Does anyone actually like the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle?

[skelly423]

Does anyone actually like the 1952 Mantle?
Every few weeks there's another thread where people jump at the chance to call the 1952 Mantle as ugly, overrated (card and/or player), "just a second year card", etc., and declare they'd never want one for their collection. Very seldom do I see a defence of the card.

Everyone understands the hobby narrative around this card, but it feels a bit like someone decided 50+ years ago that the 1952 set -- also widely panned as overrated and ugly -- is iconic, and that status has been carved into stone ever since. The Mantle is the crown jewel of the set and as such is given iconic status. The argument for owning a Mantle seems to be based on the circular reasoning that the prices for the Mantle will always go up because "they've always gone up".

Why do we accept the 1952 Mantle as a pillar of the hobby when the a clear majority of collectors (on this board anyway) seem to dislike both the card and the set? Why do we take it as a given that the price will move straight up forever? Will this card still hold its hobby status after the generation that has living memory of the Mick dies off and we're left with just the numbers and a few grainy videos?

[butchie_t]

I like the card, I like the set. I have the Topps reprint set as it is the only one I will ever afford.

I think the cards in the set are really cool.

:shrug:

Cheers,

Butch

[Seven]

I love the 1952 Topps set, and I love Mantle's card from it as well. Mantle is my main collecting interest. I was barely a year old when Mantle died, never saw him play. I think they'll be a good amount of collectors of Mantle cards for a very long time, that will value his 52 Topps card, and his other issues.

[Harliduck]

Does anyone actually like the 52 Mantle?


YES.

My son-in-law was born in 1997, and is a part time collector of new shiny stuff...and before I met him his lifetime goal is to one day own that card.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

I like the card, I like the set. I have the Topps reprint set as it is the only one I will ever afford.

I think the cards in the set are really cool.

:shrug:

Cheers,

Butch

I also have the Topps reprint set. The Mantle is OK but the true gem is the Eddie Mathews card. Besides the Mathews I did have a few 52s and gave them away to people building the set as I know I will never give it a try.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you believe in the collective wisdom of a free market, well, the market continues to speak on this one. I don't think that makes the case for owning one from an investment perspective circular.

[todeen]

While I don't have a goal to own one, I like the 52 Mantle. It's not my favorite, but I have no "bad" feelings toward it. The drawn and sometimes cartoonish look of the cards isn't the best, but compared to the 1940s R302 set, the 1952 set is WAY better. The design also sets it apart from other sets of the decade, and that's okay - it's recognizable. I also like the 55 Bowman set, which a lot of collectors dislike. I think the TV border is an awesome time capsule of the era.

I only own one 52 Topps, and that is the Reds Ted Kluszewski. And I'm actually pretty proud to own that card. Not sure how I could collect a 50s era player and not own the 52 Topps.

I think a set I dislike more than 52 Topps is 48 Leaf, but I've come around to that set over the years as well.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[pawpawdiv9]

YES!
It is the 'white-whale' of collecting. A dream card to ever own.
I envy the guys on this board that had one. (Bestdj)
I grabbed the 51 Bowman -since it was more affordable.
I eventually got mine in late 2013.
(of course this is before i dug into the pre-war stuff like Cobb & Ruth)

[ALR-bishop]

I collect all Topps sets and so collected the 52 set, which of necessity includes the Mantle. I also collect at a minimum recognized variations in those sets. For 52 that meant 2 Mantles. It is not my favorite set or card. I also have the Bowman sets and like it more than his 51 Bowman

As you said there are many threads debating why the 52 Mantle is what it is in the hobby. It does seem to me that most folks who disparage the card don’t have it

[irv]

I honestly don't know what's not to like about the 52 Topps Mantle and the rest of the set?
Are there, maybe, better looking cards out there? Sure, but the 52 Topps set will gone down in history as being the most iconic set of all time that paved the way we see cards today.

" The 407-card set was the largest ever produced at the time of its release".
1952 Topps Baseball laid the foundation for what would become the modern trading card. In addition to the larger checklist, the design of the cards themselves featured full team logos, colorized black-and-white photography and, most interestingly, a facsimile signature of the player taken directly from their player contract with Topps.
https://www.cardboardconnection.com/...baseball-cards
https://www.cardboardconnection.com/...seball-cards-2

[G1911]

I don’t think there’s really such a polar divide like suggested. I like the card, the 52 Topps are a nice set. At the same, it is factually just a second year card, not a rookie. It’s pricing is abnormal and difficult to defend on the normal ‘rules’ of card values. It is difficult to deny it is overpriced by any rational look at the item. It’s a long running hype train, on a nice card. I’m sure the hype to inflate its price will continue unabated.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by skelly423

Will this card still hold its hobby status after the generation that has living memory of the Mick dies off and we're left with just the numbers and a few grainy videos?

I think that question has already been answered by Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Joe Jackson and Christy Mathewson among others.

As far as the set and the Mick individually, the '52T set planted the flag for post war cards. Most mainstream releases since then are based on the '52 set design elements of that release - dimensional proportions, team logo, player's name, border, signature, color photo, stats and writeup. And as far as the Mick, I'd say he is second only to Ruth as far as collectability. Show me a player that more prevalent on the b/s/t boards than Mickey.

