Ted Williams

[Aaron Seefeldt]

He wasn’t in the early Topps “glamor” sets, that possibly contributes. He is on the very short list of best hitters of all time. As mentioned, he missed a lot of time to serve in WW2 & Korea so his counting stats were affected dramatically.

[CW]

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

He wasn’t in the early Topps “glamor” sets, that possibly contributes.

Funny you refer to them using that term, as one thing most can agree on is that his 1955 & '56 Topps have to rank among the most glamorous of the decade. The '57 ain't too shabby, either. Man, that guy could pose for a card! The '54 Wilson's is a work of art.

[swarmee]

I think it's also possible that his 1959 Fleer set and his sticking around as a manager makes it cheaper to get a vintage/playing days card of Ted for dollars rather than tens or hundreds at a minimum.

[Carter08]

Not being in 52 or 53 Topps, playing in Boston instead of NYC, and being perceived as surly probably all go into being valued but not being explosively valued.

[jsfriedm]

I know that it generally doesn't make sense to imagine that players who we might consider "undervalued" will suddenly be appreciated more by collectors decades after their retirement (F.Robinson, Hornsby, Speaker, Collins, etc.) but occasionally it does happen (I remember when the Koufax rookie was worth more than the Clemente, for example). To connect this to a previous thread then, I think there is a reasonable chance that Ted Williams' cards on average appreciate more in percentage terms (not necessarily absolute terms) than Mantle cards from this point forward. His numbers do look better on the page (screen), esp with advanced metrics, and I wonder if his narrative - war hero, tortured genius, renegade, advocate of Negro Leaguers in the HOF, won't age better than Mantle's - country boy, matinee idol, drunk philanderer, what-if-he-had-been-healthy - with future generations. Thoughts?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it's more that Joe D. is overpriced.

I find this interesting because I know Net54 has previously discussed whether Dimaggio is undervalued. I believe the consensus was Dimaggio is properly valued due to his stand offish nature, he didn't endear himself to the early collectors that built the modern hobby. That core of early collectors still have influence in the hobby how players are perceived value wise. I think Mantle is a good example of a player who receives more attention than necessary in direct comparison with his peers.

I would like to hear more about being overpriced.

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

.... and I wonder if his narrative - war hero, tortured genius, renegade, advocate of Negro Leaguers in the HOF, won't age better than Mantle's - country boy, matinee idol, drunk philanderer, what-if-he-had-been-healthy - with future generations. Thoughts?

I think this opinion carries weight. It needs to be brought by Hollywood or social influencers...or a combination of both. Jackie Robinson being taught to all grade school students didn't really push the needle on his prices until the bio-pic came out a decade ago. My high school students who didn't care about baseball watched the movie because of its social justice perspective.

I'm not sure if Hollywood could write a story that would make an old white man look important like that. American patriot hasn't been a #1 seller since "Saving Private Ryan" / Brokaws "Greatest Generation" / and O'Briens "The Things They Carried."

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm not sure if Hollywood could write a story that would make an old white man look important like that.

How about a half Mexican man? (Ted was)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by todeen

I would like to hear more about being overpriced.

Let's pick a commonly available set with both in it that aren't rookies. How about 1941 Play Ball?

Since everyone loves PSA and it's easy I'll just link and use them: https://www.psacard.com/priceguide/b...play-ball/1111

In a 7, everything over $500:
DiMaggio $19,000 (high, commons 20% more)
Williams $4,000
Reese $3,250 (Rookie card boost, high with commons 20% more)
Foxx $1,000
Gomez $650 (last card in set boost, high with commons 20% more)
Greenberg $600
Ott $545

Is Williams being 600% more than Hank Greenberg undervalued? Is being 400% more than Foxx undervalued? No. The outlier is that Dimaggio is heavily overpriced relative to performance. Just like Mantle, people say basically every single big player is undervalued because they are comparing to Mantle. The problem is the single outlier.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Carter08

being perceived as surly probably all go into being valued but not being explosively valued.

He was always leaps and bounds better than the sour, offish DiMaggio. Ted did have a huge ego, but was still capable of friendliness if he felt like it. DiMaggio was practically incapable.

[puckpaul]

Well, if he is undervalued, good chance to scoop up his cards. (Good ones don’t seem to go that cheap to me).

My favorites: 41 Paper issue (color just pops on these), wilson wiener, and 39 Goudey premium. I like the Leaf too, but don’t have one yet.