Why rookie cards?
GilR
Posts: 147 ✭✭✭
This bothered me 30+ years ago when I first began collecting cards, and still bothers me now that I've dug up my old collection and have been going through it: is there a good, _rational _explanation for why rookie cards are the most valuable for any given player (excluding limited editions)? It makes no sense to me that, say, the card from a player's MVP season, or perhaps the card for the following year including those MVP stats, would not be as desirable as his rookie card. Or a card that is generally thought to have a superior photo. While it might be a scarcity issue for much older cards (there are fewer 1952 Mickey Mantles than 1962), a 1985 Roger Clemens is not harder to find than a 1986, but it's worth more.
Can anyone defend placing rookie cards on such a pedestal, or is it just accepted wisdom, never to be questioned?
Comments
(Yes, I've questioned it. That just happened.)
It's the card equivalent of a #1 comic book.
Speaking for myself. The rookie card is the thing I enjoy the most. Yes certain base cards do hold some value and history. I think like if you do player runs the rookie card is very important part of that.
I collect hall of fame rookie cards, https://www.instagram.com/stwainfan/
It’s probably because they were printed before they were famous. So collectors toss aside most rookie cards since they turn out to be commons…so while rookie cards may not be harder to find in general, they are usually harder to find in mint condition.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
Besides the few notable exceptions (like the 1952 Topps Mantle v. the 1951 Bowman Mantle) it's generally just because they are first, which seems perfectly rational to me. I don't collect anything else, but I wonder, is there any collectible where the first or earlier in time is not generally the most desirable and expensive?
Thanks for your interesting responses.
vols1, I'm not sure I accept the argument about rookie cards being tossed aside as the reason. That is undoubtedly true for earlier sets, but take 1989 as an example. Gary Sheffield was a widely heralded rookie, so his cards were held onto (I myself still have the 50 that I bought at the time), but Craig Biggio was not so big a deal as a rookie and was not being bought in bulk lots and put aside (or, at least, not nearly as much as Sheffield), but today PSA's website shows that a Gem Mint Sheffield goes for about $45.50 and Biggio for $41, with that price difference more likely being attributable to Sheffield's better numbers than scarcity. (If it were scarcity, then Biggio should be pricier, because a lot more Biggios would have been tossed than Sheffields.)
Because a player is only a Rookie once. If you did a culmination of all of one particular player’s cards, there would be considerably fewer rookie cards. Let’s not even mention late 80s through mid 90s. Too many cards printed. I will use Mike Trout as an example. His flagship rookie, 2011 Topps Update, not counting the parallels and chrome series. I’m going to guess approximately 500,000 were printed (I could be way off but baseball cards had certainly lost their appeal during that time). How many millions of his cards from 2012-2021, have been printed? (And I’m only talking Topps!) None of those have that RC logo printed on them and therefore aren’t as sought after.
When I look at it that way it makes sense to me…
parthur1607,
I do see your argument, but that could also be said for an all-star card or MVP card (at least for those years when winning MVP or Cy Young is indicated on a card). So, to pick an example, Miguel Cabrera won the MVP twice, but only his 2013 card has "MVP" on the front -- but, of course, his rookie card is worth far more.
Personally, back when I was began collecting I thought that league leaders and record breakers are worth, and managed to get a good number of them, going back to 1962 for league leaders. (Thank goodness I bought a nice but off-center A.L. homer leaders card back then.) Those cards are records of accomplishments, so it continues to baffle me that they don't get more attention.
The situation you describe is definitely the case for a lot of vintage boxing items, like Dempsey, C.Clay, and plenty of others.
Also, there are plenty of cards of important athletes of all sports that pre-date their "Rookie" card. Minor Leagues, College, various Foreign leagues, Olympics, etc. The First card is not always the Rookie card. The Rookie card is not always, but more often than not is, their first card in a top-tier professional uniform..
.
if you are not first you're last.
While I cannot agree with you I have to say that second and third year cards of star players are undervalued.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
I agree with the premise and have often wondered it myself. There is really no reason for it outside of that's just the way it is. There has to be some way of ranking the cards. NFTs go by the mint number with the first one minted going for more while in reality they were all minted at the same time. It's just a way to provide more value for something and everyone has just sort of agreed that the rookie card is the way we are going to go about it.
