Will there be a post-war card again like the 52 Mantle ?

[larietrope]

Did the 52 Mantle hit at the perfect time ? Decades ago not many would have said a post-war baseball card would command over a million dollars.
Do you think there will ever be a "big one" like the Mantle to hit or is it all over past the 52 Mick ?

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by larietrope

Did the 52 Mantle hit at the perfect time ? Decades ago not many would have said a post-war baseball card would command over a million dollars.
Do you think there will ever be a "big one" like the Mantle to hit or is it all over past the 52 Mick ?

It won't happen again.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[1952boyntoncollector]

Will never have one again where it isnt condition sensitve. Maybe cards that are PSA 10s etc.

But to me a real card with value means if it had a rip in it or part of it is ripped off...its still worth $500+...... The 1952 Mantle is still worth that if its ripped apart and taped together. You wont see that with any other card post war that we dont know about.. ...

Playing games with POP due to artificial scarcity of PSA 10s is a whole different animal..

you could have an aaron judge PSA 10 that is POP 1 40 years ago thats worth money....but one that is ripped apart and taped together will be worthless for example

[mattjc1983]

Agree with Jason. I don’t think the artificially-created scarcity of the modern era can ever create the level of demand that exists for the natural scarcity of vintage
cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Volod]

Originally Posted by larietrope

Did the 52 Mantle hit at the perfect time ? Decades ago not many would have said a post-war baseball card would command over a million dollars.
Do you think there will ever be a "big one" like the Mantle to hit or is it all over past the 52 Mick ?

My guess is that in the next post-war, apocalyptic period, anyone left will not be worrying about the auction price of sportscards.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by Volod

My guess is that in the next post-war, apocalyptic period, anyone left will not be worrying about the auction price of sportscards.

So at this rate, like sometime next year?

[chalupacollects]

No, never again... the card companies long ago ruined that...maybe a 1 of 1 Mike Trout auto rookie 4 color patch card graded gem mint 10. If that even exists... and if he is in top 5 all time in top offensive categories and unanimous HOF first time ballot.... lol

[Leon]

Not baseball but...

Jordan rookie

.

[RaidonCollects]

I think it could happen. The '68 Ryan/Koosman and the '89 UD Griffey are already very popular, but not as much as the Mantle. Mickey Mantle defined the 1950s and 60s for baseball, and until someone else does that, there will not be another '52 Mantle. Also, I think that even with manufactured scarcity there can still be huge demand for some cards, take the 2008 Topps Kershaw for example.

Just my thoughts

Owen

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not baseball but...

Jordan rookie

.

Interesting thought. Jordan is the only player (other than perhaps Tom Brady) since Mantle who has dominated like Mantle (one of just seven players in all of baseball history who created more than 200% of the runs created by a league average player in the course of his entire career (with the others being Cobb, Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Gehrig and Joe Jackson--Mays and Aaron, in comparison, were each in the 180% range); 12 pennants won in his first 14 years, and seven WS championships). On the negative side regarding the '86-87 Fleer: print run has been estimated at 200,000.

Highest regards,

Larry

PS: Jordan probably is the only athlete since Mantle to have made a similar impact on the professional sports scene.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not baseball but...

Jordan rookie

.

I agree that the '86 Fleer Jordan card is the modern '52T Mantle. There are tons of Fleer Jordan cards out there, but there is always a market for that card; PSA alone has graded over 16,000 '86 Fleer Jordan cards.

For modern collectors, the Jordan image on that card is every bit as iconic a post-war card as the '52 Topps Mantle.

[jason.1969]

The key requirement we may never see again was that cards were assumed to have no actual value at the time, hence were not generally retained or preserved. Nowadays, just about everything is an instant collectible, hence sought after, preserved, hoarded, etc.

The question I have is how much Mantle's value is buttressed by a fan base that actually saw him in his prime and idolized him. These fans would be at least 65-70 by now, hence unlikely to influence the card market 50 years from now. By then, Mantle goes from being the God of their youths to "just" a Top 15 or so player. I'm sure the iconic past of the card will hold some influence but I don't think the influence will be total or permanent.

Jason

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

The key requirement we may never see again was that cards were assumed to have no actual value at the time, hence were not generally retained or preserved. Nowadays, just about everything is an instant collectible, hence sought after, preserved, hoarded, etc.

The question I have is how much Mantle's value is buttressed by a fan base that actually saw him in his prime and idolized him. These fans would be at least 65-70 by now, hence unlikely to influence the card market 50 years from now. By then, Mantle goes from being the God of their youths to "just" a Top 15 or so player. I'm sure the iconic past of the card will hold some influence but I don't think the influence will be total or permanent.

Jason

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Bill James ranked Mantle as the 5th greatest player to play major league baseball, with thorough consideration of all the factors that entailed, in his last historical baseball abstract, which is a rating he beyond any reasonable dispute earned in the course of his career. Yes, others posted higher total numbers, but James and I are both talking primarily about quality of play over a substantial period of time, rather than quantity (does anyone really consider Craig Biggio on a par with numerous other HOF'er's simply because he got 3,000+ hits over a long career? Don't expect a run on Biggio cards anytime soon!).

I was asked by dealers I have known for many, many years at the National in Chicago what was going to happen to the value of Mantle cards once those who actually saw him play passed on. My answer was simple, and one I would classify as a basic truism: exactly the same thing as happened over time to Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner and other such cards. The fact that there are more of the Mantles may well make them more cyclical in their appreciation, but I don't think you will go wrong over the long term in tucking away some of his very toughest in the highest grade you can find or afford now.

Happy collecting,

Larry

[geosluggo]

I once held a raw '52 Mantle in my grubby childhood hands in the mid-1970s. It belonged to my friend's dad and even then the card had a mythical status. Can't imagine there will be another like it. I remember people hoarding rookie cards of Todd Van Poppel and Gregg Jefferies and other speculative phenoms in the late '80s and early '90s. I had shelved my collection then and, seeing that hysteria, I figured I'd never be able to get back into it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Bill James ranked Mantle as the 5th greatest player to play major league baseball, with thorough consideration of all the factors that entailed, in his last historical baseball abstract, which is a rating he beyond any reasonable dispute earned in the course of his career. Yes, others posted higher total numbers, but James and I are both talking primarily about quality of play over a substantial period of time, rather than quantity (does anyone really consider Craig Biggio on a par with numerous other HOF'er's simply because he got 3,000+ hits over a long career? Don't expect a run on Biggio cards anytime soon!).


Larry

And I think that's also part of it. Until maybe the 70's -80's, there were players that were incredibly good, but for a few reasons didn't have long careers. Either from overuse, injury that nobody really knew how to recover from, or just getting tired of the grind and getting a better offer in business.

With the changes free agency brought for the financial end of things, came a change in how a career was viewed. Players and teams began taking a longer view, and eventually a more common view that the team they played for was just temporary until contract time or before if the team felt they could fill more lineup gaps with a trade.

So players actually took time to rehab injuries, with an eye to extending their career. Even at the now old fashioned 2-3 million a year why play hurt and shorten your career by even a couple years.

As a fan, it gets harder to really think of a player the way players in the past were viewed. When I was a kid, Yaz was always there, and the perhaps rose colored glasses kept him as a great player long past his prime. (Same for Rice) When the players move around more that just doesn't happen. I can only think of a couple recent players that even get close to that, Jeter and Ortiz.

Players aren't generally as flashy, and in some baseball ways that's not a bad thing. Would Mays famous catch happen today? With scouting and advanced video study he'd probably be playing deeper, and not have to make such a long run to get to the ball. Better for teams and players to be positioned better, maybe not as good for the fans.
Biggio fits that pretty well, 20 years without much in the way of injuries, a nice run of years well above average, stayed with the same team the whole time, and managed to average just barely over 150 hits a year.

So what we've ended up with are a lot (probably more than in the 50's) of players who are very good for a very long time, but aren't quite as electric as the top players back then.
It's hard to have someone become almost mythical like Mantle or Ruth without that flashiness, with loads of access, without the prolonged local adulation, and without as much press. NY players, even the merely above average get a lot more national press than almost anyone. Boston and Chicago would probably be a close second.

