Brian Powell

[mq711]

Willie is the only player I truly PC; team and legacy being the primary reason. As far as race being an issue concerning value, look at the price of various team cards, especially late 50s when Mantle and Mays were both in NY. Talk about difference in price!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Phil68

As I think about it...it's interesting that Mays is so far behind Mantle in terms of desirability. I understand post-seasons and exposure...Yankee mania, blonde hair, blue eyes. That would account for some difference. The difference, however, is astounding. Obviously, we're all thinking race.

I actually think it has less to do with race than it does time and circumstance. When the boomers took the card hobby from an underground thing to mainstream in the late 1970’s / early 80’s - Mantle was their guy. From the getgo, the cards that generation found the most desirable were Mantle over everyone. This has to do with being a Yankee and constantly in the WS, yes. The exposure Mantle got in the 1950’s and early 60’s made him the most recognizable face in baseball, and that is what the people who took the card hobby to new heights had on their minds when they did it.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I actually think it has less to do with race than it does time and circumstance. When the boomers took the card hobby from an underground thing to mainstream in the late 1970’s / early 80’s - Mantle was their guy. From the getgo, the cards that generation found the most desirable were Mantle over everyone. This has to do with being a Yankee and constantly in the WS, yes. The exposure Mantle got in the 1950’s and early 60’s made him the most recognizable face in baseball, and that is what the people who took the card hobby to new heights had on their minds when they did it.

All of this.

It also doesn't hurt that the guy had a top 6 or 8 lifetime position player postwar career of all time and was thought to hit 700 foot HRs. Despite having his knee ripped in half in his rookie season.

[cardsagain74]

I'm not convinced that the "likeability" factor really comes into play that much.

Look at guys like Dimaggio, Ted Williams, Aaron, even Bill Russell. Little positive to say about any of their personalities, but that hasn't really affected their place in history, how revered they are by fans (both past and present), or how much people want their collectibles.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I actually think it has less to do with race than it does time and circumstance. When the boomers took the card hobby from an underground thing to mainstream in the late 1970’s / early 80’s - Mantle was their guy. From the getgo, the cards that generation found the most desirable were Mantle over everyone. This has to do with being a Yankee and constantly in the WS, yes. The exposure Mantle got in the 1950’s and early 60’s made him the most recognizable face in baseball, and that is what the people who took the card hobby to new heights had on their minds when they did it.

This may be a stupid question, but does the fact that Topps dumped pallets of the last series of 1952 Topps, which included Mantle's (sorta) rookie card, into the Hudson River have anything to do with it? The reflected glory of the '52 Mantle, if you will.

[Wihawk]

I think it's quite possible that those who minimize or discount May's post career behavior affecting his card values have never seen him at a signing or just got plain lucky to not see him as his typical rude, surly ass self.

[Volod]

Autograph hunters have to realize that there are among celebrities certain folks who just don't like the hobby and treat people who do with contempt. I recall hearing similar stories about Paul Newman, who once told famed signature collector Ralph Kiner to take a hike during a plane flight. There are quite a few others, and collectors should be aware of them and steer clear. Of course, there is no excuse for celebrities who take payment to appear at signings and then treat fans poorly, especially kids.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

This may be a stupid question, but does the fact that Topps dumped pallets of the last series of 1952 Topps, which included Mantle's (sorta) rookie card, into the Hudson River have anything to do with it? The reflected glory of the '52 Mantle, if you will.

Perhaps, that’s an iconic card with a great story to go with it - but I’m not sure that story was well known in the early 1980’s. I think Mantle was destined to be “the guy” from that era either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk