1939 Play Ball Williams Rookie High Grade

[jsfriedm]

Something I'm curious about and wondering if people here had thoughts: It seems to me that for the 1939 Play Ball Ted Williams, high grades don't bring the premiums they do for other key vintage rookie cards. For example, if I compare it to the 1951 Bowman Mays, both cards I follow pretty closely, I would estimate the typical values about so:

Williams Mays
1 ~3K ~3-4K
2 ~4-5K ~4-6K
3 ~5-6K ~5-8K
4 ~7-9K ~8-12K
5 ~8-11K ~12-18K
6 ~11-16K ~20-30K
7 ~16-25K ~40-60K
8 ~35-50K ~180-250K

So it looks like the prices are pretty even in grades 1-4, and then they start to diverge. Any ideas why Williams rookies in high grade don't command the same kind of premiums as other key vintage rookies?

[Leon]

I don't have an idea why the lower prices, maybe because his rookie is black and white?

I will hang with the middle grades....from the BST several years ago..

[Seven]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

Something I'm curious about and wondering if people here had thoughts: It seems to me that for the 1939 Play Ball Ted Williams, high grades don't bring the premiums they do for other key vintage rookie cards. For example, if I compare it to the 1951 Bowman Mays, both cards I follow pretty closely, I would estimate the typical values about so:

Williams Mays
1 ~3K ~3-4K
2 ~4-5K ~4-6K
3 ~5-6K ~5-8K
4 ~7-9K ~8-12K
5 ~8-11K ~12-18K
6 ~11-16K ~20-30K
7 ~16-25K ~40-60K
8 ~35-50K ~180-250K

So it looks like the prices are pretty even in grades 1-4, and then they start to diverge. Any ideas why Williams rookies in high grade don't command the same kind of premiums as other key vintage rookies?

I think it's a combination of a few things. Williams was a prolific hitter, I don't think it's a stretch to say he was one of the three greatest the game has ever seen. He wasn't loved by the media though, and he never won a World Series. He was always overshadowed by DiMaggio early in his career, and then Mantle once the 50's rolled around. It does boggle my mind, that his cards, in general don't go for more. We are looking at a player who would've easily eclipsed 3000 hits and 600 home runs if it wasn't for his years serving our country.

That being said, the black and white coloring of his card could certainly be one reason, that Leon pointed out. But I also think it's because while it's technically considered his Rookie, there's a more visually appealing card of his from the same year. His Goudey Premium card, which I'll link below, is also black and white but looks leagues better than his Play Ball issue. If I had to own one of them, I'd take the premium every time.

[IMG]https://i.psacard.com/cardfacts/1939-goudey-premiums-ted-williams-vg-3-r303-94149.jpg?h=1000&_gl=1*uwjxvy*_gcl_au*MTg2NjY1NDIxNi4xNzY0ODYwMjg3* _ga*MTg2NDY4NTczNi4xNzY0ODYwMjg3*_ga_LBYZ0MN5NP*cz E3NjQ4NjAyODgkbzEkZzAkdDE3NjQ4NjAyODgkajYwJGwwJGgw[/IMG]

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Williams didn't play in New York. That's a huge contributing factor to price. And for New York-centric fans, his playing for "the enemy" would have made it all the worse. Age-old grudges seemingly still affect prices. Not to mention that NY-themed collectors have always been more willing to whip out their bankrolls than Bostonians. Not said to inspire offense, but the numbers don't lie (and I was a Boston fan if it's any consolation! ).

Mays wasn't exactly known for having a cherubic, fan-friendly persona, either. You actually stood a better shot at having a positive interaction with Williams. But the NYC aspect makes a lot of people overlook less-than-pleasing characteristics.

[jsfriedm]

Thanks for the helpful thoughts. Just to add, I picked Mays as a comparison, but in percentage terms as condition improves, I could just as well have picked Aaron, or Clemente, or Koufax. It seems like Williams is the outlier in terms of his price vs. condition curve.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

Thanks for the helpful thoughts. Just to add, I picked Mays as a comparison, but in percentage terms as condition improves, I could just as well have picked Aaron, or Clemente, or Koufax. It seems like Williams is the outlier in terms of his price vs. condition curve.

Mays was likely your most decent and level choice for comparison of the names mentioned. We all know why, so no need for me to go into detail!

[Seven]

Looking deeper into what we've spoken about already, and I really think it boils down to media coverage. Williams wasn't well liked, at the time, by the media. He was gruff and strictly business when it came to the game. His obsessive nature with hitting, is even further proof of that.

It is surprising though, because outside of his personality, you would think he would be idolized. He was a war hero, through and through. Imagine if someone like Mantle had Williams' military resume? Mantle's rookie would probably be even more exorbitant in terms of price.

[jsfriedm]

Originally Posted by Seven

Looking deeper into what we've spoken about already, and I really think it boils down to media coverage. Williams wasn't well liked, at the time, by the media. He was gruff and strictly business when it came to the game. His obsessive nature with hitting, is even further proof of that.

It is surprising though, because outside of his personality, you would think he would be idolized. He was a war hero, through and through. Imagine if someone like Mantle had Williams' military resume? Mantle's rookie would probably be even more exorbitant in terms of price.

But why would the impact show up only in grades 5 and up?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

But why would the impact show up only in grades 5 and up?

That's a fair point, I'm generalizing a little bit more about collecting Williams on the whole. Maybe more collectors are satisfied with a lower grade of his Rookie issue? I'm spitballing over here.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Seven

That's a fair point, I'm generalizing a little bit more about collecting Williams on the whole. Maybe more collectors are satisfied with a lower grade of his Rookie issue? I'm spitballing over here.

I think this is it. The Mays rookie is a much better looking card in not B & W. Why spend a zillion dollars on a Williams 8-9 when a 5-6 looks the same (bland) way?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

But why would the impact show up only in grades 5 and up?

This. Nothing anyone offered as explanation above appears to be a sincere effort to answer the actual question that was posed.

[ahmanfan]

Less collectors of high grade 39 play ball sets than high grade 50s sets? One possibility

More demand for postwar rookie cards than pre war. Maybe another explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

This. Nothing anyone offered as explanation above appears to be a sincere effort to answer the actual question that was posed.

That's because the actual answer, as illustrated by previous responses is "hmmm, interesting, I don't exactly know either"

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

Something I'm curious about and wondering if people here had thoughts: It seems to me that for the 1939 Play Ball Ted Williams, high grades don't bring the premiums they do for other key vintage rookie cards. For example, if I compare it to the 1951 Bowman Mays, both cards I follow pretty closely, I would estimate the typical values about so:

Williams Mays
1 ~3K ~3-4K
2 ~4-5K ~4-6K
3 ~5-6K ~5-8K
4 ~7-9K ~8-12K
5 ~8-11K ~12-18K
6 ~11-16K ~20-30K
7 ~16-25K ~40-60K
8 ~35-50K ~180-250K

So it looks like the prices are pretty even in grades 1-4, and then they start to diverge. Any ideas why Williams rookies in high grade don't command the same kind of premiums as other key vintage rookies?

I thought for a second the population report might have an answer - and it might help with part of the story as there are more Williams graded than Mays at 8 (88 for Williams, 79 for Mays) 9 (12 for Williams vs 8 for Mays) and 10 (1 for Williams, 0 for Mays). Couple those numbers with the fact that the PSA graded population of 1951 Bowman Mays is about 800 higher than the 1939 Playball Williams, the Williams is just easier to find in high grade. Unfortunately that doesn't explain why the values start diverging at 5.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think this is it. The Mays rookie is a much better looking card in not B & W. Why spend a zillion dollars on a Williams 8-9 when a 5-6 looks the same (bland) way?

I agree, the card is just a bit bland in black and white and the higher grades just dont look much better. I think that is the sole reason.

[balltrash]

In my opinion it is just a dull and drab set. If they had used the 1941 design in 1939 I think that far more collectors would be interested in a Williams. I have a pretty nice Williams collection which includes a 1939 Play Ball and while it is certainly among the more "important" cards on which he appears it is perhaps the one I get the least enjoyment out of. Heck - I spend more time looking through my 1959 Fleer Williams cards!

[rats60]

I think it is the registry. The postwar RC registry set is popular, so a lot of people buying Mays are trying to get the highest grade. Not so much for Williams.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by rats60

I think it is the registry. The postwar RC registry set is popular, so a lot of people buying Mays are trying to get the highest grade. Not so much for Williams.

That is an interesting thought. I was messing around and added my 1 Gehrig card to the Gehrig Super Set registry. I am ranked 3rd overall. That says to me as popular as Gehrig is a player set of a pre-war star is not that active.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I think this is it. The Mays rookie is a much better looking card in not B & W. Why spend a zillion dollars on a Williams 8-9 when a 5-6 looks the same (bland) way?

This 100%. B&W cards aren't as desirable

[BioCRN]

Anecdotal, but I've met more than a few people over the years that are either intimidated by or uninterested in the vast amount of pre-war issues that are all over the place in size, look, etc.

The amount of different sets, the different card sizes between sets, and especially the fact that so many are one-off issues that came and went after only 1 release period means there's a big learning curve compared to other eras. Some of the stuff put out in the 20s/30s is especially weird.

T206, 33/34 Goudey, and 1914/15 Cracker Jack cards seem to be a comfortable entry point for casual collectors who dip into pre-war. For some people those are all they're interested in as far as pre-war goes.

[raulus]

My first inclination was pop differences. But it looks like they’re pretty close. Mays PSA 8 - 79; PSA 9 - 8; PSA 10 - 0. Williams PSA 8 - 88; PSA 9 - 12; PSA 10 - 1.

So maybe there’s slightly more Williams pieces available, like 10% more at PSA 8 and 50% at PSA 9, and infinity percent at PSA 10, but in raw numbers, it’s not much.

Not sure this is enough to explain the differences that you’re seeing in prices. Except I think my only other comment is that pieces at this level don’t trade very often. Maybe once per year, maybe less. Plus there’s a solid argument that there are a lot of differences even between the 8s. So it’s hard to really get a beat on what they are worth today. I will say that the Mays in PSA 8 has also come down a lot, from a high around $350k a few years ago to around $200k today. So maybe that’s the market starting to correct?

I also think that Mays is in a bit of an extra bubble with his passing, in addition to the standard pandemic runup. Those PSA 8s went from about $40k pre-pandi to $200k today, which is a pretty steep jump at 5x. And it was closer to 10x at the peak.

[jsfriedm]

Maybe some of the higher grade Williams rookies are finally starting to climb in price: https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...ed-dailystatus

(not my card, and I'm not bidding on it)

[gunboat82]

The B&W is a big factor, but for me it's more about the pixellation. If it were a sharp image, I'd be interested in it. Unfortunately, Williams looks blurry even on the best copies.

[parkplace33]

Going to sound harsh, but it is not a pretty card (and set). Lower desirability.