[jason.1969]

I tend to view the sabermetrics with a big grain of salt, particularly when comparing across eras. Taking basketball as an example, where I think the point is more easily made, analytics would speak to the tremendous dominance of George Mikan over his 1950s peers much more than--for example--Hassan Whiteside over his peers today. That said, I have to beleive that Whiteside would completely shut down Mikan and dunk all over him if a time machine allowed for such a match.

Similarly, I imagine there are guys playing baseball today with WAR at zero who would dominate high-WAR players of a century ago.

Something incredible about baseball is that we can even consider the possibility that Babe Ruth might actually have possessed more baseball talent than Willie Mays or Jose Altuve, whereas in basketball, track, swimming, football, and just about all other sports it would be laughable to even make a comparison across decades or centuries.

So my main point is that sabermetrics answers some questions well and others not at all. But coming back to Mantle, I do beleive his perceived greatness will diminish over time as ballplayers continue to get faster, stronger, and more athletic. He may become more Mikan and less Ruth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[jason.1969]

Will offer the player/card that I believe has the best chance to go 100x present value. It's not Mike Trout, Aaron Judge, Kris Bryant or anyone else we've already imagined as a future Hall of Famer. To an extent, the bubbles are already inflated around those players.

In fact, it's not even a current player. And for that matter, his sport isn't even baseball. Good chance you can't stand him and think he sucks, but I won't go there at the moment.

I'm talking of course about Colin Rand Kaepernick.

"WTF?!?!?!" you ask! But here's why I think his odds are higher than anybody else.

Let's say history remembers him as an anti-American, troublemaking, borderline NFL talent. And maybe there's a 90% chance we end up there. Then clearly his cards are nothing special...kindling, birdcage liner, etc.

But now let's say his movement has the opposite effect on America and his legacy as an athlete-activist is mentioned in the same breath as Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali. America would have to change a lot for this to happen. A whole lot. And maybe a team would even need to sign Kaep and then make a surprise Super Bowl run. But I'd say the chances of any of this are higher than any card we're hoarding today blowing up 100x.

Add to it, perhaps, the fact that many collectors have burned or discarded their Kaep cards--or at least said eff it to third party grading and encapsulation, meaning scarcity at high grades could kick in too. (And many of his RCs were already scarce to begin with.)

I'm not positing this to elicit any love/hate responses about the man himself. Rather, I'm offering a scenario I consider as plausible for how any collectible we already know about could somehow increase 100x.

One could argue that a "common player" like Grant Dayton could win the next 14 Cy Young Awards and then be elected POTUS, in which we'd see 100x as well. True, but I think Kaep has the much more plausible path to cardboard royalty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[profholt82]

Mantle came into superstardom right at the time when baseball cards were becoming more popular and common among children. Topps had just begun its annual set. And there were more children growing up in the US during the 50s and 60s than in any era previous or since (the baby boom). So that card really was a zeitgeist of sorts for the hobby.

I think if you looked at the history of sports in America, guys like Ruth, Bobby Jones, Jack Dempsey, perhaps a few others, were all even more popular in their time than Mantle was, but nowadays the average person probably doesn't know who they were. As the boomer generation passes on, I think the Topps Mantle will become much less important than it is today.

[Jsquared123]

Among people my age (I'm 34) and younger who are serious or even casual baseball fans, Mantle has taken on more of the mythical Ruthian type persona from what I've witnessed growing up and now as an adult. We're nearly 50 years since Mantle last played and 22 since he passed. I remember that day pretty well actually. My father who actually worked with his mom by stadium as a kid and teennager in the 1950s and 1960s, called into WFAN the day after Mantle's passing to reminisce about Mantle and actually cried on air. I've never seen another grown man of 50 years old cry over the passing of a baseball player, athlete, celebrity or anything of the sort before or since.

Fast forward to today, the hobby is strong although taken over by the forced scarcity 1 of 1 refractor autograph game used jersey rookie cards graded a rainbow label 12 by BGS, there is a still a huge market for not just the 52T but any Mantle. I don't see that changing any time soon. The demand for vintage and the days of hobby simplicity will always be strong. Heck, I know I'm not the only 30 something on this board and I bet there are many younger than me. In the age of youtube and the internet, there is just enough footage and stories available to keep Mantle's legend alive and well for many future generations to come.

