1951 Wheaties Premiums
 

The 1951 Wheaties Test Issue "Premiums" is a set of black & white portraits issued sometime around 1951 and used later in '52 on Wheaties boxes. The set is comprised of various subjects lettered A - K. It is thought the set was issued as a test to determine popularity of the photos for later use as a redemption premium. According to info in a recent auction, contracts were never completed with 2 of the subjects - Mantle & Rosen - and printing of these 2 photo's ceased. The Test Issue Premiums have been associated with General Mills, issuer of Wheaties.

The set is lettered A - K implying there were 11 subjects. In addition to the 8 baseball players, the set also included a card of ice skater Betty Schalow ("H"). Subsequent auctions also turned up cards for Rizzuto ("B"), resulting in a total of 9 baseball players, 10 subjects in total. This essentially left 1 missing subject in the letter "I" slot. I suspect this subject was not a baseball player.

I have included a photo of my 1951 Wheaties Mantle (thanks, Phil) by way of reference.

I have corresponded a number of time with the archives center at General Mills - presumed issuer of the premiums - and they determined the only premiums they made were in 1950. They stated these premiums were actually "colored pictures" with a metal frame. They could not add any information on the history of the 1951 Wheaties Test Issue Premiums set. This is not too surprising, since the archives center was started in 1980.

Who is the last 11th subject (letter "I") in the set? Does anyone have any other information on this set?

Z Wheat

Are you positive on the lettering or going off of PSA's site? Their lettering is off as they list Mantle as G.

I do believe these to be a Wheaties premium given the similarity between these and the 52 Wheaties.

This set is strange. Looking at the population reports for PSA, it looks like there was a stack of these stored away somewhere. There is an abundance of mid-grade cards, which is right where I would expect a card to fall that was stuck in box untouched for 60+ years. My two are posted below. One clearly shows its age/wear. I tend to believe the test issue theory, particularly given the distribution. It would not surprise me if they released a handful of these and then decided to nix the idea.

http://i1345.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8cc011b1.jpg

http://i1345.photobucket.com/albums/...ps0ea2064a.jpg

1951 Wheaties Premiums
 

Mantle is "G".

I am not sure of the "lettering" for Rizzuto and Schalow. I compiled my information from a number of sources. I have never seen an image of Rizzuto.

Z Wheat

Oh, okay. I was looking at the first letter, not the last. PSA has Rizzuto as B. Here is the only pic I could find of his card, courtesy of Robert Edwards. Unfortunately, it is too small to discern the letter, at least for my eyes.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...em_19067_2.jpg

I think it's possible there is no "I". Due to confusion with "1" it's often not used in schemes such as this A-K one. Topps did not use "I" in the 1948-49 Magic Photos scheme and I have seen other sets without such a designation as well.

51 wheaties
 

i think rizzuto is b
and i think dave is right about no I
carling beer magic photos etc all eliminated I

'51 Wheaties Premiums
 

Good information, guys. Thanks.

Z Wheat

51 Wheaties
 

I always wondered about this set. Why would Wheaties, or whoever issued the set include a Mantle in a 1951 set? His rookie year? Makes no sense!

Why include a guy who only played in 96 games, hit .267 with 13 HR's? Remember he wasn't MICKEY MANTLE yet!

I am not even convinced this is a Wheaties issue. Just because the same photos were used in a later issue, does not make it so. Some of the photos like the Ashburn were normal team stock issue photos.

I always wondered if any of the photos could be found by photo collectors who could date the photo. I bet some of them were after 1951!

Am I off base here??

Fred

1951 Wheaties
 

Just had another thought. Did not all the 1951 uniforms have a special patch on the left sleeve with crossed bats? If I am correct, how could this Mantle photo have been taken in 1951 which it would have to have been if this is a 191 issue?

Some Mantle collector out there has a Type1 photo of this shot who can date it.

