What Do You Consider Mickey Mantle's RC?

[BCauley]

The subject line pretty much sums it up. Which do you consider his RC and more importantly, why?

[T205]

1951 Bowman, due to its his first cardboard appearence.

[ChiefBenderForever]

51 Bowman is his true RC, but given the choice I would take a 52 Topps, and not because of it's value but because it is such a good looking magical perfect card.

[MBMiller25]

51 Bowman is considered his rookie, and its the one I would want if I had my choice. I love the look of that card.

[doug.goodman]

Choice 1 - Blue
Choice 2 - Red

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Choice 1 - Blue
Choice 2 - Red

Believe me, I know this is ridiculous. I was on another forum and this was actually an issue. A very small group felt that the '52 is widely regarded as his RC. None of them care to explain why exactly beyond one person stating it's been considered "public opinion" for as long as he's been alive.

The earth was widely regarded as flat too.

[Robextend]

It has to be 1951 Bowman....

[tonyk1975]

The 51 Bowman came first there fore is the true RC.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by tonyk1975

The 51 Bowman came first there fore is the true RC.

On top of that, he played in 94 games in '51 and had over 300 at bats.

[ChiefBenderForever]

If you say Mantle RC the first thing that will pop into 90% of peoples head is 52 Topps.

[HRBAKER]

Well since there really is no such thing as a Rookie Card, it merely being a hobby construct. If it is defined as I have always heard as the first appearance on a "card" as a major leaguer then how could it be argued that it is anything other than the '51B between the two. Now I would rather have the Topps but that does make it the Rookie Card.

[terjung]

People give particular cards the misnomer of being a rookie card all the time. Just because it is more popular doesn't make it his rookie card. Mantle is not the only example of this. T206 Wagner is another one that unlearned people call his rookie card. Shoot, I've even seen people call errantly call the '33 Goudey Ruth's RC and that's not even close.

With prewar collecting, there is some ambiguity with regard to whether a particular issue is considered a rookie "card", (ie. cabinet, postcard, team image, pins, magazine insert, etc.). The dates for prewar issues also aren't always as clear either, but for post war collecting, it isn't as gray. The 1951 Bowman is clearly Mickey's RC. I've seen the '52 be called the "Topps" RC since it is his first image on a Topps card, but even that is a bit of a stretch, imo.

[4815162342]

I haven't read a Beckett in years, but remember the term "XRC" being applied to the "real" but unpopular rookie cards, while the cards that popularly known as rookies would be labeled "RC". Ridiculous! The first card of a player is the rookie card and nothing else.

[steve B]

Yeah, XRC was used for rookie cards from traded sets. That was a bit of a compromise after they said rookie cards had to be from a "major nationally distributed set" Which was put in the defenition to exclude draft pick and highschool all star sets. Jeter was in a couple of those, and was probably one of the main drivers for the change. After all, the highschool all star set only had a print run of something like 5000, not nearly enough for all the dealers at the time to get in on the action.

And with McGwire they had a different problem, a card in a major set that wasn't actually a major league card. I think that's about the time the FTC- first Topps card designation came along.

The whole "rookie card" thing actually made sense up till roughly the late 1970's. after that it got sillier and sillier.

Steve B

[fkw]

There is also a 1951 Wheaties of him, the test issue.

1951 Bowman is Mantles Rookie Card. 1952 is the 1st year Topps Made Baseball Cards. I have a question how many years is a player considered a Rookie regardless of the card.

[FUBAR]

most players in the 90's hadnt ever played in the majors but had cards. It was getting ridiculous. Some players like Rolen or Halladay you have to go back 7 or 8 years for their card before they played a game in the bigs.....

Beckett describes a RC as the first card of a player in a major issued set from a major manufacturer.

Beckett still lists 1933 Ruth's (a 4 of them) as his rookie card because none of his other cards came from major sets/manufacturers.

[brian1961]

The discussion of what constituted Mickey Mantle's rookie card historically has had a strong undercurrent of which card was more important and valuable.

In the early days of the organized adult hobby, prices were going up by the month. Originally, adult collectors tried to collect every baseball card ever printed. Younger collectors such as I were quickly priced out of the market to do that. So, many of us resorted to collecting several particular sets, one or several favorite players, an era, or even type card collecting.

One of the theme collecting niches that sprung up was rookie card collecting. Now, keep in mind, a player's rookie card is simply his first appearance on a baseball card, or some other item if he did not appear on a card in his first year. A rookie card does not mean his scarcest card, and has nothing to do with rarity per se. The ONLY reason that the price increased was because dealers soon picked up on this popular collecting trend, and jacked up their prices for a given player's rookie card. One of the first dealer's to do that was Larry Fritsch. The player's photo or the card design might be as ugly as a dead tree, but if it was his first card---viola, a bonanza for the dealer. Simple as that.

Now, the example of Mickey Mantle is an interesting one. His 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps are both very attractive, compellingly so. Often, the arguments raged because a given collector had one of them, but not the other. Also, it became apparent, from the old law of supply and demand, that the 1952 Topps Mantle was much more desirable, and its value broke away from the 1951 Bowman. Bowman owners felt insulted, bewildered and rather insecure over the idea that their actual rookie card of Mick was falling behind the 1952 Topps. They pounded the table with the absurd idea that the rookie card must naturally be the more significant, the more desirable, and the more valuable.

Topps owners just smiled and essentially said, "I bought what I wanted and I love what I have." Bowman owners fumed and spat and sputtered, "but you can't feel that way, you're supposed to like the Bowman rookie more!"

Then, of course, there were those who purchased both, enjoyed both for what they were, and stuck plugs in their ears to enjoy both Micks and keep out the noise of the arguers.

I made my choice many years ago, and never regretted it a minute. It matters not which of them I chose. Besides, I had to part with it to raise money for a home. Believe you me, I miss that Mickey terribly, but sometimes there are things in life that are more important than cards. I must confess though that I did not part with all my Mickey Mantle cards and coins. I could not bring myself to do that.

In the mean time, the 1951 Bowman is Mickey Mantle's only rookie card. The 1952 Topps is his most valuable gum card, period. Then again, the population reports only reinforced the cause for the 1952 Topps. If any more major finds occur, that would definitely change the value of that particular Mantle.

Cheers. ---Brian Powell

[ALR-bishop]

Good one Brian

[HRBAKER]

Beckett still lists 1933 Ruth's (a 4 of them) as his rookie card because none of his other cards came from major sets/manufacturers.

This is true and most all people regard this for the buffoonery that it is!