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.

[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

[Carter08]

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

[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.

[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.

[JohnP0621]

56 Topps Mantle Not overpriced at all.
Triple Crown Year and Mantle back in a Topps set after a 2 Year Absence.
Plus its such an iconic set filled with Great HOFers . It also has Brooklyn Dodgers , NY Giants and other Long Gone Teams.

Most Under priced Mantle is 52 Bowman. Great Card at a small fraction of the 52 Topps.

Regards
John P

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by JohnP0621

Most Under priced Mantle is 52 Bowman. Great Card at a small fraction of the 52 Topps.

The "artist" didn't do too poor a job on Mantle's '52 Bowman as compared to other players in the 1950-52 sets. Better than most. I know that some think it's a real piece of art. I don't want Mickey Mantle as a cartoon character, thanks very much. I abhor the amatuerish attemps at artistry in those Bowman sets. A handful do right by their subjects, but most are just embarrassments. By this point in the evolution of cardboard, I want actual photos, not these awful drawings, some of which could appear to have been created by children.

[campyfan39]

topps >>>>> bowman

[jchcollins]

I would think it hard to say that one of the most iconic cards of the single most iconic player to the vintage card hobby, from his first MVP and triple crown season - is overrated or overpriced. Many rank the '56 Topps set as one of if not their single most outstanding effort, and obviously in that timeframe - Mantle is going to be the most important card in the set. The '56 Topps #135 did finally take off some in the last boom, but it's still a lot more affordable than his '53 Topps - and IMO is a much better looking card.

If you are looking for things that are truly overpriced, you can find lots of late 1960's high numbers of players like Cookie Rojas and Mike Shannon, Grant Jackson / Bart Shirey and others - who aren't exactly Mickey Mantle in our collective memories that sell for ridiculous prices - especially in higher grade - simply because they are high numbers or short prints.

[packs]

The 56 Mantle has a lot going for it. People tend to like horizontal cards as it is, but it also has a great portrait image and a great action shot from a pivotal year in his career.

I don't know if it's overvalued because people do tend to like aesthetically pleasing cards or cards with interesting images. I'm thinking of cards like the 53 Bowman Reese, the 52 Topps Zernial, the Art Whitney with Dog OJ, etc.

[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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Zernial was such a great guy. He once wrote me what on earth the story was behind the card. As to the pink undershirt, "It was washed with some red ones and came out pink"!

[packs]

Personally I find Mantle's 1957 Topps card his absolute worst. For a guy who had a ton of personality, his 57 Topps looks like it was taken at a morgue.

[jchcollins]

I like sets that to me are true to their times / what was going on in pop culture when they were released - 1959 and 1972 Topps come to mind, so to me in that regard 1955 Bowman is fantastic and really fits the bill. I'm guessing most people if they had a TV at all in 1955 didn't have a color one, but the design is slick and clever nonetheless.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

Personally I find Mantle's 1957 Topps card his absolute worst. For a guy who had a ton of personality, his 57 Topps looks like it was taken at a morgue.

To me his '57 is iconic, if for no other reason than when I first got interested in vintage cards in the 1980's - that image was everywhere. It seemed to be featured in many issues of Baseball Cards magazine and BBCM, etc.

I will agree the picture and production quality isn't fantastic. The card is overly dark, which leads to a lot of the print snow crap problems on the image itself, and in reality as with many other '57 Topps it's hard to find anywhere within shouting distance of centered. Adding to the problem with the dark image, many of them have what I call the "green / brown" vibe, which I don't think is attractive. However, some '57 Mantles instead of the green / brown present more in blue / green - and IMO these cards when centered decently look great.

I had been in search of a '57 Mantle with the qualities I was looking for forever, and finally found it earlier this year. I got a centered SGC 2, with some small creasing at the bottom that is not super noticeable and was tolerable to me. While it's not as "blue / green" on the image as I would like - it's more like that than green / brown and the image focus is sharp enough for me, so I bought it.

[D. Bergin]

In regards to 1955 Bowman's. I think it's the best of both worlds. Both, one of the ugliest mainstream sets of the modern-ish era, and also one of the most interesting and neat looking sets.

I love the clean look of the 1953 Bowman's and 1957 Topps, but also love the garish border designs on the 1955 Bowman and 1972 and 1975 Topps sets for some reason.

As for the 1956 Mantle, it serves as a return to Topps from Mantle, and while I'm not as big a fan of the design as others...it is still an objectively pretty awesome looking card.

[MantleMarisFordBerra]

That's my favorite card. I personally think the 56T set is the most beautiful of that era. Love the bright colors, the action shot combined with the portrait & printed autograph. And as others have pointed out it's his first Topps card in a couple years and it comes from his best season. Lot to like about that card and I anticipate it'll always be in high demand.

