Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
Is it "undervalued"? As compared to Ruth, I don't think it is. Ruth is ... Ruthian. All others fade into the background. As compared to Mantle, it gets more complicated. If you offered me a 1925 Gehrig or a 1951 Bowman/1952 Topps Mantle to have for my PC (not to flip) with comparable grades, I would take the Gehrig every day and twice on Sunday. But that is my collector, not investor, take, no doubt influenced by the fact that my favorite Mantle is the 1952 Bowman. Slipping on my investor hat, however, I gotta go with the comparably valued 1952 Topps Mantle because i think it has a higher ceiling. So, undervalued is a loaded term.
|
Agree totally! It’s not Ruth and Ruth will sell for more all else equal but I just think it’s become discovered more like the Ruth rookie was years ago now.