Will there be a post-war card again like the 52 Mantle ?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

The key requirement we may never see again was that cards were assumed to have no actual value at the time, hence were not generally retained or preserved. Nowadays, just about everything is an instant collectible, hence sought after, preserved, hoarded, etc.

The question I have is how much Mantle's value is buttressed by a fan base that actually saw him in his prime and idolized him. These fans would be at least 65-70 by now, hence unlikely to influence the card market 50 years from now. By then, Mantle goes from being the God of their youths to "just" a Top 15 or so player. I'm sure the iconic past of the card will hold some influence but I don't think the influence will be total or permanent.

Jason

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Bill James ranked Mantle as the 5th greatest player to play major league baseball, with thorough consideration of all the factors that entailed, in his last historical baseball abstract, which is a rating he beyond any reasonable dispute earned in the course of his career. Yes, others posted higher total numbers, but James and I are both talking primarily about quality of play over a substantial period of time, rather than quantity (does anyone really consider Craig Biggio on a par with numerous other HOF'er's simply because he got 3,000+ hits over a long career? Don't expect a run on Biggio cards anytime soon!).

I was asked by dealers I have known for many, many years at the National in Chicago what was going to happen to the value of Mantle cards once those who actually saw him play passed on. My answer was simple, and one I would classify as a basic truism: exactly the same thing as happened over time to Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner and other such cards. The fact that there are more of the Mantles may well make them more cyclical in their appreciation, but I don't think you will go wrong over the long term in tucking away some of his very toughest in the highest grade you can find or afford now.

Happy collecting,

Larry

[geosluggo]

I once held a raw '52 Mantle in my grubby childhood hands in the mid-1970s. It belonged to my friend's dad and even then the card had a mythical status. Can't imagine there will be another like it. I remember people hoarding rookie cards of Todd Van Poppel and Gregg Jefferies and other speculative phenoms in the late '80s and early '90s. I had shelved my collection then and, seeing that hysteria, I figured I'd never be able to get back into it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Bill James ranked Mantle as the 5th greatest player to play major league baseball, with thorough consideration of all the factors that entailed, in his last historical baseball abstract, which is a rating he beyond any reasonable dispute earned in the course of his career. Yes, others posted higher total numbers, but James and I are both talking primarily about quality of play over a substantial period of time, rather than quantity (does anyone really consider Craig Biggio on a par with numerous other HOF'er's simply because he got 3,000+ hits over a long career? Don't expect a run on Biggio cards anytime soon!).


Larry

And I think that's also part of it. Until maybe the 70's -80's, there were players that were incredibly good, but for a few reasons didn't have long careers. Either from overuse, injury that nobody really knew how to recover from, or just getting tired of the grind and getting a better offer in business.

With the changes free agency brought for the financial end of things, came a change in how a career was viewed. Players and teams began taking a longer view, and eventually a more common view that the team they played for was just temporary until contract time or before if the team felt they could fill more lineup gaps with a trade.

So players actually took time to rehab injuries, with an eye to extending their career. Even at the now old fashioned 2-3 million a year why play hurt and shorten your career by even a couple years.

As a fan, it gets harder to really think of a player the way players in the past were viewed. When I was a kid, Yaz was always there, and the perhaps rose colored glasses kept him as a great player long past his prime. (Same for Rice) When the players move around more that just doesn't happen. I can only think of a couple recent players that even get close to that, Jeter and Ortiz.

Players aren't generally as flashy, and in some baseball ways that's not a bad thing. Would Mays famous catch happen today? With scouting and advanced video study he'd probably be playing deeper, and not have to make such a long run to get to the ball. Better for teams and players to be positioned better, maybe not as good for the fans.
Biggio fits that pretty well, 20 years without much in the way of injuries, a nice run of years well above average, stayed with the same team the whole time, and managed to average just barely over 150 hits a year.

So what we've ended up with are a lot (probably more than in the 50's) of players who are very good for a very long time, but aren't quite as electric as the top players back then.
It's hard to have someone become almost mythical like Mantle or Ruth without that flashiness, with loads of access, without the prolonged local adulation, and without as much press. NY players, even the merely above average get a lot more national press than almost anyone. Boston and Chicago would probably be a close second.