PSA 9 52 Topps Mantle sells for $5.2M

[Seven]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Not EVEN a true Rookie Card. I wouldn't waste my time.

As luck (and reality) would have it, my finances preclude the possibility of such a purchase, so I can rag on it with conviction.


.

I mean, If I had the Money I'd buy it. It's an iconic card of the Hobby. Sure it's not his true rookie, but the 52 Topps set is beautiful, combined with the lore of the card and the fact that it is a Mantle. I outlined how I felt above, I simply think the price is absurd because I can't even comprehend 5.2 Million Dollars, because that's probably more than I'll make in my entire life.

That being said, if I was an eccentric Billionaire you bet everything in the world, that my PC would be insane.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Seven

I mean, If I had the Money I'd buy it. It's an iconic card of the Hobby. Sure it's not his true rookie, but the 52 Topps set is beautiful, combined with the lore of the card and the fact that it is a Mantle. I outlined how I felt above, I simply think the price is absurd because I can't even comprehend 5.2 Million Dollars, because that's probably more than I'll make in my entire life.

That being said, if I was an eccentric Billionaire you bet everything in the world, that my PC would be insane.

In my opinion the 1952 Topps set is not beautiful and the Mantle is the ugliest card ever made. Who uses a yellow painted bat? The only reason the card has value is because Topps printed so few high numbers. Put it in a low series and it is no different than the 1953 Topps Mantle or any of his other Topps cards.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by rats60

In my opinion the 1952 Topps set is not beautiful and the Mantle is the ugliest card ever made. Who uses a yellow painted bat? The only reason the card has value is because Topps printed so few high numbers. Put it in a low series and it is no different than the 1953 Topps Mantle or any of his other Topps cards.

Difference of opinion. I love the way it looks, I think it's beautiful. I know why it has value between Mantle, the fact it's a high number and the fact that half of them were apparently dumped into the Ocean. I always spend time admiring The small amount of 52 Topps in my collection, as I really like the art.

I do think 53 is the nicer set overall. The early 50s bowman sets too, are rally enjoyable to me as well.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by rats60

The only reason the card has value is because Topps printed so few high numbers.

Card is a DP. There are lots of them out there.

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

The high price for this Mantle gives me reason to believe many other cards will/are also on their way up in price.

Absolutely!

And guys, please, let's not start the "when the boomers die" debate because it makes no sense. Most people who buy Mantles now never saw him play. Furthermore, who watched Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth play? And yet everybody wants their cards! Legends live forever!

[packs]

It's not so much about boomers dying as it is where the taste of collectors is heading. The prior generation had a huge appreciation for certain players and certain sets. You cannot say that those interests will hold when the modern market is evolving so quickly and steers collectors away from those interests.

For example, and as a microcosm of changing hobby appetites, the complete set has taken a back seat to the insert.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by packs

It's not so much about boomers dying as it is where the taste of collectors is heading. The prior generation had a huge appreciation for certain players and certain sets. You cannot say that those interests will hold when the modern market is evolving so quickly and steers collectors away from those interests.

For example, and as a microcosm of changing hobby appetites, the complete set has taken a back seat to the insert.

This seems plausible to me. I'm 44, and our generation by and large had some connection to the previous one - the bands they listened to, the players they watched, etc. The Beatles and the Stones were still a part of our world, as were Mickey, Willie and Hank.

I don't get that sense from the next generation. It seems like the link to the past has been pretty much severed, and things from before their lifetimes hold very little interest or relevance. Of course this is a huge generalization, but I do think there's something to it. I would imagine the pace of technological change has a lot to do with it.

EDIT: I thought of another example - TV shows. When I was growing up, reruns of shows from the ‘50s and ‘60s were common on networks like Nickelodeon. I don’t think that happens much now, what with the massive amounts of new content available. I know Friends is still popular with young people, but I think that’s the standard nostalgia for things from their childhood, rather than something being relevant that came before their lifetimes.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by ASF123

This seems plausible to me. I'm 44, and our generation by and large had some connection to the previous one - the bands they listened to, the players they watched, etc. The Beatles and the Stones were still a part of our world, as were Mickey, Willie and Hank.

