Most undervalued HOFers

[Balticfox]

Adam Warshaw has dealt thoughtfully with this exact topic in his blog:

Why Mantle? - Adam's Card Blog

Overall though when it comes to cards in general I'll make two points:

1. Rookie cards are tremendously overrated and thus overpriced. I'm more interested in a player's most aesthetically pleasing card than in his rookie card.

2. Unmarked checklists are tougher and thus more exciting to find than are any stars.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

1. Rookie cards are tremendously overrated and thus overpriced. I'm more interested in a player's most aesthetically pleasing card than in his rookie card.

True, and I'll go you one more - how about a card from a best or key year in a player's career? To me this often a more important tie-in to baseball history than something just being a player's first card.

For example, I love the '61 Clemente, which I'm guessing for some is not the most popular choice. I like how it looks, but it's also from the first season he won a batting title - and actually, his first Gold Glove.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

True, and I'll go you one more - how about a card from a best or key year in a player's career? To me this often a more important tie-in to baseball history than something just being a player's first card.

That's a point my card collecting buddy from the early 1960's raised some 35-40 years ago. My reply at the time was that since a player's rookie card was his oldest card, it also tended to be his scarcest. That's how I think this whole rookie card thing started anyway but these days it's just silly.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

For example, I love the '61 Clemente, which I'm guessing for some is not the most popular choice. I like how it looks, but it's also from the first season he won a batting title - and actually, his first Gold Glove.

To me the aesthetics of a sports card is a combination of three things:

1. The player's pose. Head shots I hate.
2. The design of that year's cards. For example, I much prefer the 1959, 1960 and 1963 Topps Baseball cards to the 1961 Topps Baseball cards.
3. The team for which the athlete played although that's not as strong a factor as the first two.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

That's a point my card collecting buddy from the early 1960's raised some 35-40 years ago. My reply at the time was that since a player's rookie card was his oldest card, it also tended to be his scarcest. That's how I think this whole rookie card thing started anyway but these days it's just silly.



To me the aesthetics of a sports card is a combination of three things:

1. The player's pose. Head shots I hate.
2. The design of that year's cards. For example, I much prefer the 1959, 1960 and 1963 Topps Baseball cards to the 1961 Topps Baseball cards.
3. The team for which the athlete played although that's not as strong a factor as the first two.

Yep. I go back and forth on head shots. Certainly when more action oriented stuff came about in the early 70's, that was a departure and I'm sure was preferable to many. I do like if posed, at least more of a profile or bat included shot - the '58 Clemente is a good example of this.

But I don't hate head shots / Topps profiles. In some cases it was cool to get a glimpse of the player close up. The '58 Ted Williams is one I just love because of that; he looks pissed at the world. It's like "wow, this is what Ted really must be like."

As a kid, with no knowledge of hobby history or set rarity or anything, I gravitated towards the idea that the older the card was, the better. Thus by this logic, a 1952 Topps Duke Snider was worth much more than a 1956 Topps Duke Snider - even if I really liked 56's and would have maybe objectively come to the conclusion on my own that it was the better card. I don't think that way anymore, lol.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

But I don't hate head shots / Topps profiles. In some cases it was cool to get a glimpse of the player close up. The '58 Ted Williams is one I just love because of that; he looks pissed at the world.

(Not mine.)

Maybe Manager Joe Cronin just finished reminding Williams that half the game was fielding.

Or the Red Sox' new hitting coach started talking to him about launch angles and exit velocities....

Originally Posted by jchcollins

As a kid, with no knowledge of hobby history or set rarity or anything, I gravitated towards the idea that the older the card was, the better. Thus by this logic, a 1952 Topps Duke Snider was worth much more than a 1956 Topps Duke Snider - even if I really liked 56's and would have maybe objectively come to the conclusion on my own that it was the better card.

Oh yeah! As kids it was very much the case that older meant rarer. When in the late spring of 1963 a buddy and I decided to collect any and all cards, any cards older than 1960-61 Hockey cards were already scarce. So while we had hundreds of 1961 Baseball cards, finding any 1960 Baseball cards at all was an exciting event. And pre-1957 Baseball cards were a complete curiousity. I'm not sure we managed to acquire even a dozen 1952-56 Topps Baseball cards out of the something like the 6500 cards we accumulated in the next 2 1/2 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Maybe Manager Joe Cronin just finished reminding Williams that half the game was fielding.

