"IMAGINE" (thank you, John Lennon)....Mickey Mantle's "rookie card"

[Seven]

Ted,

Hope you enjoyed the Memorial Day weekend. I do think it brings up an interesting conversation, can we really consider a card his "Rookie Card" if he wasn't in the majors at the time? The obsession over RC's, was one that was manufactured and has since taken a life of its own, I'm sure you can speak on this matter yourself.

Concerning The Mick, it still boggles my mind, that people are more obsessed with his 1952 Topps, than his true rookie the 1951 Bowman. I think both are fantastic issues, but nothing will ever escape the allure of the 1952 set. As we've all seen it become the premier post war set to collect.

Mantle had quite the year for the Miners in 1950. 199 Hits, 26 Homers, 30 Doubles, while batting an impressive .383 and powering the Miners to win 90 games. Truly a sign of things to come, for one of the best plyers the game has ever seen.

[ksfarmboy]

I’d imagine his Independence card would be worth more seeing how it’s a year older. However, even though the Independence card is technically his first card the Joplin card would be worth more because it’s in color and was hyped as his rookie.

[tedzan]

Eric, Peter, Frank, James, Clint

Interesting commentary on this topic, guys. Thanks for posting.

And, have an enjoyable Memorial Day week.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Seven

Mantle had quite the year for the Miners in 1950. 199 Hits, 26 Homers, 30 Doubles, while batting an impressive .383 and powering the Miners to win 90 games. Truly a sign of things to come, for one of the best plyers the game has ever seen.

A little OT, but Mick signed this ball for my dad that very year, when Joplin was playing in my dad's hometown of Enid, OK. Not sure if the rookie vs pre-rookie debate extends to signed balls too. Doesn't matter, I'm not selling.

[G1911]

As a Minor League card, assuming it came in a minor league set like the 1949 PCL's, it would not be considered a rookie. It would have a lot of value.

The heavy emotional and fiscal investment in his 1951 Bowman and the false 1952 Topps would probably preclude any newly discovered Mantle from being considered his rookie no matter what. This hobby does not favor consistency or discernible facts over investment narratives.

[Eric72]

If a 1950 Mantle existed, and was known during the growth of the hobby 50 or so years ago, the very definition of “rookie card” might be quite different.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

A little OT, but Mick signed this ball for my dad that very year, when Joplin was playing in my dad's hometown of Enid, OK. Not sure if the rookie vs pre-rookie debate extends to signed balls too. Doesn't matter, I'm not selling.

Early Mantle signatures, are typically considered to be more valuable due to how his signature changed over the year, and the scarcity of his signature on older baseballs. The most common Mantle Signature, is his show circut signature, on a Bobby Brown Ball. Value also depends on the location of the signature on the ball, along with any inscription.

That's a beautiful piece of history you have there and one that you will never part with. An heirloom to pass down to the next generation!

[Seven]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

A little OT, but Mick signed this ball for my dad that very year, when Joplin was playing in my dad's hometown of Enid, OK. Not sure if the rookie vs pre-rookie debate extends to signed balls too. Doesn't matter, I'm not selling.

Early Mantle signatures, are typically considered to be more valuable due to how his signature changed over the year, and the scarcity of his signature on older baseballs. The most common Mantle Signature, is his show circut signature, on a Bobby Brown Ball. Value also depends on the location of the signature on the ball, along with any inscription.

That's a beautiful piece of history you have there and one that you will never part with. An heirloom to pass down to the next generation!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Seven

Early Mantle signatures, are typically considered to be more valuable due to how his signature changed over the years.....

James

I remember having Mickey sign this card for me in the early 1980's. I guess that would be considered a relatively recent signature ?

What say you ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by tedzan

James

I remember having Mickey sign this card for me in the early 1980's. I guess that would be considered a relatively recent signature ?

What say you ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Hello Ted,

I'm assuming you're talking about the card you originally made the thread about? In any case, you would be correct, by the 1980's Mantle had perfected this look of his signature



While in 1950, Mantle's signature was very different by the standards we have come to know it by.



Sports collectors digest put out a very in-depth article detailing the history and changes of his signature. It's a great read, I will link it below!

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/a...ture-autograph