1951 Wheaties Premiums

[Bestdj777]

I took a look. Most do have the patch. On the 51 Bowman cards, there are not patches on either jersey though.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

I took a look. Most do have the patch. On the 51 Bowman cards, there are not patches on either jersey though.

Chris:

True that. But the original photo used for the 51 Bowman was taken in spring training.

See:http://www.1951bowmanbaseballcards.c...am%20Photo.htm

Above has photo AND a video from the same park where the photo was taken.

Teams used last years uniforms in spring traing and unveiled new ones once the season began.

The photo used in the 51 Wheaties set was obviously taken in a big league park. So, it seems the photo was taken at a big league park, but NOT in 1951.

So how could Wheaties have printed it in 1951? And again back to my original question, WHY would they have included him in a 1951 set when he was just a rookie with rather pedestrian stats?

Fred

[Bestdj777]

I don't know why they included Mantle. My understanding is that there were big expectations for him coming in to his rookie year. If you compare a few of the cards from the 51 set with the 52 Wheaties set, you'll see the same photos were used, particularly Feller, Musial, and Campanella.

I also came across three other athletes that were included in the set: Ben Hogan (I), Jack Kramer (H), and Bob Cousy (no letter identified):

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...Uncatalogued-P

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

I don't know why they included Mantle. My understanding is that there were big expectations for him coming in to his rookie year. If you compare a few of the cards from the 51 set with the 52 Wheaties set, you'll see the same photos were used, particularly Feller, Musial, and Campanella.

I also came across three other athletes that were included in the set: Ben Hogan (I), Jack Kramer (H), and Bob Cousy (no letter identified):

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...Uncatalogued-P

Chris:

Just because some of the same photos were used for this purported 1951 set for the 1952 set means nothing. Turn it around. MAYBE the same photos from the 52 set were used for this set that may have been issued in 1954 or so. It can work both ways.

With the info you provided on the three non baseball players, I did some research on all those issued.

You mentioned you had not studied Mantle's stats for '51. I had listed them before, but let's look at his stats for 51 and later years:

Mantle in 1951 played in 96 games hit .267 w/ 13 HR's and 65 RBI's why put him in the set with other established stars?
1953 21 HR's ad 92 RBI's so so stats but I could them including him
1954 27 HR's and 102 RBI's
1955 EVEN BETTER 37 HR's and 99 RBI's

Ashburn led the league in hits both 1951 and 53 but won the batting title in 55 Toss up in my eyes

Berra won MVP in 51, 54 and 55 so he is no help in determining the year!

Musial was Musial great all through the 50's All Star every year

Campy: Like Berra won MVP in both 51 and 54 but led league in RBI's in 53

In my eyes all of the above would be candidates for either a 51 set or later.

However, The Indians clinch it for me:

The Indians had just been in the 1954 World Series and had the best record in all of baseball winning 111 games they finished third in 1951.

Bob Lemon had his best year in 1954 going 23 - 7 with a 2.72 era

Feller had a much better season in 1951 than 1954 or 55 But is a big name

Rosen was MVP in 53

The World Series and the fact that Lemon and Rosen are included leads me to place the set to 1954/55.

Now on to the non baseball:

Hogan: According to Wikipedia:

The "Hogan Slam" season

The win at Carnoustie was but a part of Hogan's watershed 1953 season, in which he won five of the six tournaments he entered and including three major championships (a feat known as the "Hogan Slam").

It still stands among the greatest single seasons in the history of professional golf. Hogan, 40, was unable to enter — and possibly win — the 1953 PGA Championship (to complete the Grand Slam) because its play (July 1–7) overlapped the play of the British Open at Carnoustie (July 6–10), which he won. It was the only time that a golfer had won three major professional championships in a year until Tiger Woods won the final three majors in 2000 (and the first in 2001).

Cousy Most Valuable Player of the 1954 NBA All-Star Game.

Kramer: Again according to Wikipedia:

He won NO tournaments after 1949 But RETIRED in 1954

So in retrospect Hogan had his best year(s), Cousey MVP of All Star Game and Kramer retired all in the 1954 time frame and not much if anything happened to them in 1951. The Indians winning in 1954 and not 1951 thus no reason to include them in a 1951 set is just more "proof" in my eyes that this is NOT a 1951 set.

With all that said, to me the inclusion of Mantle at all is the most damning evidence for this not to be a 51 set, especially with the arm patch missing. The rest is just inconclusive or pointing in the direction of a later issue.

I posted a question to those photo collectors in the memorabilia section to see if any of them had a Type 1 of the shot where they could definitively date it. No answers yet.