More on 51 Wheaties
 

Found the photo in the Hulton archives of the Getty Images who has rights to the photo

See:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...-photo/3244119

They date it circa 1955! Thus no way the set could be from 1951. Info says date created as 1/1/55 so best guess is photo was taken in 1954.

Thoughts anyone???

I have way too much money into these cards for them to be from any year other than 1951. So, we can we just all agree that they are 1951 issues?

Bestdj777- now the cat is out of the bag. How about selling yours for fraction of what you got it listed at. LOL!! You can take a few of those zero's off.

Chris

I assume your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek when you said the above?

Money should have nothing to do with the truth. We should go where the evidence leads.

What is your take on what I have laid out?

Fred

Fred,

I agree that it would be great to know more about the set even if it weren't from 1951. Although, it would obviously hurt the value if there were conclusive proof. As for what you've laid out so far, I think it is interesting but do not believe it really demonstrates anything about the actual age of the Wheaties product. There could just as easily be a mistake on the archive, etc., or it could not be a first edition photo (or whatever the photograph collectors call them)

To really figure things out, I think we would need an expert on uniforms to weigh in and determine if it is actual possible that these are 1951 uniforms for these players. I honestly just don't know enough about them myself to make a call.

And, Chris, not a chance :) At least not yet.

Can anyone date this Mantle photograph?
 

Gentlemen:

There is a discussion in the postwar card area regarding the 1951 Wheaties set.

The photo used for the Mantle can be found here:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...-photo/3244119

Can any of you Mantle/Type 1 photo collectors date this photo?

Mantle Photo
 

Chris:

I am NOT a photo collector or expert.

However I did a Google search for 1951 Mantle photos and the first ones shown in both home and away uniforms ALL show the patch I referenced on the left sleeve.

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=1951...&bih=549&dpr=1

Granted, the photo used in the 51 Wheaties is there as well as are many others that are obviously post 1951.

Fred

Mantle Photo
 

Here is the photo in question:

I took a look. Most do have the patch. On the 51 Bowman cards, there are not patches on either jersey though.

Chris:

True that. But the original photo used for the 51 Bowman was taken in spring training.

See:http://www.1951bowmanbaseballcards.c...am%20Photo.htm

Above has photo AND a video from the same park where the photo was taken.

Teams used last years uniforms in spring traing and unveiled new ones once the season began.

The photo used in the 51 Wheaties set was obviously taken in a big league park. So, it seems the photo was taken at a big league park, but NOT in 1951.

So how could Wheaties have printed it in 1951? And again back to my original question, WHY would they have included him in a 1951 set when he was just a rookie with rather pedestrian stats?

Fred

I love Mick and I hope he excuses the following, but I believe it can be dated by his little bit of acne if memory is correct.

I don't know why they included Mantle. My understanding is that there were big expectations for him coming in to his rookie year. If you compare a few of the cards from the 51 set with the 52 Wheaties set, you'll see the same photos were used, particularly Feller, Musial, and Campanella.

I also came across three other athletes that were included in the set: Ben Hogan (I), Jack Kramer (H), and Bob Cousy (no letter identified):

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...Uncatalogued-P

I would go with 1951

Wouldn't there be the Golden Anniversary patch on the sleeve in 1951?

My guess is based on the signature.

Chris:

Just because some of the same photos were used for this purported 1951 set for the 1952 set means nothing. Turn it around. MAYBE the same photos from the 52 set were used for this set that may have been issued in 1954 or so. It can work both ways.

With the info you provided on the three non baseball players, I did some research on all those issued.

You mentioned you had not studied Mantle's stats for '51. I had listed them before, but let's look at his stats for 51 and later years:

Mantle in 1951 played in 96 games hit .267 w/ 13 HR's and 65 RBI's why put him in the set with other established stars?
1953 21 HR's ad 92 RBI's so so stats but I could them including him
1954 27 HR's and 102 RBI's
1955 EVEN BETTER 37 HR's and 99 RBI's

Ashburn led the league in hits both 1951 and 53 but won the batting title in 55 Toss up in my eyes

Berra won MVP in 51, 54 and 55 so he is no help in determining the year!

