Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestdj777
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 |
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