1951 Wheaties Premium Photo Mickey Mantle

[bswhiten]

Here is mine... There are two PSA 9's out there somewhere.

[brian1961]

Zach, the Wheaties may not be a card, and it is over-sized, but the photo is marvelous. The look in Mickey Mantle's eyes is mesmerizing. I love it. For what it's worth, I think a very appealing display will have a nice mixture of standard size, the small round Salada Coins, larger cards (Stahl-Meyer Franks and the Exhibits), and then the majestic pieces (1960 Post Cereal and the 1950s Wheaties Premium). It's all about sheer looks and eye appeal of the items. I think you did great in your selection, bro.

Since we have come to find out Don Wingfield snapped Mickey's picture on October 6, 1952, that was an extremely significant time frame in his career. Mickey was the main significant difference for the Bombers in defeating the Brooks in that knockdown drag out 1952 World Series.

Just my two cents, bro. ---Brian Powell

[whiteymet]

I was the guy who first broached the question in the old thread about why this is considered a 1951 issue.

It has been proven conclusively it is not from 1951.

I think someone should do the same research on the other photos in the set to see if they can be dated. I am betting on mid 50's say 55 or 56.

Ashburn won the batting title in 55 and the Indians won the pennant in 54 so the inclusion of Feller, Rosen and Lemon, and Yogi and Campy won MVP's in 55.

I know they each won others earlier, Campy 53 and Yogi 54, but with the Ashburn connection I am betting on 55 or 56.

Fred

[Timbegs]

Fred,

I am aware of all your good work. And the dating of the Mantle photo seems plausible though I don't know if it's 100% conclusive. My sister in law makes the same face in every photo she posts on snapchat and Instagram so I'd be comfortable with 90-95%.

Hope that's ok. Also, I know people had mentioned contacting General Mills - what about tracking the photo from the photographers end?

I hope this is all ok - I own one now and I'm not trying to mess with its 1951 designation. I suppose without proof from General Mills or Wheaties this will be a 1951 'card.'

Thanks to those who posted theirs. Anyone else got one?

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Timbegs

Fred,

I am aware of all your good work. And the dating of the Mantle photo seems plausible though I don't know if it's 100% conclusive. My sister in law makes the same face in every photo she posts on snapchat and Instagram so I'd be comfortable with 90-95%.

Hope that's ok. Also, I know people had mentioned contacting General Mills - what about tracking the photo from the photographers end?

I hope this is all ok - I own one now and I'm not trying to mess with its 1951 designation. I suppose without proof from General Mills or Wheaties this will be a 1951 'card.'

Thanks to those who posted theirs. Anyone else got one?

Tim:

I did no work. Only asked the question. Others DOCUMENTED WHEN the photo was taken.

It's no skin off my nose if you accept it it 100% or the 90-95% you are comfortable with.

Just curious how you can not be 100% when the photo was taken at the World Series in 1952. What more do you need to convince you?

You say your sister in law makes the same face in all her photos? Is her entire pose the exact same? Her eyebrow not raised in one? Her elbow in the same exact position, her lips parted the same, her fingers on the same exact place on her bat, her hat the same distance from her ear?

Get what I am driving at?

When is your birthday? How can you be sure? Your parents told you, but other than that what proof do you have? I would be skeptical if I were you. :>) just as you are about when the photo was taken.

I do agree that it is too late to change any designation for the set. It will always be 1951 Wheaties even though there is now proof ( in some of our eyes) that it can't be 1951, and I have seen no proof it is even a Wheaties issue. It looks more like an early version of the Jay publishing photos to me.

Fred

[Bestdj777]

[Timbegs]

Fred,

If I saw a legitimate looking copy of my birth certificate with a date of yesterday - yes, I'd question it. And my sister in laws pictures would surprise you.

Funnies aside, I say 90-95 percent because in the earlier thread you contributed to we had a Getty Image with a date of '1955' that momentarily 'proved' the photo could not be from 1951. Then we got another photo that 'proved' the image was from 1952. Forgive me for being skeptical when we are relying on type set on the back of a 65 year old photo to determine the authentic date of it being taken. I mean, we've already had two examples that claimed to be conclusive 'proof' that this card was not a 1951 issue, one of which was already disproved. I could type 1951 on my senior portrait from High School but that doesn't make it from 1951.

Do YOU get what I'M driving at, Fred?

Like I already mentioned, I am looking for a smoking gun. What you have provided is very solid circumstantial evidence but without the photographer testimony about the date I don't reach 100% certainty. I appreciate you jumping back in and I have read the other thread from start to finish. Great read, for sure.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

I was the guy who first broached the question in the old thread about why this is considered a 1951 issue.

It has been proven conclusively it is not from 1951.

I think someone should do the same research on the other photos in the set to see if they can be dated. I am betting on mid 50's say 55 or 56.

Ashburn won the batting title in 55 and the Indians won the pennant in 54 so the inclusion of Feller, Rosen and Lemon, and Yogi and Campy won MVP's in 55.

I know they each won others earlier, Campy 53 and Yogi 54, but with the Ashburn connection I am betting on 55 or 56.

Fred

Fred,

Prior to the original series of posts or somewhere along the way, I called one of the General Mills archivists to get their input on the promotion. After a week or so, they indicated they searched their records and they did not actually have any record or information on the series of photos which we now call the 1951 Wheaties Premiums. Oddly, they did have information on the NY promotion featuring tin trays in '52, which they indicated was exclusively limited to NY.


Z

[Timbegs]

Fred,

My last post, after re reading it, sounds snotty. Sorry, that wasn't my intent. What I mean is this - I'd like to see the Sporting News where the photo was originally inserted or something more meaningful. An invoice, order form, someone who pulled it from a box (or however it was acquired, since that seems to be in question as well). I am motivated purely by curiosity. It's a pretty interesting card with a pretty interesting story. As a Mickey Mantle fan, I don't care if it was released in 51 or 55 - I'd just like to know.


And 95% is a pretty high degree of certainty, anyway.

I think we've seen four so far - all graded. Anyone else got one? Anyone have an ungraded copy or copies? Let's see em!

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by Timbegs

Fred,

My last post, after re reading it, sounds dooshy. Sorry. What I mean is this - I'd like to see the Sporting News where the photo was originally inserted or something more meaningful. An invoice, order form, someone who pulled it from a box (or however it was acquired, since that seems to be in question as well). I am motivated purely by curiosity. It's a pretty interesting card with a pretty interesting story. As a Mickey Mantle fan, I don't care if it was released in 51 or 55 - I'd just like to know.


And 95% is a pretty high degree of certainty, anyway.

I think we've seen four so far - all graded. Anyone else got one? Anyone have an ungraded copy or copies? Let's see em!

I sold my ungraded copy a while back, but it was pretty well worn--I wish I had a photo of it. As for pulling these from a box, etc., I think that is highly unlikely. I honestly am not sure these were ever directly distributed to the public. If you look at the pop reports, the vast majority of these are in high grade, suggesting that they could have made there way directly into the hands of adult collectors. The one I had was one of the only ones I've seen that exhibited real use and looked to have been out there in the general public for some period of time. Just my thoughts.