With the exception of a few rare instances, Topps and Bowman always produced a great-looking card of Mickey Mantle. He was photogenic, and the gum companies really tried, usually, to offer the kiddies a swell-looking card of Mick to pull from a wax pack or cello.
I lived through some of those years, and I sincerely cannot imagine not getting Mickey's card for a given year. Not getting Mickey would have been a genuine letdown, a major disappointment, with all sorts of "now what will do" frantic emotions and thoughts!
Happiness is ......
Pulling a Mickey Mantle from a pack of baseball cards.
This hopes to be an interesting topic.
Should you be curious as to the years Topps bungled horribly on Mr. Mantle, let me elucidate. Sadly, I also lived through two consecutive years where the regular issue Mantle looked abysmal. I mean, as a kid I thought the 1962 and 1963 were a big turn-off. Decades later, I mused over the thought the Topps photographer, or personnel who selected the player photos, had a huge bet on Mantle to break Ruth's record in 1961 over Maris. He lost. So, with a sullen attitude of revenge, he made Mickey look crummy in both 62 & 63. He really did, too.
I remember during a move in 1964, my dear mother tossed out a bunch of my baseball cards. Among them was my 62 Mantle. Years later, in a huge order to The Trading Card Company in Michigan, I placed a bulk order of 62s. I included Mickey Mantle, natch. They honored my request. So, for eight cents, I got the 1962 Topps #200 Mickey Mantle. It was about 1969, and I honestly had completely forgotten how Mick looked on his card from seven years before. That told me how forgettable the card was in my mind.
However, the Bazookas from both years are most aesthetically pleasing, and much more attractive than the Topps. Guess a different chap had the job of working on the Bazooka issues. Mickey always looked terrific on his Bazooka cards. Though he had to design within a much smaller framework, all the players looked great on the Bazookas!
Cheers. ---Brian Powell