Ted Williams

[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)

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

How about a half Mexican man? (Ted was)

I think that would be a stretch. In what historical corner has Ted Williams been held up as a beacon for minorities? I did a Google search, and this was one of the first results - "Ted Williams Hid His Mexican Heritage."

Compared to Jackie Robinson, it's not the same.

https://baseballegg.com/2022/01/12/t...ican-heritage/

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Baseball Rarities]

Chris - I love that image of Willams.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Chris - I love that image of Willams.

..

..

..

...except in 1947 an editor at Sports Exchange thought Bobby Doerr was the cat's pajamas and the bee's knees.

..

[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.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Those aren’t correct prices. You cant use the price guide.

Dimaggio: $18-19k up from $4k in 18-19
Williams: $7k in 2/23 up from $5-6k 2021 and $2-3k 18-19 but few have traded
Greenberg: $1900 3/21 last trade, was $800 20/21 and $500 prior
Foxx: $700 last in 20/21, few traded non recently
Reese: $3500 2/21 and $2300 2020

[G1911]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Those aren’t correct prices. You cant use the price guide.

Dimaggio: $18-19k up from $4k in 18-19
Williams: $7k in 2/23 up from $5-6k 2021 and $2-3k 18-19 but few have traded
Greenberg: $1900 3/21 last trade, was $800 20/21 and $500 prior
Foxx: $700 last in 20/21, few traded non recently
Reese: $3500 2/21 and $2300 2020

Okay, we'll use these.

Does Williams being 300% of Greenberg seem undervalued? Does being 1,000% of Foxx make Williams seem undervalued?

What's the outlier here, relative to performance? It's Dimaggio.

[packs]

I actually think DiMaggio is underrated in most cases and that his stats don't get the respect they should. He put up huge home run totals hitting from the right side at Yankee Stadium, which was very difficult to do in his time. His power was immense but it's overlooked because he didn't hit 500 home runs.

DiMaggio is still 14 all time in career slugging and his 46 home runs in 1937 were the most by a Yankees right handed hitter until A-rod hit 48 in 2005, 70 years later.

I only know Ted Williams' reputation from late in life card shows, but he was not what I would call "beloved" by people. I remember him setting up at a Gloria Rothstein show in the 90s with Mantle and DiMaggio and I was surprised at how small Ted's line was.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

In my opinion when we're talking 1941 Play Ball, the 'swinging' Dimaggio pose is a much better looking card than the Williams 'head shot'. They both had a monster year in '41, but Dimaggio's swinging pose adds value because it's a classic image.

[jbsports33]

I collect Ted stuff, it’s challenging and fun!

Jimmy

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

In my opinion when we're talking 1941 Play Ball, the 'swinging' Dimaggio pose is a much better looking card than the Williams 'head shot'. They both had a monster year in '41, but Dimaggio's swinging pose adds value because it's a classic image.

Which set would you like to use?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Which set would you like to use?

They are both in Leaf, how do those compare?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They are both in Leaf, how do those compare?

DiMaggio multiples of Williams per PSA, 2-5x depending on grade https://www.psacard.com/priceguide/b...1948-leaf/1115

Happy to use any pricing source people like. We will find the same thing; Dimaggio outsells Williams and Williams outsells the players he was better than other than Dimaggio. The outlier being Dimaggio.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Originally Posted by G1911

DiMaggio multiples of Williams per PSA, 2-5x depending on grade https://www.psacard.com/priceguide/b...1948-leaf/1115

Happy to use any pricing source people like. We will find the same thing; Dimaggio outsells Williams and Williams outsells the players he was better than other than Dimaggio. The outlier being Dimaggio.

I'm going to say Williams was a better hitter than Mantle and Mantle outsells him (and everyone else from that era) by a lot

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They are both in Leaf, how do those compare?

48/49 Leaf provides the most fair comparison for Dimaggio vs Williams prices that I can think of. It controls for numerous factors that might otherwise affect price differences, like both being from a very popular and widely collected set, both having effectively the same PSA pop report (~1100 ea), neither being rookie cards, and both having very similar poses.

