1951 Mickey Mantle TYPE 1 Photo Used to Create His 1952 TOPPS Card is now at 20K...

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Craig,
I absolutely agree with you on Mantle being a larger story vs say an Ernie banks as a rookie. Therefore, the existence of a greater number of DIFFERENT images. I am just referring to the need to print multiple copies of each in 1951 -53. No need IMO.. as the hype was primarily in NY and there was no real "National" story worthy of sending hard copies to different media outlets. Especially with the wire capabilities. I also noticed that this particular example has date stamps through the late 70s. Which tells me it was the ONE used in house for all/or most of the published stories. I know for a fact that INTERNATIONAL NEWS was the agency who took this original shot and owned the negative(where this originated). If they used this image in house all those decades, what would be the need to print more?? If they did, why not use cleaner examples??? I wouldn’t be shocked if we NEVER see another or less than 3 pop up EVER. BUT… you never know… Just some observations on my end. Ben


PS: I think I might have just talked myself into cashing out some retirement and making a run at this. Anyone out there have thoughts other than "It's just a photo" or "You're an idiot for talking a pre-penalty" that can talk me out of this..PLEASE! HAHA

Ben,

I think you have made a number of very good points and as far as I can see, we are in complete agreement on this issue.

One last observation, most of the Rookie Type 1 Mantle photos that I referred to in the previous response were all from INP.

PS: If you can do it without stressing the finances too much, then I for one say YES, go for it. If you do, I wish you all the luck in the world!!!!!!!

PSS: However, if you do win and then have second thoughts (which you absolutely should not) please don't blame me.

Best of luck.

Cheers,

Craig

[Wymers Auction]

If I spent 100K on a photo I would be divorced. Great photo though!!!

[Scott Garner]

I've got to say that I have found this thread to be one of the most interesting and controversial that I have ever read on net54.

All of the points and perspectives that have been expressed by the different members have been very educational. Thanks for opening up my eyes...

Even though I do not collect Mantle, I'm really curious as hell to see the final auction result....

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I've got to say that I have found this thread to be one of the most interesting and controversial that I have ever read on net54.

All of the points and perspectives that have been expressed by the different members have been very educational. Thanks for opening up my eyes...

Even though I do not collect Mantle, I'm really curious as hell to see the final auction result....

I agree with Scott. Even though the topic is clearly dear to my heart and collection focus, I must say that I also have learned a lot about newspaper archives, the ways photos may be treated and the ranges of probabilities for specific Type 1 prints surviving and coming to the market.

So, a big thank you to Jimmy for the insight to start this thread as well as to all those who have enriched it by participating.

Thanks again.

Craig

PS Now if I can only come up with something to trade for this photo. Lets see: wife, kids, house, car ------- Got it, mother-in-law and a free trip to Disney World!!!!!

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

If I spent 100K on a photo I would be divorced. Great photo though!!!

It used to be that divorce meant arguing over who got the house. Now it would be more like "you take the house, I'll take the Mantle".

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by mr2686

It used to be that divorce meant arguing over who got the house. Now it would be more like "you take the house, I'll take the Mantle".

I was thinking the same thing luckily I would get away with just giving her the house. Just kidding I actually love my wife very much. As an auctioneer I am very lucky I get to enjoy others things for awhile without the expense of owning them myself.