For me personally, it's not my favorite Mick card, but it is the white whale that I will pursue.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

I think that question has already been answered by Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Joe Jackson and Christy Mathewson among others.

Thank God someone surfaced with this ironclad logic, so I did't have to type it for the umpteenth time. The notion that interest will die over time is so specious and reductive and rears its head every now and then on these boards and others. When someone advances that theory, do they even bother to take a beat and think about Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, and Shoeless Joe cards? And frankly while I LOVE all of those players and LOVE their cards, one could argue the 52 Mantle is more popular than any of them— so if demand and prices for their cards endures today, the Mantle's surely will.

This is also worth flagging: "The argument for owning a Mantle seems to be based on the circular reasoning that the prices for the Mantle will always go up because "they've always gone up".

Who says that is the reason Mantle owners own a Mantle? I and many owners I know could not give a rat's ass if the price halves or doubles. In fact, as a COLLECTOR I wish all my cards would halve so I could buy new stuff without having to sell anything. I bought my Mantle because I revere the player, the humanity of the man in the end of his life, baseball card history, the look of the card, the team, the card as a symbol of baseball and the Yankees and America in that era... notice nowhere in my list of reasons for owning the card is the presumption above— that its price will go up. And I can speak for too many collectors I know to list here that their reasons for owning one also do not include its future price. Besides, if one buys never intending to sell in their lifetime, who cares what the price is? That money will never be seen.

Also, when Louisville Slugger is putting a 52T Mantle as the headliner of its Museum Exhibits in our time today, that is further powerful proof of how the card will endure. Here's a video for the one or two people out there who don't realize that people of all ages are exposed to this card and its status today, below. I believe both Fogel's and Kendrick's Mantles have also been on Museum display for people of all ages recently. Not to mention the press on the PSA 9 sale.

LINK:

Mantle On News At Museum

[irv]

And this one just ended.
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/394160501784...&segname=11010

Still a healthy price as far as I know?

[MattyC]

For that degree of off centering and tilt, indeed a strong price. The premium for that card when the centering is there is exponential. Recent prices include 180k for an SGC 5 that was prettier than a PSA 5 that sold at the same time for 156k. Both were superior in eye appeal to that PSA 5 that sold for 124k. A PSA 3 that looked better than all of them sold for 163k at Heritage. Goldin also just sold a very low eye appeal 1 for $36,000.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Thank God someone surfaced with this ironclad logic, so I did't have to type it for the umpteenth time. The notion that interest will die over time is so specious and reductive and rears its head every now and then on these boards and others. When someone advances that theory, do they even bother to take a beat and think about Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, and Shoeless Joe cards? And frankly while I LOVE all of those players and LOVE their cards, one could argue the 52 Mantle is more popular than any of them— so if demand and prices for their cards endures today, the Mantle's surely will.

This is also worth flagging: "The argument for owning a Mantle seems to be based on the circular reasoning that the prices for the Mantle will always go up because "they've always gone up".

Who says that is the reason Mantle owners own a Mantle? I and many owners I know could not give a rat's ass if the price halves or doubles. In fact, as a COLLECTOR I wish all my cards would halve so I could buy new stuff without having to sell anything. I bought my Mantle because I revere the player, the humanity of the man in the end of his life, baseball card history, the look of the card, the team, the card as a symbol of baseball and the Yankees and America in that era... notice nowhere in my list of reasons for owning the card is the presumption above— that its price will go up. And I can speak for too many collectors I know to list here that their reasons for owning one also do not include its future price. Besides, if one buys never intending to sell in their lifetime, who cares what the price is? That money will never be seen.

Also, when Louisville Slugger is putting a 52T Mantle as the headliner of its Museum Exhibits in our time today, that is further powerful proof of how the card will endure. Here's a video for the one or two people out there who don't realize that people of all ages are exposed to this card and its status today, below. I believe both Fogel's and Kendrick's Mantles have also been on Museum display for people of all ages recently. Not to mention the press on the PSA 9 sale.

LINK:

Mantle On News At Museum

As I've said many times, Mantle was a perfect storm of factors contributing to his popularity. Center fielder on the New York Yankees in their greatest era is a good start. All the pennants and WS and post-season home runs. The unprecedented switch-hitting power. The tape measure home runs. The blond folk hero personality. The mystique of overcoming injuries. A great player, better than most people assess him if you consider all the times he reached on walks, and then magnified by all the intangibles. Even his name is a bit magical. His stature will endure, IMO.

[frankbmd]

......and he followed in the footsteps of Mr. Mouse.

[ALR-bishop]

Admit it Matt, you somewhat enjoy debasing yourself in these Mantle discussions

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I have no reservations saying that I would love to have one in my collection someday.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[GasHouseGang]

It is based off an actual photo.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

It is based off an actual photo.

It's not a great rendering (eg the eyes) and whatever isn't quite reproduced, IMO, makes it lose a lot of resemblance. Sure, it's still him, but in a cartoonish short of way.

[lowpopper]

Yes

[pawpawdiv9]

Saw this today on Ebay and me me wonder WTF?
Just about everything happened to this card- stained, trimmed, punched & paper loss.
But CSG graded it!!!
Reminded me of the Santa mantle- the bearded one
Still wanna call this 16K beautiful??