Super high end Mantle cards

[Snapolit1]

It's hard for me to understand how Mantles 60s cards keep steadily appreciating in value. As well documented on the board, even in high grades they are not exactly scarce. And Mantle is not Babe Roth or Michael Jordan, his name is not a source of general cultural conversations these days. (Sure, baseball fans and Yankee fans of a certain age will wax poetic about Mantle, but it's not like he's coming up regularly at cocktail parties or at the beach bar.) I'm sure lots of men grew up like Billy Crystal and he was their idol of idols, but if you were a teen when he retired you are now pushing 70 if not above it. Can't believe a lot of people have been holding out with $400,000 to buy a Mantle card and today's the day they are going to pull the trigger.

Are these buyers just rich dudes trading up to a better Mantle, or are these now just basically investment assets (to parrot PWCC) like a house on the ocean? Just trying to understand. I get the Ruth mystique and even the Ty Cobb and Shoeless Joe endless fascination. And of course the importance of Jackie. Mantle mania has always been a mystery to me.

Why Mantle elevated far over Mays is an entirely different discussion.

[D. Bergin]

#1. New York Yankees lineage

#2. 1952 Topps #311

I think this card casts a shadow on all other Mantle cards, the same way the T206 Honus Wagner, kind of casts a shadow on all of Honus's other cards.

In a perfect world I think Mickey, Mays and Aaron would all exist on a very similar plane in collectors minds. It kind of blows my mind how much Aaron lags behind both Mantle and Mays.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yankees. All the World Series. Switch hitter with unprecedented power. Physique. Overcoming injuries and pain. Folk hero demeanor. And if you look at the metrics and count the insane number of walks, arguably a top ten player. Put it all together and you have a legendary figure.

[jsfriedm]

I think the Mantle premium will diminish with time because he, more than others, owes his card values to the nostalgia of those who actually saw him play, but it's a long slow process, and his childhood fans haven't left the scene yet. But pre-pandemic, key early Mantle cards traded at 4x-5x of Mays cards in the same set/grade, and now they are often more like 2x (52 Topps very much excepted). I don't buy cards as investments, but if I did, I wouldn't see Mantles as the best place to put my money for this reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

#1. New York Yankees lineage

#2. 1952 Topps #311

I think this card casts a shadow on all other Mantle cards, the same way the T206 Honus Wagner, kind of casts a shadow on all of Honus's other cards.

In a perfect world I think Mickey, Mays and Aaron would all exist on a very similar plane in collectors minds. It kind of blows my mind how much Aaron lags behind both Mantle and Mays.

I think part of it was that Aaron was a very low key personality. Mays played with flair and joy -- the Say Hey Kid. The basket catches, the hat flying. Aaron was just lethal and steady.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

I think the Mantle premium will diminish with time because he, more than others, owes his card values to the nostalgia of those who actually saw him play, but it's a long slow process, and his childhood fans haven't left the scene yet. But pre-pandemic, key early Mantle cards traded at 4x-5x of Mays cards in the same set/grade, and now they are often more like 2x (52 Topps very much excepted). I don't buy cards as investments, but if I did, I wouldn't see Mantles as the best place to put my money for this reason.

I disagree. Most people buying Mantle now never saw him. Nobody saw Cobb, or Ruth, or Gehrig. I think he's embedded in the consciousness of collectors for good.

[brunswickreeves]

The gentlemen whom sold his 52 Topps Mick SGC 9.5 for $12.6M via HA last year, which he purchased from Al Rosen, said the tipping point to let go of his card was when his grandkid's friends asked him, 'Who was Mickey Mantle?' He apparently believed the current youth generation wouldn't have the same nostalgic connection as those who grew up idolizing Mick's career and post career redemption, or those who caught the baseball collecting bug in the 80s and 90s, now able to purchase this hobby icon. Will this card stand the test of time and continue to float all boats (Mick's other cards)?

[Snapolit1]

Maybe it's just the vagaries of how markets play out and how a hobby develops.

I'm guessing in the world of car collecting there are probably similar things, where the 1967 Camaro is worth like 15 times the 1969 Camaro and other cool cars but it's always been that way in the hobby and hard to explain rationally why it developed that way. Just always been that way.

And, no, I know nothing about cars.....