Or the Red Sox' new hitting coach started talking to him about launch angles and exit velocities....





Oh yeah! As kids it was very much the case that older meant rarer. When in the late spring of 1963 a buddy and I decided to collect any and all cards, any cards older than 1960-61 Hockey cards were already scarce. So while we had hundreds of 1961 Baseball cards, finding any 1960 Baseball cards at all was an exciting event. And pre-1957 Baseball cards were a complete curiousity. I'm not sure we managed to acquire even a dozen 1952-56 Topps Baseball cards out of the something like the 6500 cards we accumulated in the next 2 1/2 years.

Interesting. I had sort of the opposite experience. My brothers and I first started buying 1965 Topps, but we ended up having a ton of earlier cards all the way back to 1952, whether from the kid across the street whose older brother had left him a massive collection, or my parents' friends who knew we collected and gave us their (older) kids' old collections, or trading with friends who had acquired them in probably similar ways.

No one gave a thought to value of course. I remember my girlfriend in high school had a little sister who loved baseball, so I gave her maybe 5 each of Mantle and Mays, we had dozens.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting. I had sort of the opposite experience. My brothers and I first started buying 1965 Topps, but we ended up having a ton of earlier cards all the way back to 1952, whether from the kid across the street whose older brother had left him a massive collection, or my parents' friends who knew we collected and gave us their (older) kids' old collections, or trading with friends who had acquired them in probably similar ways.

No one gave a thought to value of course. I remember my girlfriend in high school had a little sister who loved baseball, so I gave her maybe 5 each of Mantle and Mays, we had dozens.

See, the thread you didn’t want to exist at first brought you down a wonderful memory lane!

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I had sort of the opposite experience. My brothers and I first started buying 1965 Topps, but we ended up having a ton of earlier cards all the way back to 1952, whether from the kid across the street whose older brother had left him a massive collection, or my parents' friends who knew we collected and gave us their (older) kids' old collections, or trading with friends who had acquired them in probably similar ways.

No one gave a thought to value of course. I remember my girlfriend in high school had a little sister who loved baseball, so I gave her maybe 5 each of Mantle and Mays, we had dozens.

Should I therefore understand that these cards you had then went by the wayside somehow and you no longer have them?

I turned my half of the card hoard we'd accumulated over to my buddy Anthony a few months after I'd been packed off to a boarding school in Kennebunkport, Maine for ninth grade in 1965. Once Anthony finished grade school himself in the spring of 1966, he turned over the cards which he'd lovingly filed in order in a large cardboard box to young Billy across the street thinking that Billy would continue carrying the torch and further build the collection. Not so. Billy just scrambled the contents of the box for the other kids in the neighbourhood right in front of Anthony's horrified eyes!

Given the sad though self-inflicted denouement to our/his collection, Anthony can't stomach the thought of spending even a dime on cards these days. He does still collect Shirriff Hockey coins since he still has the ones he got as a kid. And of course he enjoys looking through my card binders.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

(Not mine.)

Maybe Manager Joe Cronin just finished reminding Williams that half the game was fielding.

Or the Red Sox' new hitting coach started talking to him about launch angles and exit velocities....





Oh yeah! As kids it was very much the case that older meant rarer. When in the late spring of 1963 a buddy and I decided to collect any and all cards, any cards older than 1960-61 Hockey cards were already scarce. So while we had hundreds of 1961 Baseball cards, finding any 1960 Baseball cards at all was an exciting event. And pre-1957 Baseball cards were a complete curiousity. I'm not sure we managed to acquire even a dozen 1952-56 Topps Baseball cards out of the something like the 6500 cards we accumulated in the next 2 1/2 years.

LOL on Williams.

Yep. I started buying wax with 1986 Topps baseball, after having been introduced to the trading card medium the year before with what else? Garbage Pail Kids!

Only the "older kids" even had '85 Topps baseball, which they did not want to give up. I only acquired "older" cards like that later, as perhaps an 11 yo in 1988.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yep. I go back and forth on head shots. Certainly when more action oriented stuff came about in the early 70's, that was a departure and I'm sure was preferable to many. I do like if posed, at least more of a profile or bat included shot - the '58 Clemente is a good example of this.

But I don't hate head shots / Topps profiles. In some cases it was cool to get a glimpse of the player close up.

