I simply do not understand Modern - Doncic vs Mantle

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

It's very relevant, Peter.

Namath was an average (or slightly above average) QB. He had maybe three good seasons as a player and won his only ring against a team whose star QB was injured. And yes, that QB was Johnny Unitas! A healthy Unitas would have picked the Jets apart. And finally, after the AFL/NFL merger, I believe the Jets never made the playoffs again with Namath as their QB. But people still love him and will pay big money for his 65' Topps rookie card.

So, with Doncic, it's the same thing. When his career is over, like Namath, he might not rank in the top ten, or even in the top twenty, and he might only get a ring or two, but as long as he has this enormous fanbase, then I expect this rookie card of his to keep growing in value.

Namath's card has joined a small pantheon of iconic FB cards. The player's rank relative to the rest of the HOF is not really relevant. National Chicle Nagurski, 1955 Topps AA Thorpe, 1958 Topps Brown, 1965 Topps Namath. None other than Brown reflect the GOAT at his position, really, but all are so iconic for collectors that they are at the top of the heap regardless. Unitas was a far better QB than Namath but his RC pales in comparison. Even newbie collectors know these sorts of cards. I had a meeting with a newbie collector/client (Millennial who started during the pandemic) and he absolutely freaked out at holding a 1952 Topps Mantle in hand. Took a photo and sent it to his fellow newbie collector Millennial friends. That doesn't happen with many cards. Is Mantle the GOAT? Nope. Ruth has that sewed up. But the 1952 Topps Mantle is iconic, so it revs up collectors like few other postwar cards can. I could have handed him a much rarer Ruth card and it would not have had the impact.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Namath's card has joined a small pantheon of iconic FB cards. The player's rank relative to the rest of the HOF is not really relevant. National Chicle Nagurski, 1955 Topps AA Thorpe, 1958 Topps Brown, 1965 Topps Namath. None other than Brown reflect the GOAT at his position, really, but all are so iconic for collectors that they are at the top of the heap regardless. Unitas was a far better QB than Namath but his RC pales in comparison. Even newbie collectors know these sorts of cards. I had a meeting with a newbie collector/client (Millennial who started during the pandemic) and he absolutely freaked out at holding a 1952 Topps Mantle in hand. Took a photo and sent it to his fellow newbie collector Millennial friends. That doesn't happen with many cards. Is Mantle the GOAT? Nope. Ruth has that sewed up. But the 1952 Topps Mantle is iconic, so it revs up collectors like few other postwar cards can. I could have handed him a much rarer Ruth card and it would not have had the impact.

Ok but you picked 3 football players that might be in the top 10 all time, and then Joe Namath. It is easy to see which one of those is different from the others.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Ok but you picked 3 football players that might be in the top 10 all time, and then Joe Namath. It is easy to see which one of those is different from the others.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I don't follow football but I know those cards. That is my point. The Namath is one of the handful of attention-grabbing cards even among casual collectors. Thes players' relative rankings are irrelevant: the hobby values them without regard to relative ranking. The Johnny U 1957 RC is not one of the iconic cards, even though he is way better than Namath.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't follow football but I know those cards. That is my point. The Namath is one of the handful of attention-grabbing cards even among casual collectors. Thes players' relative rankings are irrelevant: the hobby values them without regard to relative ranking. The Johnny U 1957 RC is not one of the iconic cards, even though he is way better than Namath.

The players' relative rankings are irrelevant? You don't really mean that. Virtually all "iconic" cards feature an all-time great player. Surely that is more than coincidence.

Obviously there is more to an "iconic" card than the status of the player. The set itself plays a part, and there is often a special story surrounding the player, card or set. Not all great players' cards get to be iconic, but the circumstance where the iconic card is of a player not in the pantheon of all-time sports greats is rare.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

The players' relative rankings are irrelevant? You don't really mean that. Virtually all "iconic" cards feature an all-time great player. Surely that is more than coincidence.

Obviously there is more to an "iconic" card than the status of the player. The set itself plays a part, and there is often a special story surrounding the player, card or set. Not all great players' cards get to be iconic, but the circumstance where the iconic card is of a player not in the pantheon of all-time sports greats is rare.

Nagurski did not make the NFL official all time 100 greatest team. Just sayin. Dutch Clark did though.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nagurski did not make the NFL official all time 100 greatest team. Just sayin. Dutch Clark did though.

Interesting, what happened there?

Nagurski was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a charter member on September 7, 1963.

Sports Illustrated named Nagurski one of the four greatest athletes in Minnesota state history.

In 1999, he was ranked No. 35 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Football Players, the highest-ranking foreign-born player.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Interesting, what happened there?

Nagurski was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a charter member on September 7, 1963.

Sports Illustrated named Nagurski one of the four greatest athletes in Minnesota state history.

In 1999, he was ranked No. 35 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Football Players, the highest-ranking foreign-born player.

Al, I don't know. I think a lot of people were surprised he was left off that honorary team.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

The players' relative rankings are irrelevant? You don't really mean that. Virtually all "iconic" cards feature an all-time great player. Surely that is more than coincidence.

Obviously there is more to an "iconic" card than the status of the player. The set itself plays a part, and there is often a special story surrounding the player, card or set. Not all great players' cards get to be iconic, but the circumstance where the iconic card is of a player not in the pantheon of all-time sports greats is rare.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You forgot the Billy Ripken F*** Face. So now you've got Broadway Joe lumped in with the error/scam cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Namath's card has joined a small pantheon of iconic FB cards. The player's rank relative to the rest of the HOF is not really relevant. National Chicle Nagurski, 1955 Topps AA Thorpe, 1958 Topps Brown, 1965 Topps Namath. None other than Brown reflect the GOAT at his position, really, but all are so iconic for collectors that they are at the top of the heap regardless. Unitas was a far better QB than Namath but his RC pales in comparison. Even newbie collectors know these sorts of cards. I had a meeting with a newbie collector/client (Millennial who started during the pandemic) and he absolutely freaked out at holding a 1952 Topps Mantle in hand. Took a photo and sent it to his fellow newbie collector Millennial friends. That doesn't happen with many cards. Is Mantle the GOAT? Nope. Ruth has that sewed up. But the 1952 Topps Mantle is iconic, so it revs up collectors like few other postwar cards can. I could have handed him a much rarer Ruth card and it would not have had the impact.

There are certain players whose popularity is always going to be well above their talent level for a variety of reasons. Mantle is the most obvious one. Namath too, although I think he was better than Samosa characterized him. Roger Maris comes to mind. (all New York so far, hmmmm.) Bill Bradley (hmmmm). I would say Kobe, actually.