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think part of it was that Aaron was a very low key personality. Mays played with flair and joy -- the Say Hey Kid. The basket catches, the hat flying. Aaron was just lethal and steady.

Mays also played in the New York / San Francisco markets.

Aaron Milwaukee / Atlanta


One of the things that surprised me just now was looking at their post-season stats. In the few chances Hank Aaron had in the postseason, he absolutely tore it up.

Mays, not so much at all. He actually performed pretty poorly at the plate.

But.......he's got "The Catch", and Aaron doesn't.

[Grigsby]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I disagree. Most people buying Mantle now never saw him. Nobody saw Cobb, or Ruth, or Gehrig. I think he's embedded in the consciousness of collectors for good.

This.

Same concept applies to art collecting, classic cars, comic books etc.

It is what it is.

[Pat R]

Popularity, in just over 30 minutes the thread is closing in on 200 views on a pre-war forum.

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I disagree. Most people buying Mantle now never saw him. Nobody saw Cobb, or Ruth, or Gehrig. I think he's embedded in the consciousness of collectors for good.

I don't know what percentage of people buying Mantle today saw him play, but I'll bet it is significantly higher than the percentage of Cobb buyers who saw him play. Let's say, for argument's sake, that it's 30% (as opposed to 0% or 1% for Cobb). As those 30% go, it will likely shift the demand/supply balance for his cards. It doesn't mean they will go to zero or even on par with Mays, but they will at least grow at a slower rate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

I don't know what percentage of people buying Mantle today saw him play, but I'll bet it is significantly higher than the percentage of Cobb buyers who saw him play. Let's say, for argument's sake, that it's 30% (as opposed to 0% or 1% for Cobb). As those 30% go, it will likely shift the demand/supply balance for his cards. It doesn't mean they will go to zero or even on par with Mays, but they will at least grow at a slower rate.

You are assuming your conclusion, that those 30 percent of people are buying Mantle because they saw him play and from that assumption concluding that demand will go down when that percentage drops. I think it won't. The demand for Mantle has steadily increased even though more and more buyers never saw him play. I see no reason that would change as we get farther and farther away from his career. He already has achieved Cobb like status.

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are assuming your conclusion, that those 30 percent of people are buying Mantle because they saw him play and that demand will go down when that percentage drops. I think it won't. The demand for Mantle has steadily increased even though more and more buyers never saw him play. I see no reason that would change as we get farther and farther away from his career. He already has achieved Cobb like status.

No, I am providing a reason for my conclusion. There is some non-zero percentage of people who buy Mantle cards today that saw him play, which is not true for Cobb or Ruth. Therefore, there is a chance that their disappearance will shift the demand/supply equation on his cards, a risk that doesn't exist with Cobb or Ruth.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

No, I am providing a reason for my conclusion. There is some non-zero percentage of people who buy Mantle cards today that saw him play, which is not true for Cobb or Ruth. Therefore, there is a chance that their disappearance will shift the demand/supply equation on his cards, a risk that doesn't exist with Cobb or Ruth.

Then why does demand keep going up as that percentage goes down? If your thesis was correct prices should decline as we get further and further out from his career and the collector demographic naturally changes.

[raulus]

Sometimes these things are driven by fundamentals, and sometimes they take on a life of their own, like the Kardashians who are largely famous for being famous. And I suppose sometimes it’s a combo, where it might start with fundamentals, and then takes off due to popularity and resonance in the popular imagination.

Much as it pains me to admit it as a proud Italian, the Mona Lisa is really only popular today because she was the Kardashian of last century. Stolen, widely publicized in an attempt to recover the piece, talked about all over the world, eventually recovered. Without that notoriety, she would have remained an obscure small piece by a master. Still a great work of art, yet nowhere close to the level of value it has today, because today she’s known all over the world by just about everyone.

I would draw parallels to Mantle cards. Definitely a great player and generational talent, but the price of his pieces is so high simply because everyone knows and wants them. The strong premium for his stuff relative to his contemporaries who were just as good (or better) on the field defies logic. But that’s because it’s simply a question of better marketing and popularity. And that all starts with the 311, and further burnished by all of the popularity enhancers mentioned above by others.

There’s certainly room to debate how enduring that popularity will be over the next 50-100 years. But it’s proven remarkably durable so far, and shows no signs of abating anytime soon.

