Hank Aaron card values

[KCRfan1]

Maybe a little trolling, and poking the bear a bit. LOL

[71buc]

I was curious what people here thought about the 1954 Johnston Cookie Aaron rookie card's current value and if it would also enjoy a similar increase in value? I think that as the Topps version climbs others may see it as an attractive if not more affordable option. Thankfully I have both but have little knowledge of the value of more scarce regional issues versus the mainstream versions. There certainly seem to be fewer of the Johnston Cookies rookie Aaron's out there.

[MCoxon]

Great question on Johnston's Cookies - I'll bet regional and non-mainstream Topps issues will rise, relative to their Topps counterparts, especially in cases where there prices are lower even though they are more scarce.

I recently picked up a '57 Sohio Maris and love it. I think it must be much rarer than his '58 Topps, and like it for that reason.

Others will say Topps (and early Bowman, Goudey, Playball, etc.) will always hold sway among collectors and command premiums to non-mainstream cards, but I'm not so sure. I think there's a chance collectors will move their desires to regionals as they seek out "scarcity".

Even within mainstream cards, there's been a shift to buying on condition - a form of scarcity. Collectors today spend multiples on a PSA 8 or 9 cards compared to a PSA 7. I don't think that the price difference was so high for a Nr-Mt vs. a NM-MT card vs. a Mint card in the 1970s and 1980s (admittedly, due to the objectivity that TPGs bring).

I suspect people are bidding up prices on cards with low PSA pop numbers. For instance, I'll bet there are roughly the same number of 1959 Mantles in Nr-MT or better condition today as compared to 1985 (maybe more, as hidden stacks of cards are found). Let's say 5,000 1959 Mantle cards exist today at "Nr-MT or better" -- using Beckett's 1987 condition guides, and regardless of whether they're slabbed or not.

But there are now only 308 1959 Mantles in PSA 8 or above, as of this morning, per the PSA pop report. Thus, a shift in tastes (to a PSA 8+ slab) has artificially constrained demand of a card that had 5,000 down to 308. That's a form of scarcity, just not one that appeals to me

So long story short - I'd bet the 1954 Johnston's Cookies, the Sohios, the Bazookas, the Exhibits, the Red Mans (with tabs - scarce), the 1971 Topps Greatest Moments, etc., will continue to appreciate relative to their mainstream Topps counterparts

[71buc]

Thanks for the informative well written response. I tend to agree with ypur thoughts.

[Volod]

I believe Aaron's 1954 Johnston Cookies card was somewhat scarce even within that set, itself. Maybe even as scarce as the Thomson card. I recall that i had a tough time finding one when i was working on the set back in the late '80's. Could be that young Hank signed an exclusive with Topps, since he wasn't in the '54 Bowman set, and the Cookie card may have been pulled during the season.

[MattyC]

Hank Aaron was an amazing player, one of the best ever. He played at a very high level for a very long time. Consistency over time at such a quality level is to be greatly respected.

Sadly these debates always seem to degenerate, and it all comes down to what someone values more-- peak performance versus career total statistics. Such terms really need to be agreed upon or defined specifically upfront, so that folks are speaking to the same discussion target.

For example, when people talk about things like who'd they choose among two past players, are we discussing picking both men at their very beginnings, in a hypothetical reality where they play it all over again with their God-given talent and tools? Or are we talking about the careers that they had, injuries and all? Many things to agree upon upfront, to have a healthy and cogent discussion.

I lean toward peak performance. That's what I like and value. If two baseball players are healthy and performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, and one of the two is named Mickey Mantle, I am taking Mickey Mantle. If I could draft one baseball player for a team today, of all the men who've ever played, based on their natural ceilings, again I am taking Mickey Mantle over all of them.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hank Aaron was an amazing player, one of the best ever. He played at a very high level for a very long time. Consistency over time at such a quality level is to be greatly respected.

