Ted Williams

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Why do you guys think there isn't more of a buzz about Ted Williams' cards? IMO his cards are, for the most part, fairly attractive...he was pretty photogenic throughout his career. He was a major star in his day, served his country twice during his career, and he is known as one of the better hitters ever. I get that he was often a grouch and battled the Boston press. Do you all think he has a similar reputation of say, Willie Mays? Lack of postseason success? I mean his cards have pretty decent value, but just not overly tremendous once you get past his rookie (with the exception of the Wilson's card).

[Bigdaddy]

sshhhhh....don't wake the sleeping giant.

[egri]

I think part of it is his cards tended to be issued when he was old and on the back end of his career, and by then Boston was strictly in the second division. His first Topps card came in 1954, when he was 36, and the Red Sox finished in 4th, 8 games below .500 and 42 games out of first. His Bowman issues weren't that much earlier. The only Williams cards issued while he was young and Boston was contending are his Play Ball cards (and the first two aren't very good looking, IMPO) and his 1949 Leaf.

[GasHouseGang]

He suffers from the same malady as Stan Musial. He didn’t play for the New York Yankees. Lots of great players suffer from this and it is reflected in their card prices.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

He suffers from the same malady as Stan Musial. He didn’t play for the New York Yankees. Lots of great players suffer from this and it is reflected in their card prices.

Great point. I am sure that does play a role in this. Musial and Williams are all time greats, but you will probably never see either one mentioned as a good long-term purchase. Sad.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Musial and Williams are all time greats, but you will probably never see either one mentioned as a good long-term purchase.

Unless you get in at the right price...

Also, if you consider their card runs, they are pretty expensive except as compared to Mantle, but he was a unique case.

[Bagwell-1994]

It puzzles me as well. I think there's a Yankee-favortism and more specifically a world series winner-Yankee-favortism in effect.

1941 was a classic year, final year before WWII, Ted Williams remains last hitter to hit 0.400 or higher and slashed .406/.553/.735 (10.6 WAR). DiMaggio established a seemingly unbreakable record 56-game hit streak and slashed .357/.440/.643 (9.1 WAR) and beat out Ted for MVP.

My 1941 Play Ball Ted Williams PSA 5 is valued at VCP avg of $878

My 1941 Play Ball Joe DiMaggio PSA 5 is valued at VCP avg of $2389! Nearly 3 times the value!

Both cards are several years after their rookie cards (Williams 1939, DiMaggio 1936).

Ted Williams 1939 Play Ball RC at PSA 7 is valued at $7,000 and at PSA 9 is valued at $180,000.

Joe DiMaggio 1936 World Wide Gum RC at PSA 7 (highest available grade) is valued at $52,000, leading me to estimate, that a grade PSA 8/9 would be valued astronomically higher than the 7, possibly $300K, $500K? Who knows?

DiMaggio won 9 world series titles in 13 seasons. Teddy won 0. DiMaggio slashed .271/.338/.422 in 51 postseason games. Williams slashed .200/.333/.200 in 7 postseason games. DiMaggio played a more premium position at centerfield, while Williams played left field. Both players left the game and sacrificed the prime of their careers to serve their country in time of war.

DiMaggio final career slash line: .325/.398/.579
Williams final career slash line: .344/.482/.634 (.482 OBP is an all-time career record)

It seems to me, without analyzing any additional character references, media perception, etc., DiMaggio cards are more valuable due to the fact that:

1. DiMaggio was a part of 9 world championship Yankee teams while Williams won 0 with the BoSox.

2. DiMaggio bridged the gap of legendary Yankee outfielders, from Babe Ruth to Mickey Mantle.

3. DiMaggio's postseason success and premium position fielding and baserunning left fans/writers with the perception he was a better all-around PLAYER/WINNER despite Teddy was clearly a better HITTER.

Personally, you give me a draft pick choice, I choose Teddy ball game all day long. Imagine what Ted could've done if he were a Yankee and if he had 51 post season games to perform on those Yankees teams?! Although advanced metrics didn't exist at the time, Teddy is 14th all-time with 123.1 BWAR, whereas DiMaggio is 68th with 78.1 BWAR as a point of reference.

Regarding Stan The Man, I really dont know why his cards don't command more value. He's 11th all-time with 128.2 BWAR. He served 1945 in the war (maybe that one year wasn't enough sacrifice compared to others?). He still holds numerous MLB records to this day. His 1948 Bowman RC sold for an amazing $360,000 at PSA 10, but his PSA 5 (what I own) is a very modest $637 avg value. I have no idea why one of the 11 greatest players of all-time is so affordable in mid-grade rookie cards



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

As my collecting in the 1980's and the 90's gave way to the new century, the only player it seemed rose in stature more towards Mantle (though not eclipsing him) was Clemente. In the 90's Clemente did not seem to me to be more popular than Aaron or Banks or other contemporaries, but in the 21st century he is. Williams in my mind was one of those all time greats who is up there along with anyone but Mantle from the postwar era in terms of his popularity. The reasons why Mantle will likely never be surpassed in this area have already been discussed here ad nauseam, and I don't expect Ted to ever seriously challenge that. As a player Williams in my mind was easily better than Mantle, but again - we've already discussed why that does not translate to an even shake in card values.

[tedzan]

Ted Williams was always one of my favorite guys. I acquired all these Ted Williams cards (and many more) in the early-to mid-1980's.
Williams cards were relatively inexpensive back then (compared to other super stars....Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Jackie Robinson, etc.).

How inexpensive....here are some typical prices for these cards (Ex/Mt) during that period:

1941 PLAY BALL = $40

1949 LEAF = $25

1950 BOWMAN = $40

1951 BOWMAN = $30

1954 BOWMAN = $250

1939 Exhibit = $20

1959 FLEER set (incl. #68 card) = $100


I asked a Boston dealer at a BB card Show why Williams' cards were relatively inexpensive ? His reply was two-fold.

Boston collectors are the biggest "cheapskates". And, many of them never really appreciated Ted Williams, anyhow.









. .








TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If anyone wants to sell me a strong 58 with great color that doesn't have that washed out, slightly blurry look, I'm glad to add to these.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by tedzan

How inexpensive....here are some typical prices for these cards (Ex/Mt) during that period:

1941 PLAY BALL = $40

1949 LEAF = $25

1950 BOWMAN = $40

1951 BOWMAN = $30

1954 BOWMAN = $250

1939 Exhibit = $20

1959 FLEER set (incl. #68 card) = $100

They certainly cost a lot more than that by the time the late 1980's had rolled around...