I am REALLY making a much bigger deal out of this than is probably needed, but things that do not make sense to me, bugs me! And for many years this has bugged me, so it is all coming to a head with all this reserach and conjecture.

Basically as stated I see NO REASON why a national company with a long history of using sports figures on their products would include an untested rookie in a set before he proves he is "worthy". So I can not see this being a 1951 issue.

Fred

[Bestdj777]

Haha nothing wrong with dissecting the issue. And I agree regarding player selection. I also don't really understand why you'd put some many baseball players and then one of each other athlete.

My point with the 52 photos was that we have evidence that many of these photos existed as early, if not earlier, than 52. I don't know about the lack of patch except that he could have been wearing a spring training uniform as well.

Any idea what ballpark it is?

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

Haha nothing wrong with dissecting the issue. And I agree regarding player selection. I also don't really understand why you'd put some many baseball players and then one of each other athlete.

My point with the 52 photos was that we have evidence that many of these photos existed as early, if not earlier, than 52. I don't know about the lack of patch except that he could have been wearing a spring training uniform as well.

Any idea what ballpark it is?

Chris:

Granted some of the photos of the others could have been pre 54 or 55. You can always use older photos later. The thing I am trying to figure out of course is when the Mantle photo was taken, because while you can use older photos later you can't use later photos earlier!!:>)

As to your point of Mantle wearing a spring training uniform in the photo, that of course is not possible with the stadium shown behind Mickey in the photo. It is clearly a Major League ballpark. But I can not ID it.

Maybe someone else here can, but that will not help to date the photo unless the stadium was built post 1951 which I greatly doubt, or it is a stadium like KC or Baltimore which did not get a team until the mid 50's.

Fred

[Volod]

Could be missing the forest for the trees - Mantle and Mays were both in the 1951 Bowman set as rookies with little to support them except that they were highly touted as prospective players in New York. Were there any similarly hyped farm products for other cities in the '51 Bowmans? I dunno, but even MacDougal and Ford are in there, while players for other teams generally had to be proven vets to get a card. The card companies were biased toward major markets, just as media is today.
As for that Mantle photo, he does appear to me to be older than in most of his rookie images, so it very well could be from '53 or '54.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Volod

Could be missing the forest for the trees - Mantle and Mays were both in the 1951 Bowman set as rookies with little to support them except that they were highly touted as prospective players in New York. Were there any similarly hyped farm products for other cities in the '51 Bowmans? I dunno, but even MacDougal and Ford are in there, while players for other teams generally had to be proven vets to get a card. The card companies were biased toward major markets, just as media is today.
As for that Mantle photo, he does appear to me to be older than in most of his rookie images, so it very well could be from '53 or '54.

Steve:

Thaks for the input. I understand Mantle and Mays being in the 51 Bowman set. But that set has 324 cards in it. Why would Wheaties include Mantle in a 8 "card" issue? Even though Yankees are major market as you say, there are plenty of other NY players they could have chosen.

I agree he looks older in the photo than in ther images from his rookie year, but until we can date the photo we will not know for sure. Hopefully someone will be able to do that conclusively.

Fred

[Volod]

You have a point there, Fred, which kind of supports your theory that the photos are from a later year. I think there were a number of articles in the media about the Yankees' and Giants' young phenoms in 1951, however. So, it still seems feasible to me that Mantle might have been in an eight-card set based on nothing more than his early celebrity status in NY in that year. Look at it from the perspective of card issuer trying to maximize profit - do you want a good-looking kid that everyone (in NY anyway) is raving about as the next Joe D., or do you want Hank Bauer? In that discussion, stats and experience don't really matter. On the other hand, I agree with you that other factors point to a later year for the set.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Steve:

Thaks for the input. I understand Mantle and Mays being in the 51 Bowman set. But that set has 324 cards in it. Why would Wheaties include Mantle in a 8 "card" issue? Even though Yankees are major market as you say, there are plenty of other NY players they could have chosen.

I agree he looks older in the photo than in ther images from his rookie year, but until we can date the photo we will not know for sure. Hopefully someone will be able to do that conclusively.

Fred

Fred,

Thanks for the input. Mantle was considered a rookie phenom by most of the sportswriters of that day as evidenced by this article in the NY Times from April 6, 1951 (partial copy of headline):

MICKEY CHARLES MANTLE, the new 19-year-old right fielder for the New York Yankees, is, in the opinion of most sports writers, the most promising young man to enter big-league baseball since the ascension of Joe DiMaggio, who thinks, without any editorial equivocation at all, that Mantle is the greatest rookie he has ever seen. "Greatest" is a word used....

Great info & very good discussion guys. One of the reason I love this board.

Z Wheat