Sadly these debates always seem to degenerate, and it all comes down to what someone values more-- peak performance versus career total statistics. Such terms really need to be agreed upon or defined specifically upfront, so that folks are speaking to the same discussion target.

For example, when people talk about things like who'd they choose among two past players, are we discussing picking both men at their very beginnings, in a hypothetical reality where they play it all over again with their God-given talent and tools? Or are we talking about the careers that they had, injuries and all? Many things to agree upon upfront, to have a healthy and cogent discussion.

I lean toward peak performance. That's what I like and value. If two baseball players are healthy and performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, and one of the two is named Mickey Mantle, I am taking Mickey Mantle. If I could draft one baseball player for a team today, of all the men who've ever played, based on their natural ceilings, again I am taking Mickey Mantle over all of them.

Me too.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hank Aaron was an amazing player, one of the best ever. He played at a very high level for a very long time. Consistency over time at such a quality level is to be greatly respected.

Sadly these debates always seem to degenerate, and it all comes down to what someone values more-- peak performance versus career total statistics. Such terms really need to be agreed upon or defined specifically upfront, so that folks are speaking to the same discussion target.

For example, when people talk about things like who'd they choose among two past players, are we discussing picking both men at their very beginnings, in a hypothetical reality where they play it all over again with their God-given talent and tools? Or are we talking about the careers that they had, injuries and all? Many things to agree upon upfront, to have a healthy and cogent discussion.

I lean toward peak performance. That's what I like and value. If two baseball players are healthy and performing at the absolute peak of their abilities, and one of the two is named Mickey Mantle, I am taking Mickey Mantle. If I could draft one baseball player for a team today, of all the men who've ever played, based on their natural ceilings, again I am taking Mickey Mantle over all of them.

I guess it depends on the number of consecutive years ( even going head to head ) you consider to be " peak performance ". For Mantle, is that 5 years, 7 years, 10 years? It certainly will not be more than 10 years. Mantle may hold a slight edge at 5 years, but after that, I'll take Aaron. What makes this so fun is it's all personal preference.

[MattyC]

Agreed on all subjective personal preference, and how one synthesizes and parses the numbers.

I like to look at league leading performance, and I gravitate to how The Mick led his league in OPS+ a whopping eight times. Aaron stood atop his peers in OPS+ three times.

In terms of MVP of their respective leagues, The Mick had three MVPs, with another three 2nd place finishes. Aaron won one MVP award, and never finished 2nd in another year, his best finishes coming 3rd after that one win.

Mantle also had 50 HR power, whereas despite playing healthy for many years, Aaron never did touch that rarefied benchmark.

I'm also a big on-base guy, and in terms of peak OBP performance, Aaron reached the lofty .400 mark three times, whereas Mantle hit the .400 OBP mark an incredible nine times, with a peak of a mind-boggling .512. And that's not counting a .399 year. Of Aaron's three years where he reached base at a 40% clip, his peak was .410. Mantle had years of .512, .486, .464, and .448. Basically Mantle's 10th best year of getting on base would have been Aaron's 4th best year.

One thing I have always admired about Mantle's game was that even at the very end, with a lowly .245 batting average, the man was getting on base at a .391 clip.

Somehow The Mick slugged .705 in '56, whereas Aaron's peak slugging year clocked in at .669. The Mick had two additional years at .687 and .665. So those four thousandths notwithstanding between .669 and .665, The Mick's 3rd best slugging year was roughly equal to the best Aaron ever put up.

End of the day, though,winding up with either player for a hypothetical team is an amazing thing to contemplate. One of the reasons I am in awe of Hank Aaron is his durability. And also the way he stood up to the very harsh spotlight of his run at Ruth's record. To do anything at such a great level for so long is no doubt as impressive as doing something better than anyone else for a shorter time period. As was said, it comes down to personal preference, and what entertains, what endears a player to each fan. It's always fascinating and enlightening to hear why a fan loves his favorite player.