Mickey Mantle more afforable

[HOF Yankees]

Going through my price guide and ebay and seeing all these Mantle prices falling seems weird I don't understand why his vintage prices are going down in record fashion. But on the flip side for me as a collector of Mantle is good now I can pick up his cards for decent prices but what those who sell them? I thought it was since soo much were on ebay and other auctions, but serious there has to be more to it then that?? What happended to Mantle????

[steve B]

It may be that the generation that saw him play is shrinking. Fewer people who have that firsthand idea how great he was and connect with that.

I missed seeing him play by just a few years, and have always thought he was slightly overrated. But that's not the impression you'd get from someone 10 years older, or maybe even 5 years older.

Another reason might be cultural. The regionalism that was common even in the 70's and 80's is fading some with all the games on tv and internet and the now common movement of players. Mantle was a NY guy, and dad was a Red Sox fan, so I'm more partial to Ted Williams.
One of the remaining bits of regionalism is the general attitude of the area. In my perception, which could be skewed, New England is more traditional and sentimental and tied to the past-less so than before, but many of us still give directions less by streets and more by where stuff used to be or still is.
NYC strikes me as more modern and progressive. Less tied to the past and much more of a "now" society. History and tradition is more marketing tool and less ingrained. So perhaps there's more interest in the current players and only a passing interest in players from the past.

Steve B

[David W]

Just about anyone who wants his cards already has them, or can easily get them.

It's not like they are scarce. A quick ebay search under Mickey Mantle 1960 gave me 478 options.

[sflayank]

where do u see his prices going down?
51s 52s 53 etc just keep going up
the only stuff going down are raw cards in vg vgex ex
graded 8s 9s 10s just keep going up
his rare cards like dice discs 66 punchouts have no limit at all
stahl meyer dandee briggs all in nrmt or better are skyrocketing
if you can get me any of these cheap Im a buyer

[ALR-bishop]

I have not been in the Mantle market for awhile but my experience is similar to Larry's. Most of these are still pretty expensive. The second 52 I picked up because it is the variation;









[IMG]http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj555/Bishop539

/th_img054.jpg?t=1336665087[/IMG]

[HOF Yankees]

Larry it was in the new PSA Sports Market Report

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by HOF Yankees

Larry it was in the new PSA Sports Market Report

Price guide values have no basis in reality, so using them to prove evidence of anything is pointless and inaccurate. I use them for checklists and nothing more.

A very quick search of the VCP, which pulls actual market data, shows no discernible trend in either direction for Mantle's 1950s-1960s base cards. If anything, it looks like the values are steady as always.

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by steve B

It may be that the generation that saw him play is shrinking. Fewer people who have that firsthand idea how great he was and connect with that.

I missed seeing him play by just a few years, and have always thought he was slightly overrated. But that's not the impression you'd get from someone 10 years older, or maybe even 5 years older.

Another reason might be cultural. The regionalism that was common even in the 70's and 80's is fading some with all the games on tv and internet and the now common movement of players. Mantle was a NY guy, and dad was a Red Sox fan, so I'm more partial to Ted Williams.
One of the remaining bits of regionalism is the general attitude of the area. In my perception, which could be skewed, New England is more traditional and sentimental and tied to the past-less so than before, but many of us still give directions less by streets and more by where stuff used to be or still is.
NYC strikes me as more modern and progressive. Less tied to the past and much more of a "now" society. History and tradition is more marketing tool and less ingrained. So perhaps there's more interest in the current players and only a passing interest in players from the past.

Steve B

I would offer a few alternative explanations. I personally do not feel the declining prices are because of waning interest in these players due to the aging and death of the fans who grew up with them. If this were the case, T206 cards should be pretty affordable, because their fanbase is entirely dead. Yet Honus Wagner's card is more valuable than ever, with other cards catching up such as the Eddie Plank the the Doyle Nat'l variety.

And I would also disagree that these players are being forgotten as interest shifts to newer players. Because people of my generation are more interested than ever in old, vintage stuff. We're skeptical of what we're offered. It seems inauthentic, fraudulent. The players are 'roided up, opportunistic, have no community ties and will sell out their team and their city for a tasty signing bonus. I for one have ZERO interest in modern players, and I can't tell you the last time I watched a baseball game.

Yet I adore vintage cards because they embody an era I'll never know, when these players were athletes, hero's and your older brother all rolled up into one. I see the look my dad gets in his eye when he talks about Joe Adcock or Stan Musial, and I realize that I've never known that kind of feeling about a sports figure today. And I envy him for it.