Musial was Musial great all through the 50's All Star every year

Campy: Like Berra won MVP in both 51 and 54 but led league in RBI's in 53

In my eyes all of the above would be candidates for either a 51 set or later.

However, The Indians clinch it for me:

The Indians had just been in the 1954 World Series and had the best record in all of baseball winning 111 games they finished third in 1951.

Bob Lemon had his best year in 1954 going 23 - 7 with a 2.72 era

Feller had a much better season in 1951 than 1954 or 55 But is a big name

Rosen was MVP in 53

The World Series and the fact that Lemon and Rosen are included leads me to place the set to 1954/55.

Now on to the non baseball:

Hogan: According to Wikipedia:

The "Hogan Slam" season

The win at Carnoustie was but a part of Hogan's watershed 1953 season, in which he won five of the six tournaments he entered and including three major championships (a feat known as the "Hogan Slam").

It still stands among the greatest single seasons in the history of professional golf. Hogan, 40, was unable to enter — and possibly win — the 1953 PGA Championship (to complete the Grand Slam) because its play (July 1–7) overlapped the play of the British Open at Carnoustie (July 6–10), which he won. It was the only time that a golfer had won three major professional championships in a year until Tiger Woods won the final three majors in 2000 (and the first in 2001).

Cousy Most Valuable Player of the 1954 NBA All-Star Game.

Kramer: Again according to Wikipedia:

He won NO tournaments after 1949 But RETIRED in 1954

So in retrospect Hogan had his best year(s), Cousey MVP of All Star Game and Kramer retired all in the 1954 time frame and not much if anything happened to them in 1951. The Indians winning in 1954 and not 1951 thus no reason to include them in a 1951 set is just more "proof" in my eyes that this is NOT a 1951 set.

With all that said, to me the inclusion of Mantle at all is the most damning evidence for this not to be a 51 set, especially with the arm patch missing. The rest is just inconclusive or pointing in the direction of a later issue.

I posted a question to those photo collectors in the memorabilia section to see if any of them had a Type 1 of the shot where they could definitively date it. No answers yet.

I am REALLY making a much bigger deal out of this than is probably needed, but things that do not make sense to me, bugs me! And for many years this has bugged me, so it is all coming to a head with all this reserach and conjecture.

Basically as stated I see NO REASON why a national company with a long history of using sports figures on their products would include an untested rookie in a set before he proves he is "worthy". So I can not see this being a 1951 issue.

Fred

Haha nothing wrong with dissecting the issue. And I agree regarding player selection. I also don't really understand why you'd put some many baseball players and then one of each other athlete.

My point with the 52 photos was that we have evidence that many of these photos existed as early, if not earlier, than 52. I don't know about the lack of patch except that he could have been wearing a spring training uniform as well.

Any idea what ballpark it is?

To be more specific, I remember that those exactly placed and size pimples were on another photo which was dated to the day.

Wow!
 

An after market make up job?

Jon:

That is what I am looking for. The date of the photo or one similar with the same acne as you stated. Can you help?

Fred

Chris:

Granted some of the photos of the others could have been pre 54 or 55. You can always use older photos later. The thing I am trying to figure out of course is when the Mantle photo was taken, because while you can use older photos later you can't use later photos earlier!!:>)

As to your point of Mantle wearing a spring training uniform in the photo, that of course is not possible with the stadium shown behind Mickey in the photo. It is clearly a Major League ballpark. But I can not ID it.

Maybe someone else here can, but that will not help to date the photo unless the stadium was built post 1951 which I greatly doubt, or it is a stadium like KC or Baltimore which did not get a team until the mid 50's.

