Is 1956 Topps Mantle the most overpriced card in the hobby?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Is the 1956 Topps Mantle the most overpriced vintage card in the hobby? Sixth year card that sells for way more than his ‘54 and ‘55, on par with his ‘53.

If not, what is your choice?

[JollyElm]

It's the majestic 'fake-catching' action shot that sells it for a lot of people. Overall, a very sweet looking card.

[Republicaninmass]

Triple crown year

Still yet to see a 54 and 55 topps Mantle

Bowmans are soft

[theshowandme]

1955 Bowman is top 3 ugliest sets ever made

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

1955 Bowman is top 3 ugliest sets ever made

That's the first time I've ever heard that said. I guess after so many years, it's overdue to hear somebody who has that opinion on it! I suppose it's less surprising than hearing someone comparing R302-1s to Renaissance art.

As to the 56 Mantle... I haven't collected unsigned cards for over 30 years. One that I still own and will never part with is the 56 Mantle. It's a thing of beauty, and I agree with the other reasons already given.

[ClementeFanOh]

I think the 56 Mantle is a thing of beauty and not overpriced in any way.
Strictly regarding Mantle, I'd fast forward a decade in time to his 66-68
Topps for that distinction.

Although I'm sure someone can (and will) trump me, I am consistently
surprised by the values that 1967 Topps Brooks Robinson commands, as
well as the Reggie Jackson 69 Topps rookie.

Anecdote- 53 Bowmans are NOT "soft", and are among the prettiest sets
ever made.

Trent King

[brunswickreeves]

It’s still about 1/2 cost of his 53 Topps card and has for a long time been an ‘affordable’ way to get an early Topps card of the Mick. It comes from an iconic and ground breaking set abundant with stars, picking up where his 53 Topps left off. The beaming image of Mick also captures the joy of playing the greatest game, plus includes an action pose capturing his athletic ability. It’s a cool baseball card IMHO.

[Carter08]

+1 for thinking 55 Bowman is really ugly and 56 Topps Mantle is an absolute beauty of a card.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

+1 for thinking 55 Bowman is really ugly and 56 Topps Mantle is an absolute beauty of a card.

I am the exact opposite. Hate most horizontal cards including that Mantle but love the 55 Bowman set.

[vintagerookies51]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

That's the first time I've ever heard that said. I guess after so many years, it's overdue to hear somebody who has that opinion on it! I suppose it's less surprising than hearing someone comparing R302-1s to Renaissance art.

As to the 56 Mantle... I haven't collected unsigned cards for over 30 years. One that I still own and will never part with is the 56 Mantle. It's a thing of beauty, and I agree with the other reasons already given.

Interesting. I’ve always thought it was a pretty common opinion that the 1955 Bowman set is ugly

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by vintagerookies51

Interesting. I’ve always thought it was a pretty common opinion that the 1955 Bowman set is ugly

The premise itself of making it look like a “color tv” is pretty funny to me. Cards are subjective though so I can’t argue if someone loves them.

[Beatles Guy]

I'll take the '55 Bowman over the '56 Topps any day.

[AndrewJerome]

Why do people who dislike the 1952 Topps Mantle love saying it’s a DP, but ignore that it is a high number? Doesn’t this basically make it a wash in terms of rarity? If you don’t like the image just say that.

Andrew

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

1955 Bowman is top 3 ugliest sets ever made

But I love the umpires. Working on the signed subset. Likely impossible

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But I love the umpires. Working on the signed subset. Likely impossible

I’ll concede that. Cool niche subset.

The rest of the set is a 1/10 from an aesthetic standpoint

[ullmandds]

I've owned all the early mantles...except the 52 topps. The one I cherish the most is the 56 topps. For me, growing up in the 70's-80's...I always coveted the cards depicted on the 1975 topps set commemorating all the mvp's over the years. And...it's a beautiful card memorializing an epic season.

[LEHR]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

1955 Bowman is top 3 ugliest sets ever made

It's all individual opinion. The 1955 Bowman baseball set if one of my favorite of the 50's in high grade.

Edited to add: And I personally never cared for the 56 Mantle. I'd say it his worst looking card of the 50's. Again, just my opinion.

[JollyElm]

If you go to post #18 in this old thread:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=307965

I highlight the editing Topps did to the original background photograph (that GasHouseGang posted). Pretty cool stuff (and it took me for frickin' ever to find that particular thread, so hit the link, dammit!!).

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

My only issue with the card is in the background pic. The three men in white shirts who are stacked one on top of the other...the white combines into a pattern that always made me think there was paper loss on my copy as a kid! The man directly at the top has his head cut off, and the white shirt goes straight into the top border.

[BearBailey]

I still feel his 1952 topps card is the most overpriced.

[refz]

1956 Topps mantle is a great looking card & priced accordingly. 55 bowman gets a lot of heat but has nice looking cards like the Aaron & Banks imo. Their only bowman issues that.

I can name an awful lot of under priced cards..

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BearBailey

I still feel his 1952 topps card is the most overpriced.

Careful...for some people, them's fighting words.

You mention all sotto voce that the 311 is also a DP, and people are going to get out the pitchforks.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by raulus

Careful...for some people, them's fighting words.

You mention all sotto voce that the 311 is also a DP, and people are going to get out the pitchforks.

Don’t own one - wish I did. But calling the 1952 Topps overpriced is a bit like Yogi saying a place is too crowded so no one ever goes there. It’s expensive and demand for it keeps pushing it.

[G1911]

At least Mickey is one of the all-time greats, even if his prices exceed his actual performance.

I pick imaginary stories of short printing that did not actually happen as the most overpriced cards in post-war.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

If you go to post #18 in this old thread:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=307965

I highlight the editing Topps did to the original background photograph (that GasHouseGang posted). Pretty cool stuff (and it took me for frickin' ever to find that particular thread, so hit the link, dammit!!).

Nice work Darren. Those 3 stiffs to the side of Mickey's head have bothered me in the past, and now know where they came from.

And am I the only one bothered by the white outlines around Mickey's noggin (as seen in the rest of 1956 Topps cards as well)? The 1955 set minus this outlining and with a solid background is much less cluttered and more aesthetically appealing in my eyes.

Brian (token 1955 cards shown to highlight the difference that a 'blended' superimposed portrait with solid background makes)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Nice work Darren. Those 3 stiffs to the side of Mickey's head have bothered me in the past, and now know where they came from.

And am I the only one bothered by the white outlines around Mickey's noggin (as seen in the rest of 1956 Topps cards as well)? The 1955 set minus this outlining and with a solid background is much less cluttered and more aesthetically appealing in my eyes.

Brian (token 1955 cards shown to highlight the difference that a 'blended' superimposed portrait with solid background makes)

I agree with this. The 1955 Topps cards are much better looking than the 1956 cards in my opinion. Yes, the 1956 Mantle has always bothered me. The fans reaching for a HR ball over Mantle's glove, but there is a ball in the glove and 3 guys looking the other direction, why wouldn't they be watching the play? I like the 1956 Topps set, but the Mantle and Aaron cards are just odd.

No, the 1956 Topps Mantle isn't the most overpriced card in the hobby, the 1952 Topps is. As has been pointed out, it is a DP which negates the fact it is a high number. It shouldn't be as expensive as it is for a card that isn't rare. The card isn't even attractive, the yellow bat makes it look cartoonish. I love the 1951-54 Bowman and 1957 Topps Mantles, 1952, 1953 and 1956, no.