[Snapolit1]

Great post. Totally agree. Popularity is often fickle and downright irrational. I could walk down Fifth Avenue today and find 100 woman I think are more beautiful than Kim Kardashian.

It's interesting to me that Mantle and Jordan were similar dudes in a lot of ways. Sort of aloof, enigmatic, didn't say that much, sometimes even surly to reporters and fans. Not saying bad guys, but both (like Derek Jeter) revealed very little of themselves to the outside world. Maybe when that's your M.O. it's easier for people to project on to you and make you larger than life.

Originally Posted by raulus

Sometimes these things are driven by fundamentals, and sometimes they take on a life of their own, like the Kardashians who are largely famous for being famous. And I suppose sometimes it’s a combo, where it might start with fundamentals, and then takes off due to popularity and resonance in the popular imagination.

Much as it pains me to admit it as a proud Italian, the Mona Lisa is really only popular today because she was the Kardashian of last century. Stolen, widely publicized in an attempt to recover the piece, talked about all over the world, eventually recovered. Without that notoriety, she would have remained an obscure small piece by a master. Still a great work of art, yet nowhere close to the level of value it has today, because today she’s known all over the world by just about everyone.

I would draw parallels to Mantle cards. Definitely a great player and generational talent, but the price of his pieces is so high simply because everyone knows and wants them. The strong premium for his stuff relative to his contemporaries who were just as good (or better) on the field defies logic. But that’s because it’s simply a question of better marketing and popularity. And that all starts with the 311, and further burnished by all of the popularity enhancers mentioned above by others.

There’s certainly room to debate how enduring that popularity will be over the next 50-100 years. But it’s proven remarkably durable so far, and shows no signs of abating anytime soon.

[Seven]

I'll say this much.

Mantle is my main collecting interest. He died a few months after my first birthday. I never saw the man play, I grew up on stories of him. The way he was talked about, he might as well have been Jesus Christ come again. His name amongst people who love baseball history, is well known. His fame in the cardboard community? Even greater so.

I would love to say that his prices would come down, but I don't think they ever do. They might stagnate for a bit, but then they'll keep going up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Great post. Totally agree. Popularity is often fickle and downright irrational. I could walk down Fifth Avenue today and find 100 woman I think are more beautiful than Kim Kardashian.

It's interesting to me that Mantle and Jordan were similar dudes in a lot of ways. Sort of aloof, enigmatic, didn't say that much, sometimes even surly to reporters and fans. Not saying bad guys, but both (like Derek Jeter) revealed very little of themselves to the outside world. Maybe when that's your M.O. it's easier for people to project on to you and make you larger than life.

Only 100?

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then why does demand keep going up as that percentage goes down? If your thesis was correct prices should decline as we get further and further out from his career and the collector demographic naturally changes.

As I said, the price premium of his early cards versus Mays' has declined over the past several years. The assumption you are making is that the collectors who saw Mantle play will be replaced by those who didn't, which means that you are assuming that younger generations will gravitate to Mantle at a higher rate than to Ruth and Cobb (otherwise their cards should see proportionally more demand since they aren't losing playing days collectors).

[z28jd]

I think what people are missing is that Mantle also got passed down to generations from people who saw him to people who didn't. I went quickly to collecting T206/Old Judge cards when I got money, so I don't have a huge collection of 50s-60s cards. However, my dad was a huge Mickey Mantle fan, so he was buying me Mantle cards as gifts for birthdays/Christmas almost as soon as I started collecting cards at 5-6 years old. I even bought a few on my own later on.

Mantle was in Cooperstown before I was even born, so I really missed his career, but I have more of his cards than anyone else from the 50s and 60s because of that connection.

BTW, I clicked on this because I have a 1964 Mantle that has been untouched for at least 35 years that I got as a gift. Card is flawless looking. My dad bought it back then asking for the nicest condition Mantle the guy had, so it just happened to be a 1964 card. Just saw the price for a PSA 9 that just ended last week and now I've been contemplating getting it graded.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only 100?

Kim doesn't much for me. What can I say. I'll take Brady's ex-wife.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

As I said, the price premium of his early cards versus Mays' has declined over the past several years. The assumption you are making is that the collectors who saw Mantle play will be replaced by those who didn't, which means that you are assuming that younger generations will gravitate to Mantle at a higher rate than to Ruth and Cobb (otherwise their cards should see proportionally more demand since they aren't losing playing days collectors).

