The 1952 Topps Mantle is Overpriced and Over-hyped

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Well, guys, I was born in the early 70s. Do I own a '52 Mantle? Nope. Would I like to someday? You betcha. I love the way it looks and have always admired it, irrespective of its value. From my vantage point, it is a very desirable baseball card in a set I happen to like.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[pokerplyr80]

Couldn't agree more Matt. Every time a thread like this comes up the haters come out. The card's iconic status hasn't changed in the 40+ years since this article was published, and it won't be changing any time soon.

And as Matt said if you think they're too common, try to find a centered example with decent eye appeal.

These are my two favorite cards in my collection.

[profholt82]

Now that's a great pic, Jesse. As great as the 52T Mantle is, I've always preferred the 51B. As a kid in the 80s, new to card collecting, it was all about the 52T, I'd see pictures of it, and I remember a feature story on it in Beckett. My uncle complained that he had one as a kid, but my grandma threw it out when he left for college. Haha, who hasn't heard a similar story? Beyond the T206 Wagner, I dont know that there's a more ubiquitous card when people think of the hobby.

But all of that said, I didn't even know about the 51B until years after I got into collecting when I found out it was his true rookie. People had always said the 52 was his rookie, and I had never questioned it. But when I first saw that 51B, I fell in love. What an amazing looking card. I think it looks so much better than the 52. Don't get me wrong, the 52T is an amazing card, and a cornerstone card for the hobby, but it will always be second fiddle to his 51B rookie to me. It's one of my all time favorite cards in the entire hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am not at all a hater, but it has always surprised me that in a hobby so consumed with rookie cards, a second year Card has achieved the stature it has.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am not at all a hater, but it has always surprised me that in a hobby so consumed with rookie cards, a second year Card has achieved the stature it has.

Being the most iconic card of one of the most iconic sets of all time certainly helps. While unusual it's not the only example. I remember a thread from a few years back in this very subject, second year cards worth more than rookies. Most other examples were due to the popularity of the issue or condition sensitivity (Thurman Munson).

And yes Matt that 51 Mantle won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I do personally feel the card is undervalued and have considered adding another. Even if I do, I will keep this one too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Being the most iconic card of one of the most iconic sets of all time certainly helps. While unusual it's not the only example. I remember a thread from a few years back in this very subject, second year cards worth more than rookies. Most other examples were due to the popularity of the issue or condition sensitivity (Thurman Munson).

And yes Matt that 51 Mantle won't be going anywhere anytime soon. I do personally feel the card is undervalued and have considered adding another. Even if I do, I will keep this one too.

Right, but compare it to the 52T Mays, also a second year card and while of course popular, not remotely in the same price class as Mantle. Not a high number, but Mantle being a double print makes up for a lot of that. I think it's hard to explain objectively. It's just one of those things.

[pokerplyr80]

True, I have no idea when it started, but at some point collectors decided that was the card to have. I'm sure similar arguments could be made about the t206 Wagner. He has cards issued earlier, and others that are more rare.

They're so iconic that many not in the hobby have heard of them. Perhaps similar to that stamp with the upside down air plane. I have never collected stamps and probably never will, but I've heard of that one. And if I was only going to buy one, that's the one I'd want.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Go for it.

Inverted Jenny
Nature of rarity Invert error
No. in existence 100
Face value 24 US¢
Estimated value US $1,593,000

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

True, I have no idea when it started, but at some point collectors decided that was the card to have...

There was a copy which sold at auction for $3,000 around 1980. It was a mainstream news story which greatly increased the popularity of baseball card collecting.

This was a tremendous amount of amount of money for a card which was (at that point) less than 30 years old. It sent many people scrambling to find their childhood collection, visions of dollar signs dancing in their minds.

The hobby took a meteoric rise throughout the 80s, with this card being top-of-mind for many new collectors. That "first impression" has proven to be quite a lasting one.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Couldn't agree more Matt. Every time a thread like this comes up the haters come out. The card's iconic status hasn't changed in the 40+ years since this article was published, and it won't be changing any time soon.

And as Matt said if you think they're too common, try to find a centered example with decent eye appeal.

These are my two favorite cards in my collection.

Thanks, Jesse. And I agree. You hang a lantern on a great point. To many guys who collect, there are certain cards we love— and then there are centered examples of those cards. This is true whether it is a Goudey Ruth, e121 Ruth, m101 Ruth, e90-1 Jackson, d304 Cobb, or a 51-69 Bowman/Topps Mantle.

In the case of the 51B, anyone who thinks that card is common is speciously assuming the buyer wants ANY copy. But try finding a copy that is centered and focused. Entirely different ballgame. So many examples of that card are plagued by focus and registration issues, in addition to horrific centering.

In the case of the 1952 Topps Mantle, finding "a" copy is not hard. Finding one with centering like the one pictured below? Very hard. Most 1952 Mantles are very poorly centered. There was even that find a few years back of 5 copies, including one that graded out an 8.5— not one of them centered. Bottom line, certain cards centered are extremely rare, no matter the data of the "gen pop." That is precisely why the market evolved and there is now a massive premium for eye appeal and centering on certain cards.

PS: Jesse, glad to see my old 51B is loved and has stayed in one place all those years. I remember what seems like ages and ages ago, when I got that card at a Lew Lipset auction.

[Exhibitman]

When I was considering a 1952 Topps Mantle I had a lot of thoughts apart from the aesthetics of the card itself (FWIW, I think the card is really nice looking in the full border around the logo box version, but I understand that others may find the Flexichrome work to be lacking). What it boiled down to for me is: One of a handful of iconic players, Yankees dynasty, high # card from the most important postwar set, with what is now a fifty-year history of value behind it. With all that I don't see how the card is undesirable. We can debate price points but the overall premise of the OP amounts to picking an argument over the existence of gravity.