The Dimaggio sells at about a 20% premium over the Williams in grades 3 through 5, and a bit more in the higher grades, although the data is more sparse and less reliable as you move up the grading ladder.

Here are mine side by side. I just received my Williams back from grading today. It was a PSA 3 when I bought it. Interestingly, I paid $3700 for my PSA 3 Ted Williams and only $1500 for my SGC Dimaggio.

Oh, and don't get me started about SGC not being able to place the cards in the same spot of their slabs... Arrrggggh!

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Snowman

48/49 Leaf provides the most fair comparison for Dimaggio vs Williams prices that I can think of. It controls for numerous factors that might otherwise affect price differences, like both being from a very popular and widely collected set, both having effectively the same PSA pop report (~1100 ea), neither being rookie cards, and both having very similar poses.

The Dimaggio sells at about a 20% premium over the Williams in grades 3 through 5, and a bit more in the higher grades, although the data is more sparse and less reliable as you move up the grading ladder.

Here are mine side by side. I just received my Williams back from grading today. It was a PSA 3 when I bought it. Interestingly, I paid $3700 for my PSA 3 Ted Williams and only $1500 for my SGC Dimaggio.

Oh, and don't get me started about SGC not being able to place the cards in the same spot of their slabs... Arrrggggh!

Those Williams and DiMaggio Leafs are stunning with very tight centering, I’d expect nothing less from your collection!

[refz]

1954 #250

[Chuck9788]

No one ever talks about Ted Williams' defensive prowess.

Was he average, above average or below average as a fielder?

[daves_resale_shop]

The Ted Wall.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by G1911

Which set would you like to use?

Greg.........There might not be a good set for comparison . I just think the '41 TW card is not very attractive. Just my opinion. Maybe something basic like a c. 1950 exhibit card in high grade would be a good test?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

Greg.........There might not be a good set for comparison . I just think the '41 TW card is not very attractive. Just my opinion. Maybe something basic like a c. 1950 exhibit card in high grade would be a good test?

They have it as 2X-5X https://www.psacard.com/priceguide/b...-exhibits/1106

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

In my opinion when we're talking 1941 Play Ball, the 'swinging' Dimaggio pose is a much better looking card than the Williams 'head shot'. They both had a monster year in '41, but Dimaggio's swinging pose adds value because it's a classic image.

I hate that card lol. Pinhead shot of Dimaggio that is always blurry and if you look at it closely is all distorted and barely looks like him.

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I hate that card lol. Pinhead shot of Dimaggio that is always blurry and if you look at it closely is all distorted and barely looks like him.

Nice registration is a must on this card.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I hate that card lol. Pinhead shot of Dimaggio that is always blurry and if you look at it closely is all distorted and barely looks like him.

Peter.............^^^ That card's a classic!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

Peter.............^^^ That card's a classic!

LOL Matt I know. But look at his face close up, it's a mess. He looks ghoulish.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL Matt I know. But look at his face close up, it's a mess.

I disagree, he just connected for a 3 run HR. He's smiling as the ball is sailing over the center field wall (he just hasn't dropped the bat yet as he's showing up the pitcher).

[CW]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

Peter.............^^^ That card's a classic!

I thought the same thing! When Peter started out with, "I hate that card...", I thought he was going to talk about the Ted Williams card.

I get it, though, Peter -- once you see something in a card or an image, it's hard to unsee it.

In a similar way, I've always thought the smiling portrait on Mickey Mantle's 1956 Topps card looked weird, yet for many collectors it's their favorite Mantle card.

BTW, here is the original image used for the Play Ball DiMaggio for both the 1940 and 1941 Play Ball sets. You can see where the baseball card lost a good amount of the sharpness and detail in the image. It also shows a little better why Joe has that expression. [this is not my photo, but was borrowed from a prior Leland's auction]



And here's a comparison with Dean's nicely registered example (cool card, Dean):

[Brian]

I like the exhibits, especially when signed by him.