So now why DO I think card prices are falling?
1) The market was overpriced to begin with. We're still coming off the boom, and I think things are still correcting. Things are exacerbated by the economy and I think people are selling right now...
2) I think the baby boom generation has something to do with it, in that they ARE getting older and retiring, and many are selling off their cards for the money. I think there is a wellspring of cards previously unknown because they've remained with their original owners, and so the population is being inflated.
3) Ebay. Ebay has had a huge impact in all areas of collecting. It's made it far easier to find and buy things, whereas before it required miles and patience to find that right card show with that right dealer. Ebay has revealed how common some cards are.
4) The proliferation of junk cards has devalued collector interest. It's all artificially rare stuff without any artistry, and none of it finds its ways into the hands of kids. It's not LOVED. It's just traded by gross, morbidly obese dealers who never smile and who don't seem to love the hobby, except in how they can make a profit.

Recently I visited a community coin show, and I was amazed at the number of kids there. I also noticed the dealers were friendly, they seemed to genuinely love what they were doing, and interacting with the younger generations. There's is a hobby for which I see a bright future.

Card collecting can be that again as well. I collected coins for decades, and then I switched, because I found coins too tedious. I simply wasn't thrilled by collecting coin after coin, which were all the same save for a date and a mintmark.

I'm building the '52 topps set, and I adore it, because each card is different, and has it's own characteristics and challenges. I love hunting for that centered example with good focus and bright colors. I love the thrill of the hunt.

I think these prices will stabilize over time. And I think they may go back up. But the hobby does need new blood. We need to get kids enthusiastic about these cards, move away from all the cynical worthless shit cards Topps and Fleer churn out now by the box, and get them interested in the good cards, the good aspects of the hobby: learning about the players, chasing quality cards, appreciating their artistry, and gaining insight into a time that has long since passed (but perhaps might one day come again).

[Volod]

If the lower grade, unslabbed Mantles are dropping in price, that's fine with me, as those are the only category that would interest me. As for the others, when the price of Mantle's cards began to inflate ridiculously back in the '80's, I assumed it was because so many who had collected them as kids suddenly jumped into the marketplace again and dealers were quick to react, regardless of actual population factors. So now, perhaps the market is simply recalibrating to a more accurate value, at least with respect to the cards that are not seen as high-end collectibles. Not familiar with numismatics, but didn't that hobby see a somewhat similar phenomenon of inflation and readjustment over the last 20-30 years?

[hammer]

Al you have some Great Mantle pieces, To me the Mick was one you cannot ever replace, What he did on 2 bad legs most people could not do on 1 also had a Heart of a lion to play in such pain, Maybe his drinking was to Mask the pain he was in. Anyway to me there will never be another, Ask all the other players that played with him, He made them all feel at home and that they belonged and all had a role to play on those teams. Mick when I pass along Please let me play next to you on that team in the sky. Anyways thanks for listening guys and good luck on collecting what you like. whether its worth much or not you have to find your own pleasure in what you like.

[ALR-bishop]

Steve & Steve and Brian---thanks for sharing your thoughts. Interesting topic

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by Volod

Not familiar with numismatics, but didn't that hobby see a somewhat similar phenomenon of inflation and readjustment over the last 20-30 years?

Speaking as a former full time coin collector, it really depends on what you collect. Modern coinage, i..e coins that are still minted, were always rather flat. Low grade stuff more than higher grade. Slabbing has completely proliferated in the hobby, and so there is the same war for grades and registry sets as there are in baseball cards.

I've noted waning interest in varieties or error coins. For example, I bought a variety of a 1922 lincoln cent for $300 when I was in middle school, and at it's peak it was valued at 1,200. I eventually sold it last year for a little more than $900. So I tripled my investment, but I was definitely past the peak, where I could've quadrupled my return.

Gold on the other hand, has gone nuts, and pieces I bought years ago, I sold for 3 to 4 times what I paid. Of course, that is not a reflection of the hobby so much as by outside speculators buying gold for whatever asinine reason (because honestly, if the economy collapses to such an extent that the DOLLAR isn't worth anything, gold and silver won't save you either. We'll be trading canned goods, ammunition and bicycle tires).

Like with baseball cards, coins did have a boom and bust when it came to what I call prefab collectibles...artificially scarce coins and commemorative sets churned out by the Treasury beginning in the 70s and onward. People bought up the stuff left and right, and now you just have stacks of them sitting at dealers tables. The worst investment I ever made was buying a proof set from the 1960s, for about $30 bucks back in the mid 90s...nearly 20 years later, that set is still worth....$30 bucks. It hasn't even managed to keep pace with inflation.

What remains steady are the classics, 18th, 19th and early 20th century coinage, especially high grade stuff, which is fairly in line with vintage baseball cards.