Yes, I do make that assumption, at least as to replacing old collectors. Not sure I fully follow the rate part. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[Snapolit1]

Lists like this are a dime a dozen, but Mantle's cache in the sports fandom world at large clearly is not anywhere near on par with what it is in the collecting hobby.

http://www.espn.com/sportscentury/athletes.html

[G1911]

I think the issue is more likely to be the increase in supply in the coming years as the boomers hit life expectancy and the Mantle generations collections flood the market. There are an absurd number of Topps Mantles. There is at least 1 1968 Mickey for every collector.

On the other hand, post war Mantle is the most talked about player in this pre war board. People get pissed off if you observe indisputable facts about the pumped up 52, such as it being factually a double print or the SGC 9.5 has a lot of staining and damage for a card allegedly better than mint. Nobody gets upset if you point Wagner is not that rare. Hobby love of Mantle is entrenched and deeply emotional for some reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Kim doesn't much for me. What can I say. I'll take Brady's ex-wife.

She's quite tall almost 6 feet.

[etsmith]

According to the list he's 9th among baseball players, so top 10. And lists like these are always very subjective.

[packs]

Mantle will always be Mantle in the collecting world. I don't see time diminishing him. He has way too many cultural touchstones in both the sport and the hobby world.

He won the Triple Crown. Even if his 1952 Topps didn't exist, his 1956 Topps card will always trade well because of it's image and Triple Crown connection. It's just a great card.

And the same is true for his Dan Dee, and his 54 Bowman, his 53 Bowman, his 53 Topps, his 54 Red Heart. He had some great luck with the art departments because his cards are among the most visually appealing in any set he appears in.

Not to mention his insane accolades as a player. I mentioned the Triple Crown. He also won 7 titles and will forever be remembered as the only player to have possibly hit a home run out of Yankee Stadium. Also, unlike Mays and Aaron, he played his entire career with a single team and that team happened to be the Yankees.

In short, he has everything that he could possibly have going for him.

[Touch'EmAll]

Mantle was extra popular because he was fortunate enough to play for the Yankees, who happened to have a lot of other really good players, and thus won quite a few World Series.

Mantle hit the ball farther - that contributes to a legendary mystique that goes beyond basic stats. Kinda like Nolan Ryan who threw the ball faster than any known human to ever exist - again, legendary mystique that goes beyond basic stats.

Now factor in the herd mentality. Gee, Mantle card prices are way up there and going strong, Gee, I better get on the wagon myself. If everyone else wants his cards, I better get some myself. Kinda like rookie cards. In the early 70's nobody cared about them, then somehow in the late 70's it was somehow decided that rookie cards are the grails, and it caught on and the herd mentality has stuck and stuck strong.

But hey, if you want mantle cards for whatever reason and are willing to pay the prices, go ahead, knock yourself out.

[timzcardz]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Great post. Totally agree. Popularity is often fickle and downright irrational. I could walk down Fifth Avenue today and find 100 woman I think are more beautiful than Kim Kardashian.

It's interesting to me that Mantle and Jordan were similar dudes in a lot of ways. Sort of aloof, enigmatic, didn't say that much, sometimes even surly to reporters and fans. Not saying bad guys, but both (like Derek Jeter) revealed very little of themselves to the outside world. Maybe when that's your M.O. it's easier for people to project on to you and make you larger than life.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only 100?

It's been raining today!

[brooklynbotter]

Most people I know in modern cards (Late teens/early 20s) view Mantle's as the vintage cards to get. They won't dabble in anything else, but either have or want to buy a Mantle as a "flex." Like everyone has been saying, mantle has allure in the collecting world that I doubt goes away even with a generation that hasn't seen him play.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by brooklynbotter

Most people I know in modern cards (Late teens/early 20s) view Mantle's as the vintage cards to get. They won't dabble in anything else, but either have or want to buy a Mantle as a "flex." Like everyone has been saying, mantle has allure in the collecting world that I doubt goes away even with a generation that hasn't seen him play.

Like most luxury goods for rich people who aren't otherwise hard core collectors, buying highly graded Mantle cards can be a status symbol. Obviously for those of us who are hard core collectors, it has a very different meaning.