Speaking of head shots, the most appalling display of these occurred in the 1964-65 Topps Hockey which was the first sport card set to come out as "tall boys". They weren't actually very popular with kids in the schoolyard despite being the first Hockey set in a decade to include all six NHL teams. First of all, the first series was priced at a dime a pack (at least in the neighbourhood variety stores in my corner of London, Ontario). Moreover the cards were too long to easily fit in a kid's pockets.

But the tall boy format of these cards lent itself splendidly to the proportions of the human body and this was in full evidence in the first series:



Of the 53 non-Checklist first series cards, only eight were less than fantastic full body shots and four of these were coaches anyway. But an atrocious 43 out of 55 cards from the second series featured truly wretched head shots:



Because the first series didn't sell very well, O-Pee-Chee's production run for the second series was comparatively small. As a result, second series cards are a lot tougher to find these days than those from the first series. Moreover quite a few cards were shortprinted on the second series sheet. While I still need six of the shortprints from the second series to complete my set, I'm disinclined to pay the price those ugly head shots command these days. I'd rather spend my money on better looking cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Speaking of head shots, the most appalling display of these occurred in the 1964-65 Topps Hockey which was the first sport card set to come out as "tall boys".

I wonder why baseball was never done in the true "tall boy" format. I guess because the '64 Topps Giants had come out and were never really super popular...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Adam Warshaw has dealt thoughtfully with this exact topic in his blog:

Why Mantle? - Adam's Card Blog

Yes, & this was great.

You seem to see more of the "Why Mantle?" still being played out over in other forums like Blowout, where the vintage audience is ostensibly younger and still learning.

I think the '52 Topps does have a lot to do with it. Much like Burdick and other super early collectors anointed the T206 Wagner, probably in the 1930's - the same kind of run up was done for the #311 in the late 70's and early 80's by people like Alan Rosen.

The other thing with Mantle plus all the contributing factors just seems to be really good timing. He was at the perfect intersection of time and sport (MLB in NY in the 50's) - and then also at the perfect intersection of time and hobby when cards went from an underground nerdy thing in the 70's to a big business retail thing by the mid-80's. Those retail dealers saw to it that he became the hobby torchbearer for their generation pretty early, and never looked back.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Yes, & this was great.

You seem to see more of the "Why Mantle?" still being played out over in other forums like Blowout, where the vintage audience is ostensibly younger and still learning.

I think the '52 Topps does have a lot to do with it. Much like Burdick and other super early collectors anointed the T206 Wagner, probably in the 1930's - the same kind of run up was done for the #311 in the late 70's and early 80's by people like Alan Rosen.

The other thing with Mantle plus all the contributing factors just seems to be really good timing. He was at the perfect intersection of time and sport (MLB in NY in the 50's) - and then also at the perfect intersection of time and hobby when cards went from an underground nerdy thing in the 70's to a big business retail thing by the mid-80's. Those retail dealers saw to it that he became the hobby torchbearer for their generation pretty early, and never looked back.

It's not just NY -- it's the YANKEES. Plus, as we've discussed many times, the switch hitter thing, the tape measure HRs, the playing through pain, the aw shucks folk hero personality, etc.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's not just NY -- it's the YANKEES. Plus, as we've discussed many times, the switch hitter thing, the tape measure HRs, the playing through pain, the aw shucks folk hero personality, etc.

Agreed.

Adam's blog post mentions Mays being at best indifferent and at worst rude at least during his later show circuit years, and that seems to hold up for me. Mantle is an interesting case - as he was often less than sober at such events, and has if perhaps less - at least a few similar horror stories.

But Mantle for the most part was perceived as a happy drunk, and the media and popular culture bore out that image for him during the 1980's.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I think the '52 Topps does have a lot to do with it. Much like Burdick and other super early collectors anointed the T206 Wagner, probably in the 1930's - the same kind of run up was done for the #311 in the late 70's and early 80's by people like Alan Rosen.

The other thing with Mantle plus all the contributing factors just seems to be really good timing. He was at the perfect intersection of time and sport (MLB in NY in the 50's) - and then also at the perfect intersection of time and hobby when cards went from an underground nerdy thing in the 70's to a big business retail thing by the mid-80's. Those retail dealers saw to it that he became the hobby torchbearer for their generation pretty early, and never looked back.

I agree. Both timing and promotion were key elements in Mickey Mantle cards becoming "the" grail.