Lower grade stuff has fallen off, but the higher grades remain stable, and in some cases I think is undervalued.

I sold several coins from my collection to buy a '52 Eddie Mathews PSA 5 DEAD CENTERED. I think the card is very undervalued in that set, being a SP, last card, Rookie HoFer with some of the worst centering problems in the entire set. I paid a few hundred over SMR for my example, and I think with time it will prove to be a sound investment.

[Volod]

[quote=I sold several coins from my collection to buy a '52 Eddie Mathews PSA 5 DEAD CENTERED. I think the card is very undervalued in that set, being a SP, last card, Rookie HoFer with some of the worst centering problems in the entire set. I paid a few hundred over SMR for my example, and I think with time it will prove to be a sound investment.[/quote]

Plus, Eddie is staring right back at you and asking you to check out his stats on the backside. The guy on the coin is just a bas relief and could not have hit a curveball on a full count if his life depended on it.

[Brianruns10]

The only shame is the artistry of the card. The 52 set really hits its stride with the high numbers, which are the most beautiful cards in the whole set, in my opinion. Sadly Mathews isn't one of them, and at times feels almost like an afterthought. If I were picking the order of the cards, I might've ended with the Nuxhall, which is such so crazy colorful and he has that great smile...the Mathews feels anticlimactic, and the coloring is pretty weak...the poor fellow looks like he's blushing or has scarlet fever! Though he does come off better than poor Joe Adcock and his five o'clock shadow.

[darkhorse9]

One thing I can't figure out about Mantle cards is...why is the 1959 card so much more expensive then, say the 1957, 1958 or 1960?

It almost always seems to be booking for as much as $100 more than you would expect considering the prices of the surrounding years. It's a first series card and not hard to find.

Why is it more expensive?

[ALR-bishop]

Not sure why, except it is a great photo. Here is one with rounded corners

[Paul S]

I think Al is on the right track. I have a modicum of 58s but don't think they are especially appealing (except for Henry's October pickup -- a stunner. 60's, I dunno, you rarely see scans of them on the board here. Hence, I really have no idea. have

Al, nice Mantle. Mine has rounded corners too. (No scan available)

[Bestdj777]

I think the 58 is a much more attractive card. Coincidentally, mine also has rounded corners. (Pardon the cellphone pic, I need to figure out how to work my scanner still).

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by Paul S

I think Al is on the right track. I have a modicum of 58s but don't think they are especially appealing (except for Henry's October pickup -- a stunner. 60's, I dunno, you rarely see scans of them on the board here. Hence, I really have no idea. have

Al, nice Mantle. Mine has rounded corners too. (No scan available)

I think the key dividing line is 1955 to 1956. A lot can be said for the competition between Bowman and Topps. Topps was always responding and trying to up their game, and each set from 1952 through 1955 is different and has it's high level of appeal.

Some will surely disagree, but I think the wheels start to fall off in 1956. Bowman was knocked out and Topps had a monopoly. They lost the incentive to top themselves, because what else where the kids gonna buy?

The 56 set is for me a carbon copy of the 55. Same portraits, different background. It's still a very appealing set, no doubt, and one I'd like to start soon, but I do think it was a bad sign that the 56 would mirror the 55 so much...heck, my Dad even has trouble telling them apart sometimes, unless he has one of each side by side.

The 57 set is certainly a different approach, and gets points because it is the first truly modern set, in the modern size. I personally dislike that they shrunk the size, after so many years of proudly touting their "Giant Size" cards. And for no reason other than they could cram more cards onto a sheet.

After 57, each set is diminishing returns, in my opinion. The number of cards in a set grows, and the artistry goes downhill. My dad's collection stops at 1963 when he quit collecting, and I've no desire to extend it any further.

Looking back, I think the worst thing that could've happened to Topps was beating their rival Bowman. They really needed each other, to keep up that competitive drive, and the need to ensure ever higher quality to earn the nickels and dimes of kids all over the country.

[ALR-bishop]

I have a Topps set run, 1948 and 1951 through 2013, By the time I started collecting in 1957,Bowman had sold out to Topps ( and did so at it's absolute market high, a great deal for Bowman),

I agree with you on the lack of progress in 56 but feel Topps did a great job on it's product from 57 until at least 72 (some years better than others for sure). The 67 set in particular was well done. Also if you were a Topps collector in the 60s and early 70s there were some great insert and test issue sets to collect with the regular sets. The Topps 1968 3D set is magnificent, and there are many others.

Also, while I continue to buy new Topps sets to keep the run going, I also collect the Topps Heritage sets which duplicate the style of their older sets, so far 1952 through 1963 ( 2001-2012)

By the way, the above Mantle is a porcelain by RJN China