Why is (this card) worth more than (this card)?

[G1911]

The 1941 Play Ball is scarcer than the 1939, and a color image of Joe that is a classic pose. The 1939 is not, nor is it a rookie by any reasoned definition.

The 1952 Mantle vs. 1951 Mantle is a dead horse that has been beaten numerous times.

The 1961 and 1962 Maris are similar value in low grade. In higher grade card #1 carries a premium. This is normal. I like both.

The Tiffany is obviously superior to the regular set because it is a higher quality production of the same image, made in 1% or less of the quantity. Of course it will cost more.

Warren Spahn is underrated.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

The 1952 Mantle vs. 1951 Mantle is a dead horse that has been beaten numerous times.

Not really. The M101-4/5 Babe Ruth went from a nothing special card to his most expensive card in a MLB uniform because a minority hyped in as a rookie card. The 1951 Bowman Mantle is his true rookie card. In today's hobby where cards like the M101-4/5 Ruth or 1925 Exhibit Gehrig have taken huge jumps, there is no reason why Mantle's RC hasn't done the same and overtaken the 1952 Topps.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not really. The M101-4/5 Babe Ruth went from a nothing special card to his most expensive card in a MLB uniform because a minority hyped in as a rookie card. The 1951 Bowman Mantle is his true rookie card. In today's hobby where cards like the M101-4/5 Ruth or 1925 Exhibit Gehrig have taken huge jumps, there is no reason why Mantle's RC hasn't done the same and overtaken the 1952 Topps.

It’s a dead horse. People have been complaining about the 1952 Topps costing more and not being an actual rookie for literally my entire life. Nothing has changed, nor is it about too. No matter how many times this is discussed or how true it is that the 1952 is not a rookie, it’s value only continues to increase. The gap is huge, and it’s not changing.