[ClementeFanOh]

I've now seen multiple recent threads touching on this very topic. I feel
fairly objective here because I don't care for the Yankees as a fan or as a
collecting focus.

The original post seems focused on Mantle card values, not his position on
baseball's Mount Rushmore. Again, this question comes across negatively, as
if his high values are somehow a bad thing. I don't understand the
skeptical/unhappy/whatever term you want to use approach. Mantle's cards
have been "A+" list for decades, and there's no sign of that changing.

Trent King

[gonefishin]

There was one Elvis Presley, one Steve McQueen, one Ronald Reagon, and by the grace of God - one Mickey Mantle!

[Yoda]

One of the many alluring characteristics to some collections was Mickey's alcoholism, a fatal flaw that made him seem just human. His liver transplant was front page sports news. Think of the numbers he could have put up if no injuries or problems with the bottle.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

There was one Elvis Presley, one Steve McQueen, one Ronald Reagon, and by the grace of God - one Mickey Mantle!

Well, Elvis memorabilia hasn't appreciated much in value. There is greatly reduced demand for his stuff these days. Don't believe Ronald Reagan stuff is hot exactly hit sh*t either.

I've lived in the NYC area my whole life. Not a Yankee fan, but have no problem with people buying every Mantle card they want for every dollar they want to spend. Just seems to me that even taking account all the great things people have listed above, I have a hard time understanding why his cards outsell any other player of the 60s by multiples.

[gonefishin]

No, but sometimes it's just not about the money. I'm fortunate enough to have been alive at the same time they were. They all have one thing in common - movies!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I have a hard time understanding why his cards outsell any other player of the 60s by multiples.

I was 6 in 1960 when I became a baseball fan. I lived in NW Louisiana. I saw MLB games once a week on Saturday. What team was shown much more than any other team? The NY Yankees. It seems they were on almost every week. I became a Yankee fan and have stayed one ever since. I'm sure there are many more people like me who have never lived in NY and became Yankee fans because they were on TV so much and because they were so good. If Mays had been on TV and been visible to so many people as much as Mantle, maybe he would be as popular (although we all know that skin color would have to be factored in). The same could be said for Aaron. Even though their career stats are better than Mantle's, they were not as visible to the entire American public to the extent that Mantle was.

In regards to Mantle's 1952 Topps card, I have to agree with you. Although I have many, many different Mantle items, I do not have his '52 Topps card. Why? Because I've always thought it was over priced. I have been waiting since 1986, when I got back into cards, for the price to drop to be more in line with where I thought it should be. It never has. And now I feel it never will.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I was 6 in 1960 when I became a baseball fan. I lived in NW Louisiana. I saw MLB games once a week on Saturday. What team was shown much more than any other team? The NY Yankees. It seems they were on almost every week. I became a Yankee fan and have stayed one ever since. I'm sure there are many more people like me who have never lived in NY and became Yankee fans because they were on TV so much and because they were so good. If Mays had been on TV and been visible to so many people as much as Mantle, maybe he would be as popular (although we all know that skin color would have to be factored in). The same could be said for Aaron. Even though their career stats are better than Mantle's, they were not as visible to the entire American public to the extent that Mantle was.

In regards to Mantle's 1952 Topps card, I have to agree with you. Although I have many, many different Mantle items, I do not have his '52 Topps card. Why? Because I've always thought it was over priced. I have been waiting since 1986, when I got back into cards, for the price to drop to be more in line with where I thought it should be. It never has. And now I feel it never will.

How much was, say, an EX one in 1986?

[rjackson44]

Mantle is mantle

[JollyElm]

To understand the (continuing) Mantle phenomenon is simple. Don't get bogged down in looking at Mickey Mantle as a great player, look at him (more precisely, his cards) like the vast majority of collectors do, as straightforward wealth building assets.

• With regards to nostalgia, this poll was from over 5 years ago now, and it asked, were you alive when The Mick played? It's interesting to look at:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=255158

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How much was, say, an EX one in 1986?

