Feel like gambling on a 1952 Topps Mantle?

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by novakjr

It always annoys me when people refer to the '52 Mantle as his rookie..

I grew up loving topps so this is my view...pick somewhere else to spray your negativity.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

I grew up loving topps so this is my view...pick somewhere else to spray your negativity.

Does that mean that you consider the 1958 Topps Stan Musial AS card his rookie? How about the 1998 Topps Alex Rodriguez? Would you call that a rookie too?

It doesn't matter how you feel about Topps, a rookie is a rookie, and these are not rookies, just like the Mantle isn't. They are however noteworthy for being their first Topps cards, and that's it.

[HRBAKER]

Well the '33 Goudey is Ruth's rookie, just check the Beckett.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Well the '33 Goudey is Ruth's rookie, just check the Beckett.

Indeed...And according to PSA half of the '49 Bowman rookies aren't rookies, because they still consider the '49 Leaf to be '48.

[barrysloate]

I would say if you balance your desire to own this card, against the fact the seller has a feedback of 1...and the end result is it is too risky for me. I would pass. You'll have other opportunities.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[Peter_Spaeth]

The GAI holder would turn me off. And it is definitely NOT his rookie card.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I would say if you balance your desire to own this card, against the fact the seller has a feedback of 1...and the end result is it is too risky for me. I would pass. You'll have other opportunities.

High risk, high reward

[wheels56]

Went for $10,351.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

I grew up loving topps so this is my view...pick somewhere else to spray your negativity.

Stating a fact isn't "spraying negativity"...