Supply and demand.
Many years ago, back in "once upon a time" days, rookie cards were not highly regarded. In 1962 everyone wanted the Roger Maris cards instead of people like Lou Brock and Gaylord Perry that no one had ever heard of. By the time Brock and Perry became superstars, and even eclipsed Maris, they were snapping up their current cards (because no one wanted to go back to 1962) so the rookie cards became most valuable because they were ignored. Eventually, and certainly by the mid-'80s, people had noticed this trend and they were hoarding every rookie no matter how promising (like Danny Boone who had been a 27-year-old middle reliever with 92 career innings and none since 1982). It had become impossible for a rookie card to slide through unnoticed. My guess as to why it persists 30+ years later is an historical artifact.
As said - first items in collectibles always demand a premium (except when they don’t like the ‘51 Topps set.) Topps and set collectors should in theory all want that first set. Because it is essentially a game, has rounded corners, does not look like a traditional baseball card, is easy to find in high grade and is missing a lot of the stars it is not. If there was a ‘51 Topps Mantle would that have completely changed the perception of the set?
It will be interesting if something to shake up established “rookie” cards happens. What if PSA started grading Star basketball tomorrow - would everyone still consider ‘86 Fleer as the rookie cards? Are they the rookies because they were issued in packs and available in retail?
Supply and demand is the driver and when there are multiple rookie cards demand decides which is king. FOMO is real and is a huge driver - everyone wants what others want. Scarcity vs. demand over the long haul dictates price. Scarcity doesn’t change much over time but demand sometimes does.
When I was a kid in the 1980's, we didn't really care if it was a rookie card as long as it was a card of the player we liked. Then when people started looking at Beckett's, Tuff Stuff, etc and the values of cards, the rookie was the most valuable, so folks started to look for those. I personally value the rookie the most because it's valued the most by the hobby at large. That said, I'm a player collector, and typically build runs of the cards for the player during their career. There are a bunch of players where my favorite card of the player is NOT their rookie card. Here's an example:
Steve
The Doomsday Collection
Dallas Cowboys Ring of Honor | All-Time Dallas Cowboys | Bob Lilly Master | Pro Football HOF Dallas Cowboys
My guess is that it stems from our greater fascination with being first at everything. First to see a new Star Wars movie. First to try a new restaurant. First to get the latest Jordan shoes... Really, the experience is not much different if you see Star Wars on the second day, try the new restaurant a week after opening or get the third drop of Jordan shoes. But for whatever reason we assign importance to being the first.
As such, maybe when values began being attached to cards, having the first example of a player card was deemed better than having another down the road. It is odd though. In Mantle's example, his 1956 season was far more impressive than his rookie season in terms of his personal production. His 1956 Topps card is no slouch, but certainly pales in comparison to 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. You could make an interesting case for the idea that the year a player has his/her greatest on-field accomplishment (or maybe the following year when those statistics appear on the card back) should be the most desirable/valuable card.
First appearance.
Your first love you always remember
I've got a wild idea - collect what you like and don't get all wound up about what others do.
Someone hit it on the head. It became a thing at some point and everyone followed suit. I agree that it is arbitrary in most instances. Take a hypothetical example of a star player with a 1968 RC and a 1978 last card. There isn't enough of a time or scarcity gap to have a a huge price difference between the average cards in those sets, but the 68 RC is going to outsell the 78 last card every time. The 78 last card may very well outsell another regular card from the 68 set though, further proving that the premium placed on a rookie is mostly driven by demand. Of course, that is also true of star players. I believe there was once a time (before my time) when it was not uncommon to see people trading stars for commons because they were all just one in a series of xx cards that made up a set and the goal was to complete the set.
i've always thought a players last card with their career stats was pretty cool.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Well I think, it's just the way the hobby works. We all want to collect the rookie cards of our favorite players, and could be due to different reasons. Some are buying in the hopes that a prospect might become the next big thing, others might just want to own the rookie card of an already established player.
This is an outstanding topic and I share the same "confusion" as the OP. It is my personal contention that rookie cards are the "Sweetest Day" (i.e. "Hallmark Holiday") of the collecting world. I don't know a single person who was a kid in the 1970's or prior who opened packs in anticipation of a "rookie card". Then, sometime around the time Joe Charboneau arrived on the scene, a buzz around rookie cards started (I believe adult influenced), and since then I think the pursuit of rookie cards (for the most part) is value / investment driven more so than enjoyment driven. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but I went to a lot of shows in the mid 70's, and I honestly don't remember hearing about the concept of a rookie card at that point. Then again, I walked to school in the snow barefoot uphill, so maybe I'm wrong.
Great question. I collect purely UFC cards and the concept of 'rookie' is a hot debate. The UFC has no seasons and originally, the first appearance on a base card was considered the rookie. Now that collecting UFC cards has gained in popularity, the new collectors from other sports are trying to apply Rookie year / Rookie season BS as the true Rookies are tough to find or $$$. I consider that loose application of Rookie status an attempt at a consolation prize as they did not have the foresight to collect the Rookie when 1st released (or when the fighter was still unknown).
Then there is the concept of rookie auto or 1st auto which is a separate argument. Early in the UFC releases, most collectors did not care for rookie base and went after the '1st auto', which quite often came a release or two after the 1st rookie card. This has lead to confusion with new collectors.
I'm sure Action Comics #654 is better written than Action Comics #1. Want to trade? LOL.
I kid but that's all it's about.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
As a rookie card collector, I've never understood the backlash we often times receive in regard to what we collect. Not saying that is the case here as the OP is simply asking a question, but I've seen it a lot over the years. I know I personally have never questioned what people collect - at least out loud
. In the world of vintage, when a card that was previously thought to be a rookie is no longer designated as such because of new dating information, some collectors seem to relish in the discourse it creates for rookie card collectors. Again, why? I saw collect what makes you happy and don't worry about what others collect.
OP here. Shagrotn77, as you inferred, I definitely wasn't disrespecting people who collect rookie cards -- just questioning the greater prices they get.
I've definitely been enjoying this discussion, especially the history lessons (like 1962 Roger Maris vs. Gaylord Perry, or Joe Charboneau), and have some additional thoughts. I think it really does come down to supply and demand, once the demand was established. It makes me think of how gold is still a precious metal, even though at least one or two of the factors that first made it precious thousands of years ago are no longer valid. (I'm not an economic historian, but I believe that's correct.) If everyone decided that gold is not that appealing then its value would plummet -- same with rookie cards.
I liked dontippet's suggestion of collecting LAST cards, which had never occurred to me. It's certainly a cheaper hobby than collecting rookie cards!
Along those lines, I still think collecting record breaker cards and cards celebrating achievements should be a bigger thing than it is. And I'm not just saying that in the hope of boosting the value of my extra 1987 Topps Jim Deshaies most-K's-at-start-of-game cards before I put them on eBay.
@GilR Seeing that a new record of 9 consecutive strikeouts to start a game was set this year by Miami pitcher Pablo Lopez, your Deshaies cards will now need all the help they can get.
Good point. Though Deshaies, at least, can claim a better Chris Berman nickname.
Rookie cards and first cards are great especially to see the youngest version of a favorite player…maybe even before their greatness was realized…but I’ve learned over the decades of collecting that I enjoy going after the coolest looking cards/packs (1975 Topps baseball for example…Love the 2 tone colors and all the hall of famers and stars).
Rookie Cards are the bedrock of the hobby and that is not changing any time soon. Rare, Desirable, Sought-After, call it whatever you want.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
Comic books sort of follow this trend, but it's usually due to the first appearance of something or someone - such as Uncanny Xmen #94 (worth way more than #93), Amazing Spiderman #252 etc.
I think the main "difference" in this aspect of collecting is that the norm dramatically changed along the way. As pointed out, rookie cards were not any more popular or valuable that the average common card until something changed and people started to value them more. Charboneau is a good example and might have been the turning point as mentioned. I was only around 12 at that time, so I don't recall caring about rookies until later. I do remember the hype building up behind Mattingly and Strawberry in 1984 and maybe there was similar hype the year prior in 1983, but I don't think it was the big 3 we think of now initially, at least not Gwynn as he took a little longer to blossom. It might have been guys like Chili Davis, Von Hayes, Willie McGee, etc. Strawberry was in the traded set, but I recall only caring that Garvey's first Padres card was in that set. I did like the trophy cards as a kid, but those were not necessarily rookie cards and I was always more happy to pull a Steve Garvey or Pete Rose out of a pack then some guy I had never heard of yet.
It picked up speed, more people bought into it and eventually it became the norm that rookies were the best card to have. Now, we see them as a chance to predict the future and the investment/gambling aspect is what has made it hard for long time collectors to accept it. For every Trout, there are dozens of other who don't make it big.
I know that I myself certainly fell for the rookie hype back in the junk wax days. In addition to some actually smart purchases (Topps Griffey and Bernie Williams), and a few more that would have proven smart if not for steroids tainting their reputations (25 Sosa, 50 Sheffield, 25 Palmeiro), I also purchased and still have -- and probably will always have -- the following (Topps unless indicated otherwise): 50 Erik Hanson (Upper Deck), 50 Roger Salkeld, 25 Todd Zeile, 50 Devon White, 25 Ruben Sierra (1987), 50 Ruben Sierra (1989), 50 Mark Lewis, 25 Jay Buhner (Donruss), 50 Jay Buhner, 100 Gregg Jefferies (1989), 50 Gregg Jefferies (1990), 50 Al Leiter, and 50 Mike Harkey.
In early 1984 there were two key cards in the Topps Traded; Strawberry and Kittle. Nobody else was worth much.
While I agree with the OP questioning what seems to be an irrational focus of "rookie card" I find this explanation kind of interesting. It can be applied to most players. For any 1950's to 1970's card, almost every first card of a player was not a card people wanted. Who would really want Pete Rose's rookie card in 1963? It was four nobody's. After Rose got good, people went back and wanted to get that card. So of all the cards in that set, it was creating a demand. Then it simply snowballed.
However, like the OP and others mentioned, that same should hold true for their second card, and maybe their third card too.
The only drawback is that is that momentum isn't carried forward sixty years later. At some point within two or three years of his RC, every HOF player was already a star.
I think the other sports rookie card craze is simply a copy of baseball's, so that explanation probably doesn't stand well as a reason.
In the end, their best card should be the most valuable. Pee Wee Reese's 1953 Bowman color is an example of how it 'should be' where his card is popular and more valuable primarily on the basis of aesthetics, not a contrived classification.
People also like round or significant numbers. In the old days of baseball, a guy hits .300 and is classified as something special, yet in reality the guy hitting .299 is largely ignored, yet there really isn't much of a difference.
I agree that cards right after the rookie card have more potential if that mindset ever changes.
In basketball, Larry Bird's second card is actually more expensive than his first rookie card(his solo rookie card), as a result, I find that very odd considering how the hobby is. People have propped up his first solo card, yet in the case of Pete Rose or any other major RC, that is not the case. To me, I see more potential in Bird's RC(his solo card without Magic). It is actually a low pop card too compared to the more common second year card.
I don't understand what you're saying here. The Bird-Erving-Johnson is far more valuable than the 1981 Bird in all grades, but somehow I don't think this is what you're talking about.
As is often the case, Topps and Mickey Mantle combined to drive this ship. If you look at the old collector trades, shortly after he retired there was a significant demand for his 1952 Topps card. Toss in the rumors of the dumping of the ‘52 High Numbers into NYC waters and it soon became a thing. While not a true rookie, the second year card in Topps inaugural set was already starting to see incredibly significant premiums over every other card in the set by about 1972. Add in that the hobby exploded a decade later on the backs of card shows and player signings in the 1980’s where fathers and sons came to pursue auto’s and cards of their generations stars - with the guiding wisdom being that the first Topps card for the top players would see gains - and the rookie card phenomenon takes firm hold of the hobby.
I collect cards of all years, including rookies: there’s just something about seeing legends before they were legends with fresh, baby faces and wide eyes…
…and threads are better with cards.
😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I collect only vintage- Mostly 1961 and earlier (with some later cards through about 1969- at a minimal level) Some rookie cards are okay- At some point, I think some cards will do better based on their look. As an example, the 1953 Bowman PeeWee Reese has a great action shot that is very cool... My gut tells me part of its value is attributable to the image captured and reduced to a card. I would rather have a card like this than a rookie card that is chased and hyped for all the wrong reasons. Looking at several players... limiting my comments to vintage... there are cards from various years that look so much better than others. As an example... look at the 52 Topps Roy Sievers card... looks terrific and better than his cards from an earlier or later time frame
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I will present a contrarian view of this situation of rookie cards being the best of a given player. I attended my first major card collector convention in July 1972. It was the Midwest Sports Collectors Convention in Troy, Michigan. Naturally, my mind was on sensory overload at all the wondrous cards I was seeing for the first time.
My collector instincts have always seemed to gravitate to the attractive, yet rare and unusual. For instance, as a tot, I rejected Tootsie Toys and Matchbox in favor of the British Dinky Toys, Corgi Toys, and Crescent Toys, with the French Solido at the top. Dimestore toy soldiers were ok, but a Marx Battle of Gettysburg play set was ooh-la-la, while the Marx Warriors of the World and Britains Swoppets.
Thus, when I was at my first major convention, I was attracted first to Topps and Bowmans of players I particularly liked, such as Mickey Mantle, Nellie Fox, Ernie Banks, and Harmon Killebrew. I could not have cared less about a player's rookie or first card. Post-war regional cards were a major niche because they were very attractive, had a built-in scarcity even during the year they were issued, and therefore by 1972 very hard to get, with many of the veteran collectors looking like mad for them, because they needed quite a few of the cards. All of veterans already had their Topps and Bowman sets complete, so they were looking for other sets they did not have, and the more challenging the better.
To give you an idea of what I liked, a veteran collector who worked at Topps drawing the cartoons on the backside of the cards, was selling gem mint complete sets of the 1969 Topps Super Baseball test issue. He was charging $30 a set. I thought that was a bit high. He asked me what I thought was right. I said twenty bucks. He agreed, and I bought a set. I had never seen, nor heard of this Topps test issue. I had never heard of any Topps test issue. As I carefully thumbed through a set to decide if I wanted it, as soon as I came to card #23, Mickey Mantle, my eyes probably bulged, and I silently quietly inhaled----INSTANT DEEP DESIRE. Had the gentleman not budged on his price, I imagine I would have bought it anyway, just to get the Mantle. You see, I didn't come to the show with hundreds of dollars to spend. I was just an 18-year-old guy with not much money, but who liked nice cards.
So, since the supply of scarce regionals was so abysmally minuscule, many newer collectors simply gave up, and decided to collect something easier---like gum card rookie cards. Dealers and collector / dealers became aware of the new rookie card collecting trend (we're talking late 70's to very early 80's) and began jacking up their asking prices with each month. Gum card rookies were not scarce or rare; they were common as dirt. However, and this is THE major however, the demand for them was going up through the roof. These cards were plentiful, and I meant it when I addressed them as "common". Yet the demand was such that dealers were only too happy to change their price and spike it higher and higher. I well remember these dealers were hysterically obsessed with making sure they were not undercharging for a given card. There were no price guides then, although that would change when Dr. Beckett and another gentleman released the first major guide in 1979. At this time, Pete Rose had his colossal consecutive game hitting streak that was the talk of all baseball. Collectors decided his ultimate card was his ugly 4-on-one 1963 rookie card. Demand for that went into the stratosphere.
I had a nice chat with the man who was probably the biggest dealer of them all---Larry Fritsch. He and I got on the subject of rookie cards. He flat out said the '55 Topps Sandy Koufax was just a common card. Of course, the sharp Mr. Fritsch quickly saw the trend for rookie card desirability, and changed his prices on a given card frequently.
Collectors then drew the conclusion that gum card rookies, with their higher and higher valuations, must be the ultimate. Nah, the sellers just saw the demand and kept increasing their asking prices, and got away with it.
The rare regionals stayed rare, and even with the few finds that came out of the woodwork into a show and were sold by people who used to work at the printing plants and squirreled away a few cards that were left over from that job, these rare gems were dispersed into the hands of collector - dealers, who then offered them to extremely eager collectors, who pounced on them like a school of hungry catfish. The fortunate few who bought them regarded them as trophy cards of their respective collections, and held on to them for DECADES.
Today, as you all well know, rookie cards are for the most part, IT. Whether Don Mattingly, Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Jim Brown, Mike Trout, Aaron Judge, Derek Jeter, Gretzky, Orr, that quarterback for the Chiefs, that new phenom for the Angels. Then again, remember Strassburg; I forget his first name. His rookies were gyrating into the stratosphere---until he threw one too many heaters. Then, we all heard the inevitable loud pop from a needle penetrating a baloon that represented that pitcher's rookie cards.
Me? I never got caught up in rookie card collecting mania. Oh, I agree it's a viable option for collectors. Good money can be made wheeling and dealing in them. That, I believe, is the major driving force for the great majority of dealers dealing in them, and all the collectors who are into box breaks, pack rips, and other such events---all to see if you pull a nice rookie. Well, whatever makes you happy (richer). The excitement is genuine and I get that.
I'm now at the age and financial state that I'm out of the ballgame. I have no regrets. I love the gum cards I kept. I really love the post-war regional / food issues I was able to find and track down. The latter were the highlights of my card collecting. You see, I was fascinated by the background stories of the promotions that issued the regionals, and how relatively few of them were produced, and in many cases how very few of them survived, let alone survived in high grade.
If you've read this far, thanks sincerely for listening to an old man collector reminiscing about his thoughts and remembrances of collecting cards since the spring of 1961. For the most part, it was a whale of a lot of fun, and when it wasn't, it was when nobody wanted to part with any regionals, save for the crumb bums nobody wanted.
Happy Thanksgiving to you all. --- Indiana Jones (Brian Powell)
@IndianaJones GREAT READ! Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. I am a small time long-time non-sport collector that believes you should always just collect what you love. I have no other explanation for my actual collecting habits. After reading your post, I am not surprised that it aligns more towards what you’ve described than any other collecting strategy that I think I might have aspired to. Thanks again for sharing.
Live long, and prosper.
@IndianaJones
One of the best commentaries I have read on the the trading cards forum. Seems rookie cards are easy to promote...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
IndianaJones, I've been enjoying all of the comments in this thread, but your post alone makes me glad that I started it.
Yeah, I used the word solo to describe the rookie and 1981 card. I will rephrase.
The 1980 Larry Bird rookie, the one with him alone on the left panel, but no Magic Johnson on the right panel is priced lower than the 1981 Topps Larry Bird second year card in PSA 9....and the 1981 card is also far more abundant in PSA 9.
Ah, I understand now. The thing is, some players have been popular/successful enough as rookies to have multiple cards, such as an All-Star card or a League Leaders card. Those are always priced far less than the regular cards even if they happen to be issued the rookie year. For whatever reason the other Bird, and for that matter Johnson, cards from the 1980 set are considered the same way, and always have been.
Hope that everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
Brian,
That was an awesome trip down your memory lane. Thanks for sharing in such detail. I hope that you nailed MOST of the big regionals that you hunted for all these years. I says “most” because I know all too well how much fun the “hunt” is for us all. No doubt a thrill when you land a big piece, but having coveted items on our want lists keep us active and make collecting that much more fun.
John
@1970s said:
Guys, thanks ever so much for the kind words. I am very honored.
NJ80sBBC, by the grace of God, I was able to nail my most wanted regional. Frankly, I never thought I would come across this one, this nice, in the first place. Then, low and behold, early in 1988, I received my bi-weekly issue of Sports Collectors Digest. There was a huge Mr. Mint Alan Rosen phone auction within. The Mint Man always had the most amazing stuff in his phone auctions, especially the early ones. This was only his second, so .... I made myself go thru the 200+ page issue, and saved Mr. Mint's auction for last.
Alan led off with a T-206 Honus Wagner, in poor shape but guaranteed to get big bucks, then the BIG 3 from the 1951 Topps Current All-Stars---Konstanty, Stanky, and Roberts---WOW.
And then, I still remember the instant I turned the page----I audibly inhaled and drew my face six inches closer to see LOT # 13, a 1953 Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantle in MINT condition. He said he knew a better copy of the card did not exist, and it would be the highlight of any Mickey Mantle collection. Even with the postage-stamp size grainy black 'n white photo he used (cutting edge hobby technology at that time!), it looked amazing. A couple years ago, someone started a thread about owning a PSA-graded mint card for a long time, and another example has not equaled it as yet. With my dear son's help, he loaded up my response:
Have you owned a PSA 9 card for a long time that has not seen an equal yet ? Not talking about 10's, just 9's.