Unfortunately, I don't remember for sure. Back then I started getting the Post cereal cards first since that's what I collected most as a kid. So the first Mantles I bought were probably $100 or less for the Post Mantles. They were and are typically less than Topps from the same years. I would guess the '52 Topps Mantle would have been maybe $2,000 at most. Maybe someone has a Beckett magazine from back then and can give us a more accurate figure. Local dealers were going by "book" value back then with almost everything priced at NM prices.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How much was, say, an EX one in 1986?

Mint ones were 3000-3500.

[Rhotchkiss]

I dont own any Mantle cards, but I think he is very cool. If I collected post war cards, I would collect Mantle above all other players (except maybe Robinson).

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

It's interesting to me that Mantle and Jordan were similar dudes in a lot of ways. Sort of aloof, enigmatic, didn't say that much, sometimes even surly to reporters and fans.

Mantle and Jordan's championship greatness (at least the part from how they elevated their teammates) led to similar results But the path there was much different.

Mick's teammates seemed to genuinely like him. They appeared to love playing the game with him and made it a matter of competitive personal pride to try getting as close to his level as possible.

Jordan, on the other hand, was a total ass. He also got the most out of you, but that came from relentless preparation and (probably even moreso) from fear. You marched under his command, took his shit, and pushed your limits more than you ever thought possible, or you wondered if you'd be thoroughly embarrassed and then out of a job.

[talkinbaseball]

My dad took me to see the "Mick" in the middle '60's I could still hear the sound of the ball coming off his bat and It's 2023, "iconic", and the "say hey" kid was my favorite.
John

[Steve D]

Regarding the value difference between Mantle and Mays:

It was pointed out in a previous post, that Mantle seemed to have good luck in the art department with his cards...most of his cards portray him smiling, or just looking good; hell, he was a handsome dude.

Aaron too; most, if not all of his cards show him in a good mood, looking happy to be there.

Mays on the other hand, seems to be unhappy or brooding on most of his cards.

What would the difference be if Mays looked as good as Mantle on his cards?

Steve

[brunswickreeves]

By comparison for some key cards Mick & Mays shared in the 50s:
51B-Mick & Mays both batting stoic
52T-Both portrait stoic
52B-Both stoic
52B-Both stoic
53T-Both stoic
54B-Mick smiling Mays stoic
55B-Mick stoic Mays smiling
56T-Both portrait smiling
57T-Both batting stoic
58T-Both smiling
59T-Neither smiling

I surmise Mick’s higher card value has most to do with the sheer volume/demand of collectors vying for his cards, thus driving up prices. It would be interesting to see how many Mick cards are sold in a year vs. Mays and if there’s any correlation with higher pricing.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Regarding the value difference between Mantle and Mays:

It was pointed out in a previous post, that Mantle seemed to have good luck in the art department with his cards...most of his cards portray him smiling, or just looking good; hell, he was a handsome dude.

Aaron too; most, if not all of his cards show him in a good mood, looking happy to be there.

Mays on the other hand, seems to be unhappy or brooding on most of his cards.

What would the difference be if Mays looked as good as Mantle on his cards?

Steve

The subjective "mood" that a card brings is certainly a factor. I love the look of the 1953 Topps cards. The first three I chased were, in order, Paige, Robinson, and Mantle. When I tracked down the Mays, I didn't really feel any connection to it, even though the I like the pose. Mays' scowl reminds me of Jay-Z's serious face on the Hard Knock Life album cover. If he had been flashing the 1954-56 smile during those fake fielding drills, it would've been one of my favorite cards.

His 1952 Topps is an O.K. compromise between chaseability and aesthetics. He looks focused... maybe mildly constipated. But not pissed off at the world, the way he looks in the 1953 Topps set.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

The subjective "mood" that a card brings is certainly a factor. I love the look of the 1953 Topps cards. The first three I chased were, in order, Paige, Robinson, and Mantle. When I tracked down the Mays, I didn't really feel any connection to it, even though the I like the pose. Mays' scowl reminds me of Jay-Z's serious face on the Hard Knock Life album cover. If he had been flashing the 1954-56 smile during those fake fielding drills, it would've been one of my favorite cards.

His 1952 Topps is an O.K. compromise between chaseability and aesthetics. He looks focused... maybe mildly constipated. But not pissed off at the world, the way he looks in the 1953 Topps set.

If you went through some cards like this on YouTube, I'd watch it.

Agree on the 53 willie, but I do think it is very undervalued

1958 brooks Robinson? Lol