And I do love the 55 Bowman set as well! The Color TV concept is such a time capsule of that era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Outstanding card in every way.

[chaddgar]

Something about the '56 Mantle just screams "1950s" to me. The smile, the action shot, and knowing it was his Triple Crown year make it very special. How many kids proudly showed mom and dad that Mantle card that year?

I picked one up a PSA 2 for $200 in 2016. Crazy now that it's $900-$1000, but I'm not selling anytime soon. It's one of my favorite cards.

[Johnny630]

I love the 56 Mickey Mantle Gray Back except when it has that darn little black dot in the print on some of them.

[90feetaway]

They are not particularly rare in that sense of being over valued and I think Topps ones just seem more popular that the Bowman's. On the other hand as others said, it has a lot going for it: Smiling Mickey (other 50s Topps are serious or more a half smile), action scene taking a HR away, triple crown yr and facsimile auto. By the way, IMO, the 55 Bowman doesn't even really look like him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 90feetaway

They are not particularly rare in that sense of being over valued and I think Topps ones just seem more popular that the Bowman's. On the other hand as others said, it has a lot going for it: Smiling Mickey (other 50s Topps are serious or more a half smile), action scene taking a HR away, triple crown yr and facsimile auto. By the way, IMO, the 55 Bowman doesn't even really look like him.

The 52T doesn't look like him either. It's a very poor rendition of a photo.

[calvindog]

Hard to imagine a better looking card; many may equal it but very few surpass it in my opinion.

[frankbmd]

1956 Topps Baseball was the first set I collected as a kid buying nickel packs, although Mom cleaned house when I went away to college.

When I reintroduced myself to the hobby 35 years ago, my first objective was to put a 1956 Topps set together again. I have sold the majority of that set now, but still have the Mantle, Robinson and Clemente in decent grades and a few others. I would post scans, but mine is nearly identical to the cards already posted in this thread.

The '56 Topps set is numero uno in my book. It even has a George Zuverink card. What more could you ask for?

[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.

[Centauri]

It’s Topps. People like classic Topps better than Bowman, and that’s just that.

[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

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

1956 Topps Baseball was the first set I collected as a kid buying nickel packs, although Mom cleaned house when I went away to college.

When I reintroduced myself to the hobby 35 years ago, my first objective was to put a 1956 Topps set together again. I have sold the majority of that set now, but still have the Mantle, Robinson and Clemente in decent grades and a few others. I would post scans, but mine is nearly identical to the cards already posted in this thread.

The '56 Topps set is numero uno in my book. It even has a George Zuverink card. What more could you ask for?

Hey Frank!! Hows it going?

I had the privilege of purchasing many of these cards that were in your set and still love them to this day. They went a long way in helping me complete my set about 6 years ago. I remember seeing you Mantle, Robinson and Clemente and kicking myself I didnt pursue a deal with you on those cards as I remember them to be very nice.

My '56 Mantle came from another board member who had pulled it from the pack back in '56. Sadly, I do not remember his name as we lost track of each other during covid but I still have that card in all its glory with one crease and writing on the back. To me, this card screams 50's and knowing the "kid" who pulled it makes it all much more special.

This was a card I had wanted for years and just felt it was out of reach financially. Fortunately, I was going through some boxes of cards I had put away and found I had a Mike Trout Heritage rookie and graded it. It came back a 10 so it was a no brainer to sell that card and find me the best Mantle I could afford.

1956 Topps 135.jpg
1956 Topps 135b.jpg

[Chris Counts]

I agree the '56 Mantle is one of the better looking of all cards. While it's worth double any other card in the set, it's not close to being the most overpriced card in the hobby. That honor goes to his 1952 Topps card. There are 44 of them on eBay tonight, and the cheapest, which looks like a dog chewed on it, is $25,000. It's also not his rookie card, but that isn't stopping some of the sellers from saying or believing it is.



[QUOTE=calvindog;2453117]Hard to imagine a better looking card; many may equal it but very few surpass it in my opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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

I don't like the image. But its stature is unique and secure.

[Rich Falvo]

Not a Mantle collector, but the 56 is iconic. I personally think that's his 2nd best looking card behind only the 54 Bowman.

[jackwesq]

Amazingly beautiful in my opinion.

[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)

[raulus]

Originally Posted by 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

Can’t say that I dislike the 311 Mantle. It’s a great card. Just not my thing, particularly at those prices. Plenty of other collectors willing to pay a lot more for it, and I’m more than happy to allocate my scarce resources elsewhere.

I will confess that I just enjoy poking the bear sometimes, because I get my jollies off the (over-) reaction.

And to answer your question, my experience is that most of the 311 lovers prefer to focus on the high number element, and are reticent to countenance the possibility of the DP feature.