Question regarding 1952 Topps Willie Mays

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Greetings, I was wondering if most collectors consider the 1952 Topps Willie Mays to be more significant than the 1951 Bowman? Since the 51" Bowman is the hi# series it may be scarcer then the 52" Topps. Would love to hear some comments, opinions.
Thank You

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

If you just go by aesthetics, I'll take the 52T Mays.

Edited to add - sorry, I didn't answer the question.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I would personally rather have the 52T also, but since the 51 Bowman is his rookie, it is probably more "significant".
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

Any major player's 1952 Topps card has tremendous significance give the set and what it stands for. I think the 1952 topss cards of guys like Mantle, Mays, Campanella, Berra, Robinson, are more "significant" than there rookies.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

When I was doing the rookie HOF'er thing there wasn't even a question. It had to be the '51 Topps for him. I had him in a 7 holder... Aesthetics-wise would have been the reverse....

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

51' topps Leon?

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

For old-line collectors, the '52 Topps set will always be special and I gotta admit the Jackie Robinson in the set is gorgeous. It's the newcomers who are always harping on rookie card of this and that. Over time I expect the '52 Topps set to be less prominent and Jackie's rookie cards as well as other HOF rookie cards will catch up in value to the cards in the '52 set.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I meant '51 Bowman.....and I actually still have one of those 1951 team cards...but don't think Mays is on it...or was on any of those...

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The 1952 Topps/1951 Bowman is the rare case where the 2nd year card is considered more
significant (and expensive) than the rookie year. However, the 51 Bowman Mays and Mantles
are nice looking and popular too. Personally, I think Mantles Bowman is better looking
than his 52 Topps.

A comparable case is the Cal Ripken Jr., where his 1982 Topps Traded (which technically
isn't considered his rookie by many), is more expensive than his rookie cards. In this
case, the Topps Traded is much rare and many consider it nicer looking.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

It is very interesting to see what other collectors think regarding these two issues. It seems like we have a split between the 51" Bowman & 52" Topps. Personally, I like the 1952 Topps Mays as the card is very pleasing to the eye. It really depicts a young Mays just starting out on the long road to 660 HR. The 51" is not as appealing for me. Nice looking card but not as nice as the 52 Topps. I would have to say that the 1951 Bowman is the true rookie though. You have to have both in your collection if you are a Mays collector. I just picked up the 52" Topps Mays and that is why I posted the question. Here is the card I purchased: