What are the best vintage, investment-type players in your opinion?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You can test this theory by looking at 1953 Topps where the Mays is short printed and the Mantle is not.

Not a good comparison. 1953 Topps does not have the following or the prestige of 1952 Topps. PSA puts it best:

"This set is regarded today as the "Holy Grail" of modern day cards, in fact it is often compared to T-206 White Borders and 1933 Goudey when the topic of conversation evolves around the greatest card set ever produced. As time goes by and new generations of collectors enter the hobby, the stature of the 1952 set continues to grow. The same can be said of card #311 Mickey Mantle, perhaps the most recognized card in the world today with the exception of the T-206 Wagner."

Also, a big price differential between Mantle and Mays in other sets would be in alignment with a theory that Mantle's hobby prestige is tied to the 1952 Topps high number story.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My sense is that for cards of about the same overall pop, in grades not considered tough, Mantles are 1.5-2x Mays in most cases. I have not researched that currently admittedly. I did look at just one example for the hell of it -- PSA 7 1958s -- and this seemed true.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Not a good comparison. 1953 Topps does not have the following or the prestige of 1952 Topps. PSA puts it best:

"This set is regarded today as the "Holy Grail" of modern day cards, in fact it is often compared to T-206 White Borders and 1933 Goudey when the topic of conversation evolves around the greatest card set ever produced. As time goes by and new generations of collectors enter the hobby, the stature of the 1952 set continues to grow. The same can be said of card #311 Mickey Mantle, perhaps the most recognized card in the world today with the exception of the T-206 Wagner."

Also, a big price differential between Mantle and Mays in other sets would be in alignment with a theory that Mantle's hobby prestige is tied to the 1952 Topps high number story.

So you're saying that you believe a major factor in Mantle being priced much higher than Mays is due to the 1952 Topps card itself and the fact that getting a Mantle was more difficult than getting a Mays and that this single difference in what is probably the most collected/coveted set in the hobby is at least in part responsible for the delta between Mantle and Mays and that it perpetuates across other sets?

I'm not sure I'd pitch my hat into that ring, but I suppose it's possible. I thought you were just saying that the only reason there was a difference between Mantle and Mays in the 52 set was because Mantle happened to be in the high number series and that if the two cards were swapped in that set that the Mays would be the more valuable card. I didn't realize you were also attributing their deltas in other sets back to that 52 set as well.

[packs]

I think Mantle is in the right place in the hobby. I haven't seen anyone explain why a Triple Crown winning, three time MVP and seven time World Series champion shouldn't be the toast of the hobby.

He accomplished an impossible feat. I'm sure there is another instance or two out there, but he took over for DiMaggio, already a huge Yankee legend and giant of the game. Mantle went on to be even better than he was.

Can anyone think of another instance where a torch was passed like the one from DiMaggio to Mantle? Who did Mays take over for? Who took over after him? How about Aaron?

Mantle was under immense pressure and it would have been easy for him to be Bobby Murcer, but instead he was Mickey Mantle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Mantle is in the right place in the hobby. I haven't seen anyone explain why a Triple Crown winning, three time MVP and seven time World Series champion shouldn't be the toast of the hobby.

He accomplished an impossible feat. I'm sure there is another instance or two out there, but he took over for DiMaggio, already a huge Yankee legend and giant of the game. Mantle went on to be even better than he was.

Can anyone think of another instance where a torch was passed like the one from DiMaggio to Mantle? Who did Mays take over for? Who took over after him? How about Aaron?

Mantle was under immense pressure and it would have been easy for him to be Bobby Murcer, but instead he was Mickey Mantle.

Not quite the same but Yaz and Williams.

[packs]

That is a good comparison but I would say the careers were switched in that instance. I don't think anyone thinks Yaz was better than Ted. I would also say Yaz did not have the pressure Mantle did, considering Ted never won and neither did Yaz.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Mantle is in the right place in the hobby. I haven't seen anyone explain why a Triple Crown winning, three time MVP and seven time World Series champion shouldn't be the toast of the hobby.

He accomplished an impossible feat. I'm sure there is another instance or two out there, but he took over for DiMaggio, already a huge Yankee legend and giant of the game. Mantle went on to be even better than he was.

Can anyone think of another instance where a torch was passed like the one from DiMaggio to Mantle? Who did Mays take over for? Who took over after him? How about Aaron?

Mantle was under immense pressure and it would have been easy for him to be Bobby Murcer, but instead he was Mickey Mantle.

Why would who played before or after someone affect their card prices?

I've never seen anyone pumping Jim Gilliam because he inherited Jackie Robinson's torch.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Why would who played before or after someone affect their card prices?

I've never seen anyone pumping Jim Gilliam because he inherited Jackie Robinson's torch.

I think Packs is just saying that in New York, there was added pressure on Mantle to perform because he took over for a beloved legend of the game in centerfield. And not only did Mantle rise to the occasion, but he has outshined DiMaggio, which adds to Mantle’s mystique.

By the way the succession in right field in Detroit, where Harry Heilmann took over for Sam Crawford is also one of the better torch handoffs. Hasn’t done anything for Heilmann’s cards though. Obviously Crawford did not have the mystique of DiMaggio.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Mantle is in the right place in the hobby. I haven't seen anyone explain why a Triple Crown winning, three time MVP and seven time World Series champion shouldn't be the toast of the hobby.

Berra was a three time MVP and TEN time World Series champion, and he is nowhere near the toast of the hobby, value-wise.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Berra was a three time MVP and TEN time World Series champion, and he is nowhere near the toast of the hobby, value-wise.

I limited my answer to prewar, but looking at the hobby on whole, I 1000% agree with this.

Berra was an amazing player (maybe the best player) on an amazing team. Plus, he transcends baseball with all his sayings, the Yogi Bear thing, and he caught Larson's perfect game. And, he is very likable/well regarded.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I limited my answer to prewar, but looking at the hobby on whole, I 1000% agree with this.

Berra was an amazing player (maybe the best player) on an amazing team. Plus, he transcends baseball with all his sayings, the Yogi Bear thing, and he caught Larson's perfect game. And, he is very likable/well regarded.

And, unlike the Robert Redford-like Mantle, Yogi was more of a Cabbage Patch guy the ordinary fellow could relate to.

Spahn and Berra are the most under-rated post-war guys IMO.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And, unlike the Robert Redford-like Mantle, Yogi was more of a Cabbage Patch guy the ordinary fellow could relate to.

Spahn and Berra are the most under-rated post-war guys IMO.

I agree with this. Frank Robinson and Rod Carew are not far behind.

I wonder if Yogi suffers from the fact that he was such a funny and charismatic guy and did not exactly look the part of a top athlete. Without looking at his stats I wonder if too many people assume he wasn’t very good and is famous for being funny. Call it the Uecker effect.