Fred

Could be missing the forest for the trees - Mantle and Mays were both in the 1951 Bowman set as rookies with little to support them except that they were highly touted as prospective players in New York. Were there any similarly hyped farm products for other cities in the '51 Bowmans? I dunno, but even MacDougal and Ford are in there, while players for other teams generally had to be proven vets to get a card. The card companies were biased toward major markets, just as media is today.
As for that Mantle photo, he does appear to me to be older than in most of his rookie images, so it very well could be from '53 or '54.

Hi Howard:

Who knows?? I have seen or read no difinitive proof this is a Wheaties set. I am not home to read the info in the SCD Standard catalog, but I think I recall it saying something like "purported to be by Wheaties"

Even if it is a Wheaties issue, my "problem" as noted is with the year.

Why issue Mantle in a 1951 set? Make sense to you? Not me.

Fred

Steve:

Thaks for the input. I understand Mantle and Mays being in the 51 Bowman set. But that set has 324 cards in it. Why would Wheaties include Mantle in a 8 "card" issue? Even though Yankees are major market as you say, there are plenty of other NY players they could have chosen.

I agree he looks older in the photo than in ther images from his rookie year, but until we can date the photo we will not know for sure. Hopefully someone will be able to do that conclusively.

Fred

I seem to remember Graig or perhaps Phil Nap (correct me if I'm wrong) doing a pimple analysis on another Mick photo once upon a time.

A recent thread covering a little -
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=168843
Craig - Frozen in Time - April May 1951
Will look for specific photos

April 10, 1951 - pimple - no pinstripes though - so in the timeframe - but not the exact date


http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-ph...friend?popup=1

Probably Graig. Way too much time on his hands.

It is the picture from his 1951 Wheaties premium - home pinstripes are more clear here -

http://catalog.scpauctions.com/lot-12986.aspx

On certain days in April, Mantle is wearing a long sleeve underjersey - other days a short sleeve underjersey - such as the photo in question.

So we're looking for date where Mantle has the same pimple display, is wearing a home jersey, no patch on upper left arm, shortsleeve underjersey, Yankee Stadium, in April 1951.

Jon:

Here is the ORIGINAL photo on the Getty site.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...VItFb3Wu.xLWQQ

It says circa 1955, Created 1/1/55 Obviously the photo was not taken on New Years day, but do you know how Getty dates the photos?

note NO PINSTRIPES. They must have been added to the "Wheaties" issue.

Also ALL uniforms in 1951 had the arm patch, so my take is the shot can not be from 1951.

We are trying to determine the date of the photo to see if indeed the "Wheaties" set could have been issued in 1951. If the dates on the Getty site are correct and the photo is from 1955 then the set cannot be 1951.

Make sense? Any ideas?

Fred

I can't date it, but here's another time it was used...

You guys are making me feel huge, with all the '1951' talk. Be careful - my card ego is already too big, no need to add to my growing autograph ego.

Hey all,

I'm on vacation for the week, but a friend pointed this thread out to me.

I won't have all of my resources available until I get back, but I can assure you that this Mantle image is NOT from '51. Fred was right in mentioning the patch detail. Also worthy of note is that the photo was taken at Ebbets Field. The only time the Yanks were there was for the exhibition right before the season started, and they certainly had the patches on their sleeves then.

My first gut reaction is that the shot is from the '52 World Series, taken during one of the games in Brooklyn. Though the Yanks also had patches on their sleeves that same year, it didn't extend to the postseason (or at least, the away jerseys).

When I get home, I'll dig up the photo evidence, and even try and match up the adverts on the wall to the same year. But in summation, definitely not '51!

Graig

PS: I am familiar with the photo that you guys posted, but I have never really studied it in depth. It's hard to tell from the scan on the board, but there's no evidence of a patch being airbrushed out, right?

Graig,

Since when do you get a vacation? I'm going to have to talk to Dean about this. First he lets you get married, and now this?! We will expect a full report when you get back, including what shade of red is appropriate to use for "Mickey Mantle's acne." (And don't act like you haven't already spent hours obsessing over that one. You're like the reverse of those school photographers who were always trying to get us to pay to have those blemishes removed from our photos.)