[packs]

The Trout Bowman rookie will in my opinion be an immortal card like the 52 Mantle. It's value is absurd already and it has the same hallmarks of the Mantle: it's not really even a rare card.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by packs

The Trout Bowman rookie will in my opinion be an immortal card like the 52 Mantle. It's value is absurd already and it has the same hallmarks of the Mantle: it's not really even a rare card.

How many 52 Micks are in existence? Not comparing the two cards, but the Bowman Trout is under a 1000, methinks .... it is a rare card

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Jsquared123

Among people my age (I'm 34) and younger who are serious or even casual baseball fans, Mantle has taken on more of the mythical Ruthian type persona from what I've witnessed growing up and now as an adult. We're nearly 50 years since Mantle last played and 22 since he passed. I remember that day pretty well actually. My father who actually worked with his mom by stadium as a kid and teennager in the 1950s and 1960s, called into WFAN the day after Mantle's passing to reminisce about Mantle and actually cried on air. I've never seen another grown man of 50 years old cry over the passing of a baseball player, athlete, celebrity or anything of the sort before or since.

Fast forward to today, the hobby is strong although taken over by the forced scarcity 1 of 1 refractor autograph game used jersey rookie cards graded a rainbow label 12 by BGS, there is a still a huge market for not just the 52T but any Mantle. I don't see that changing any time soon. The demand for vintage and the days of hobby simplicity will always be strong. Heck, I know I'm not the only 30 something on this board and I bet there are many younger than me. In the age of youtube and the internet, there is just enough footage and stories available to keep Mantle's legend alive and well for many future generations to come.

And the more objective analytical yardsticks that are applied to his performance, the better and better he appears. Study the subject and you will find that it was completely reasonable and logical that Bill James rated Mantle as the 5th best player ever to play major league baseball (Bill actually had Mantle 6th overall, behind Oscar Charleston, but sadly there is no real objective evidence to support Oscar's placement due to the ridiculous racial discrimination which banned him from playing major league ball in his playing days). A very interesting read on the subject is the book, "Mickey and Willie," by, I believe, Alan Barra (going by memory on the author's name), with two chapters devoted to objective, mathematical analysis as it existed at the time of the book's original publication (2013?).

And contrary to what you may have read above, objectively and logically, it is highly unlikely that the Yankees would have won 12 pennants and seven world championships in the Mick's first 14 years with any other player whatsoever of his time substituted for him on those 1951-1964 teams. IMHO, to contend otherwise is nothing more than errant nonsense.

Best wishes,

Larry

[jason.1969]

Modern analytics are definitely quantitative, but we should not confuse them with mathematical or scientific truth. They are imperfect even relative to what they purport to measure, which itself is only a proxy for greatness.

I'm not disrespecting Mantle or Bill James here...just disputing that there is or was any sort of rigorous proof that Mantle is/was one of the six greatest players ever.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Modern analytics are definitely quantitative, but we should not confuse them with mathematical or scientific truth. They are imperfect even relative to what they purport to measure, which itself is only a proxy for greatness.

I'm not disrespecting Mantle or Bill James here...just disputing that there is or was any sort of rigorous proof that Mantle is/was one of the six greatest players ever.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Then you definitely need to read and study more. It should also be noted that modern analytics are primarily qualitative, not quantitative, and it is beyond the bounds of reasonable dispute that, mathematically, they correlate extremely well with team performance. Since the team is the whole, and the players are the components that make up the whole, there is little reason to doubt that the analytics may be applied to individual players as well as the team with a very nearly equal degree of accuracy.

Please note that I am not speaking of "WAR" (wins above replacement) here, which I believe stands for worthless, analytical rat shit, because it employs estimates of defensive runs saved which it then integrates into a player's total "WAR" rating. MLB Now had the gentleman in charge of calculating defensive runs saved on as a guest, and broadcaster-reporter-writer Rosenthal got him to admit that a defensive run saved as credited to a player is not actually a defensive run saved, because the context in which the outstanding defensive play was made is ignored. Example: the shortstop makes a diving catch of a low liner headed up the middle, a ball that without the great catch would have been a hit, with two outs and a runner on third. Obviously, a run was saved defensively in that context. BUT THE POWERS THAT BE THAT CALCULATE SUCH THINGS ALSO CREDIT A DEFENSIVE RUN SAVED IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE TWO OUTS AND NO ONE ON BASE. Obviously, in the latter context, at best, only a (small) fraction of a run was saved--the probability that if the catch had not been made, and the batter's ball had gone through for a hit, the batter, now on first base, would ultimately have scored that inning (a probability which, as I recall, is somewhere between 10 and 15% at best).

Teams are going much further with analytics than this, and are using both public and propriety data comprehensively. Virtually every team has an analytics staff now--why? Because it clearly helps them win more games.

I would ordinarily say "just my humble opinion," but an "opinion" it most certainly is not.

Best of luck to you in your collecting,

Larry

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Then you definitely need to read and study more. It should also be noted that modern analytics are primarily qualitative, not quantitative, and it is beyond the bounds of reasonable dispute that, mathematically, they correlate extremely well with team performance. Since the team is the whole, and the players are the components that make up the whole, there is little reason to doubt that the analytics may be applied to individual players as well as the team with a very nearly equal degree of accuracy.

Please note that I am not speaking of "WAR" (wins above replacement) here, which I believe stands for worthless, analytical rat shit, because it employs estimates of defensive runs saved which it then integrates into a player's total "WAR" rating. MLB Now had the gentleman in charge of calculating defensive runs saved on as a guest, and broadcaster-reporter-writer Rosenthal got him to admit that a defensive run saved as credited to a player is not actually a defensive run saved, because the context in which the outstanding defensive play was made is ignored. Example: the shortstop makes a diving catch of a low liner headed up the middle, a ball that without the great catch would have been a hit, with two outs and a runner on third. Obviously, a run was saved defensively in that context. BUT THE POWERS THAT BE THAT CALCULATE SUCH THINGS ALSO CREDIT A DEFENSIVE RUN SAVED IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE TWO OUTS AND NO ONE ON BASE. Obviously, in the latter context, at best, only a (small) fraction of a run was saved--the probability that if the catch had not been made, and the batter's ball had gone through for a hit, the batter, now on first base, would ultimately have scored that inning (a probability which, as I recall, is somewhere between 10 and 15% at best).

Teams are going much further with analytics than this, and are using both public and propriety data comprehensively. Virtually every team has an analytics staff now--why? Because it clearly helps them win more games.

I would ordinarily say "just my humble opinion," but an "opinion" it most certainly is not.

Best of luck to you in your collecting,

Larry

It would be hard to read and study more math and baseball than I already have. Just a few points to make...

1. A pre-modern stat that correlates even more with team wins than any sabermetric invention is Wins. Yet nearly all fans would agree that ranking the greatest pitchers by wins is a flawed exercise.

2. Let's take two players who have identical stats. One is a clubhouse cancer. The other is a leader and motivator, often giving his teammates helpful tips on how to face certain pitchers or play certain hitters. While various formulas would lead to the same numbers of runs or wins, the reality is the players would lead to very different numbers of wins.

3. You mention most analytics are qualitative but also that they correlate with winning. By definition, correlation cannot be measured unless the variables are quantitative.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[bauce]

Originally Posted by larietrope

Did the 52 Mantle hit at the perfect time ? Decades ago not many would have said a post-war baseball card would command over a million dollars.
Do you think there will ever be a "big one" like the Mantle to hit or is it all over past the 52 Mick ?

No. I do not know where the line is, but anything 90s and beyond is not really historical. Now they create manufactured rarities through limited production printing instead of attrition. Also, cards today go from pack-to-slab in under a minute. Doubtful that any cards back then had the benefit of today's technological protection, so what ever survived in mint condition was painstakingly taken care of, not just put into a lucite holder and then shoved in a drawer.

As was mentioned before - today's cards will be worthless if torn or ripped, even if it was a manufactured 1/1. ALL of today's cards are supposed to be at least NM/MT or else it loses its value very steeply. Only a vintage card can wield that kind of power - a power that creates demand for it in almost any condition.

I had a couple of pennies, so I thought I would toss them into this well and make a wish....