I don't get that sense from the next generation. It seems like the link to the past has been pretty much severed, and things from before their lifetimes hold very little interest or relevance. Of course this is a huge generalization, but I do think there's something to it. I would imagine the pace of technological change has a lot to do with it.

EDIT: I thought of another example - TV shows. When I was growing up, reruns of shows from the ‘50s and ‘60s were common on networks like Nickelodeon. I don’t think that happens much now, what with the massive amounts of new content available. I know Friends is still popular with young people, but I think that’s the standard nostalgia for things from their childhood, rather than something being relevant that came before their lifetimes.

I think that's a very accurate description. Most of the Millennial and Post Millennial generations are very much only concerned with the "Here and Now." It's certainly a cultural shift, I blame social media partially for it. The only History they seem concerned with are things that happened right around the time they were born, or "manufactured Nostalgia" as I like to call it. We see this with certain brands or clothing items taking off after appearing in a Television show. It's a generalization sure, but I'd say 9/10 teenagers I work with fit this mold.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Seven

I think that's a very accurate description. Most of the Millennial and Post Millennial generations are very much only concerned with the "Here and Now." It's certainly a cultural shift, I blame social media partially for it. The only History they seem concerned with are things that happened right around the time they were born, or "manufactured Nostalgia" as I like to call it. We see this with certain brands or clothing items taking off after appearing in a Television show. It's a generalization sure, but I'd say 9/10 teenagers I work with fit this mold.

No disrespect but this perspective is as old as it is stale. Literally every generation has said the same thing about the next, mostly because it appreciates things differently and that has always made an old person mad for whatever reason there is to be mad that young people's opinions are different.

My point was about hobby trends. There is no reason whatsoever for the 52 Mantle to be the card it is. Boomers have just decided it is so. But you can't depend on that notion continuing forever when you're talking about a crop of collectors who will have their own version of Mantle to collect (Mike Trout).

We're already seeing collecting trends change, probably forever. Whereas the Topps Rookie was an all important card in the past, now it is Bowman that is king. Again, simple example of a widening trend. Look at the big cards of guys who came into their own as my generation grew up:

Griffey - it's Upper Deck, not Topps
Jeter - it's SP, not Topps
Ichiro - it's SPX, not Topps
Pujols - it's Bowman, not Topps
Trout - it's Bowman, not Topps

[Exhibitman]

Rob Gough? I had to look him up.

I'm all for it, if you have the money and it makes you happy, enjoy it.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Rob Gough? I had to look him up.

I'm all for it, if you have the money and it makes you happy, enjoy it.

https://www.si.com/mlb/video/2021/01...-mickey-mantle

[russkcpa]

Originally Posted by rats60

In my opinion the 1952 Topps set is not beautiful and the Mantle is the ugliest card ever made. Who uses a yellow painted bat? The only reason the card has value is because Topps printed so few high numbers. Put it in a low series and it is no different than the 1953 Topps Mantle or any of his other Topps cards.

You're right Rats.....wish I had never bought my 52 PSA 7 and PSA 6 Mantle cards all those years ago. My1979 OPC Gretzky PSA 9 is ugly too with that ridiculous dot on his sweater. My 1966 Bobby Orr PSA 7 is a joke with his image in a TV set and my 1957 Bill Russell PSA 7 has a just a horrible image of him. I should have collected coins

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by russkcpa

You're right Rats.....wish I had never bought my 52 PSA 7 and PSA 6 Mantle cards all those years ago. My1979 OPC Gretzky PSA 9 is ugly too with that ridiculous dot on his sweater. My 1966 Bobby Orr PSA 7 is a joke with his image in a TV set and my 1957 Bill Russell PSA 7 has a just a horrible image of him. I should have collected coins

It's not too late. If you want I can take those lousy cards off your hands in return for my penny collection. Guaranteed to be worth every cent.