J/k. Much love to you and the Mrs., wherever you may be. I look forward to seeing what you dig up upon returning to home base.

Hi Guys,

So this is all I know about this photo. The original photo (without facsimile auto) was taken by Don Wingfield at Ebbets Field. The original image is exactly what was used for the 1951 Wheaties series (they added the pinstripes and enhanced the uniform folds editorially).

Now the date. Having over 150 Type I prints of the Mick as a rookie, I can tell you that the facial characteristics (including the much discussed acne) and what I can see of his body all shout 1951.

Support for 1952 comes from a Type I print with a 1952 date stamp (which if I remember correctly was from October supporting Graig's contention). It is also possible that this print was used for something else in 1952 and reflects that and not when it was taken.

I have a Type I of the original negative and there does not appear to be any evidence of editorial removal of a '51 nor '52 patch. Moreover, I have several Type I's of Mickey in spring training of 1952 and in all of them he is wearing a 1951 top where you can clearly see an outline of the '51 patch that has been removed on his left sleeve.

This photo was used for at least 3 premium photo issues that I am aware of (all with slightly different styles of facsimile autos) in addition to several PM-10 pins.

Finally, one definitive way to date the photo would be some hard evidence as to when the 1951 Wheaties series was created - Feb, March, April of '51 or after September 1952?

Hope this helps more than confuses.

Cheers,

Craig

You have a point there, Fred, which kind of supports your theory that the photos are from a later year. I think there were a number of articles in the media about the Yankees' and Giants' young phenoms in 1951, however. So, it still seems feasible to me that Mantle might have been in an eight-card set based on nothing more than his early celebrity status in NY in that year. Look at it from the perspective of card issuer trying to maximize profit - do you want a good-looking kid that everyone (in NY anyway) is raving about as the next Joe D., or do you want Hank Bauer? In that discussion, stats and experience don't really matter. On the other hand, I agree with you that other factors point to a later year for the set.

Follow up?
 

It seems like this is the best lead as far as dating. Getty is a stock photo agency. They sell the use rights for thousands of photographers and photographs. They list a "date created" as Jan 1, 1955. Worth a phone call checking how they arrived at that date. What is the Hutton archive etc.

Not definitive, but
 

When do any of you first remember seeing these available for sale/auction? When were they added to the standard catalog? Not a stretch to think someone "created these" in the past 20 years. Anyone have one who is or knows a photo paper expert?

wheaties premiums
 

these have been in the book a long time
they were listed as general mills and booked for $10ea

Hi Craig and Graig

Thanks for all the info! We are finally getting down to the gist of my question.

But I am seeing conflicting thoughts/theories/info from the both of you.

Graig says " definitely not '51!" and Craig says "and what I can see of his body all shout 1951.

Support for 1952 comes from a Type I print with a 1952 date stamp (which if I remember correctly was from October supporting Graig's contention)"

Graig: GREAT info on the patches extending into the WS in 51 and not 52. Dating with the ads will really help. Looking forward to it, but enjoy your vacation until then!

Craig:

You go on to say " one definitive way to date the photo would be some hard evidence as to when the 1951 Wheaties series was created - Feb, March, April of '51 or after September 1952?"

This is actually what I am trying to ascertain. IF the photo is from the 52 World Series then the Wheaties set can not be from 1951, but rather has to be later. Of course even if the photo is from 1951 does not mean the Wheaties set was issued in 1951 or even 1952 for that matter. It could have been issued any year later! This goes back to my argument of why Wheaties would include Mantle in a 1951 set. More on this an comparing other players in the set can be found in the postwar section discussion found here:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=175675

where one of the issues is, it is dated circa 1955 in the Getty archives!

I hope one of you EXPERTS will be able to come up with a definitive answer on when the photo was taken, and we will be able to answer at least if the set was issued in 1951 or not. Then the question is, is it a Wheaties issue and we start all over again!! :>)

Thanks again for all your help/research/thoughts!

Fred