OT: Who Determined That Mantle's Rookie Card was the 52 Topps

rats60 · #1 11-06-2017, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting, I actually knew that about Yaz as many people mistakenly think he overlapped with Ted possibly because he has a 1960 card, but forgot. If you know of other examples from the 50s I would be interested.

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 11-06-2017, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

Actually, the first rookies subset was 1959 Topps. Deron Johnson had a card in that 1959 subset, but didn't play in the majors until 1960. Just go through those 59 and 60 subsets to find more players who had a card before they ever played a MLB game.

At least they didn't depict them as 17 year olds in street clothes like some of the early 90s Bowman issues.

PS I really should bag this one in favor of the 1990 Tampa card.

tedzan · #3 11-06-2017, 09:27 PM

Here's my Jan 1986 SCD. Note the significant difference in $$$$ between the the real Mantle rookie (51B) and the his 2nd year card (52T). A factor of 5 to 1, which Mantle's
52T card's value has over his 51B card in this listing, has been (more or less) consistent since the 1980's.

......The $300 listed in this guide for Rose was really a "buy price" that most dealers were paying in the 1985-1986
timeframe. This card was so "hot" back then it was mind-boggling. Furthermore...."a rising tide lifts all ships"....was very apropo to describe the Rose card's affect on the rising
value of many other "rookie" cards of major BB Stars during the 1980's. It was a really great time to be in this hobby.

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

MVSNYC · #4 11-06-2017, 10:24 PM

I actually like his 51 Bowman card, a lot...but, here's my analysis.

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.

But...

His more desirable, more iconic, better looking, better investment card? The 52 Topps. The most important card, in the most important post-war set.

Look at some of the greatest players in history, and their "rookie" cards versus their "best" cards...not always the same, actually often different...

Cobb- T206, Cracker Jack
Joe Jackson- T210, Cracker Jack
Etc.

To me, "rookie" cards started mattering more in the 60's & 70's (and beyond), whereas 50's and pre-war, it's a more complicated formula, which leans towards rarity & beauty, which equates to desirability, and ultimately value.

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

darwinbulldog · #5 11-06-2017, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Sure, on land.

tedzan · #6 11-07-2017, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

His true rookie card? The 51 Bowman. Not much to debate.

Incidentally...PSA has graded 1888 51 Bowman Mantles...vs 1502 52 Topps Mantles. So, actually, even though it was "double printed"...there's less of them out there. Just sayin'.

Hey Mike

SGC pop reports have approx. the same difference (factor of 1.25)

1951 Bowman = 565

1952 Topps = 470

Take care, good buddy

TED Z

T206 Reference
.

drcy · #7 11-07-2017, 11:57 AM

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..

Peter_Spaeth · #8 11-07-2017, 12:16 PM

How many feel these are RCs?

rats60 · #9 11-07-2017, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcy

I was a rookie card collector. Though back in the day, a player appeared as an MLB player after he'd played at least some MLB games. There were no future prospects appearing on MLB cards, and rookie cards were usually the players' very first cards. In fact, may old rookie cards of football players appeared several years into the players' careers.

Minor League cards were collectable and often valuable, but were something else. There were some other generally accepted rules. For example, Nolan Ryan appears in the crowd on the 1967 Topps Mets Team card, but few considered that his rookie card.

If it otherwise fit the bill as a rookie cards, I considered regional and Oddball cards as genuine rookie cards. Topps, Bowman, Fleer, etc didn't hold the monopoly.

And it was a fair argument to say that some players had no rookie cards, as no cards appeared for them in their rookie year (See above football players).

P.s., despite what they may say, the card manufacturers and MLB don't get to say what is and isn't rookie card. They aren't the final arbiters..

I am not sure what back in the day means, but going back to at least 1959 Topps included players with no MLB experience in their sets. Sandy Koufax didn't play in a game until June 24, 1955. It is possible that Topps made that card before he ever played. Bowman didn't see him worthy of a card.

I agree that Topps, Bowman or Fleer don't hold a monopoly, but it must be a national set, where the majority of collectors could obtain the card. So, if Post had made a card of Willie Stargell in 1963, it would be a rookie. IDL is not. It also must be a major league set.

Also, the point of a player not having a rookie card is a valid one. It certainly doesn't need to be released by his rookie season, but if it occurs several years after, is it a rookie card? Then does the player not have a rookie or do we find a card that doesn't meet the definition, a "first card" for people to chase?

View Poll Results: Which card do you believe is the Mantle Rookie card?
1951 Bowman	215	89.58%
1952 Topps	25	10.42%
Voters: 240. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1962 Topps FS: Mantle, Mantle AS, (2) Rookie Parades and more	autograf	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	12-01-2014 11:22 AM
One determined bidder........	Brian Van Horn	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	06-07-2014 07:47 AM
Mr. X ... was it ever determined who he/she/them were?	Howe�s Hunter	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	01-29-2012 12:13 PM
'57 Topps Brooks Robinson Rookie, '58 Topps Ted Williams, '68 Topps Mickey Mantle	mcreel	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	10-24-2011 09:29 AM
'57 Topps Brooks Robinson Rookie, '58 Topps Ted Williams, '68 Topps Mickey Mantle	mcreel	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	1	10-22-2011 09:06 PM