How long have you had it without another 9 showing up ?
Yes, I have. Late in the 2002 National, I submitted a pretty scarce and gorgeous Mickey Mantle card to PSA. Being over-sized, my card would have to go back to their California headquarters to get graded, since they did not do anything but standard size at the National. I was not pleased about the prospect, but knew I wanted my card PSA-graded.
When the registered mail box arrived at my post office, and I brought it home, I went downstairs to be alone while I opened it. I knew the card to be mint when I bought it in the 80s, and even though I also knew I had taken meticulous care of it, I realized the time had come for my centerpiece to be professionally graded by the great card umpire. When you've lived with "the sure knowledge" your card was said to be mint, by Mr. Mint Alan Rosen no less, it was not an easy thing to open my box and unwrap the result. I knew PSA had broken many a heart with lower grades that shocked and disheartened those disappointed collectors. Finally, I had to know. The box was carefully opened, and when I peeled back the last layer of bubble wrap to reveal PSA's decision, I began to weep----WITH JOY! PSA's beautiful label said "MINT 9". I walked back upstairs, bawling. My wife knew it was either real bad news, or incredibly good news. I'm happy and thank Jesus it was the latter.
To this day, there is still only one MINT 9 of this card, a 1953 Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantle. It is a profound condition rarity, with no 8s, a lone 7, a pair of 6s, and no 5s. That king-sized blue diamond is virtually dead-centered!
Back in the spring of 2016, I published a 480-page E-book on a CD, entitled Never Cheaper By the Dozen, a book about those special "free prize" sports collectibles from the golden era of 1947 - 1971. Although that's an inclusive period of 25 years, associated with silver, there wasn't anything "silver" about these items, for they all seemed to turn to gold! I collected several of the sets I discussed as a kid, and loved them all. Long to short, my beautiful Stahl-Meyer Mantle was once one of those supposedly "free prizes", and I devoted chapter 13 to its provenance, and the story of the promotion from whence it came.
Naturally, I also wrote about sets and other specific items I either no longer owned, nor ever had the privilege to have owned. I tried to choose terrific sets from that great era, and as long as I knew a lot about the set, and/or had a terrific story from another collector to anchor it, there was a place for it in NEVER CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN. Sorry guys---I'm off-track here; excuse me. Keep these good stories coming. ---- Indiana Jones (Brian Powell)
PS --- If any of youse guys frequent YouTube, and you're a bit curious regarding a Stahl-Meyer Franks Mickey Mantle, there's another collector who prepares videos about special cards. His moniker is bluejacket 66. Late in 2018, he did an amazing piece about finally landing the 1954 Stahl-Meyer Mantle. On YOUTUBE, type "Ultra rare Mickey Mantle Card". and you'll see a hand holding a yellow-bordered Mickey Mantle card---that's it. Please take the time to see it; and no, he did not ask me to tell you about it! Sure, he mentions my book, but 95% of it concerns his new card and stuff about the Stahl-Meyers.
This spring, someone submitted a 1954 Stahl-Meyer Mantle that was graded MINT; however, it was also collared with a Qualifier. I haven't seen it uploaded on someone's Mickey Mantle Master Set Registry, or up for auction as yet, but I would imagine EVEN WITH that Qualifier, that mint card would bring BOO COO BUCKS.
----------------------------------------------------
Believe me when I say I know jolly well I am extremely, and I do mean EXTREMELY, fortunate to own this regional huge flawless blue diamond Mickey Mantle. It is humbling. It's got such a fascinating background story and provenance. Well, I wish you all the very best, and are able to track down YOUR dream card, my fellow collecting warriors. --- Indiana Jones (Brian Powell)
Brian,
We’ve crossed paths, you’ve inspired me time and again, and our passions overlap. So, my kindred spirit, you should get a kick out of these (and I think you dig the last one most of all, if memory serves):
Thanks for always being willing to share your hobby recollections - we all appreciate it, Master Powell.
All the best,
Tim
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest