1952 Topps Mays, Mantle Poll.

fsjeter

I was just curious how many of the collectors here view these as RC's. The reason I ask this question is I have always been under the impression that these were not Rookie cards. Since both players were included in the 1951 Bowman set, I thought these were always considered their rookie cards. The Beckett annuals and price guides do not catalog the 1952 Topps as their RC's and neither does the Standard Catalog of Sportscards.

I was recently browsing the current Mastro auction that has four? Mantles and lists them all as RC's. I also noticed that SGC actually puts "Rookie" or "High # Rookie" on the flips of their respective 1952 Topps cards. While the 1952 Topps are considerably more valuable than their 1951 Bowman counterparts, I still view them as second year cards or first Topps issues. Thoughts? Opinions?

Scott

Lothar52

I think the aura of 1952 topps makes the 2 cards more sought after....and certainly they are their "topps RC"....but bowman is still the RC...UNFORTUNATELY in my opinion.

Loth

ajw

I thought Bowman was "The home of the rookie card!"

Stone193

Scott

I like the strict application of the rule which IMO places them as First Topps Cards (FTC) and not RC's which goes to the Bowman set.

Good question.

mike

stevek

<<< Should the 1952 Topps Mays and Mantle cards be considered RC's? >>>


The answer is "No"

fsjeter

<< <i>Scott

I like the strict application of the rule which IMO places them as First Topps Cards (FTC) and not RC's which goes to the Bowman set.

Good question.

mike >>



That's basically the opinion I have always held too.

Scott

Edited to add: I sent an email to SGC asking why they chose to label them as Rookies. Maybe they know something I don't!

Overrated

The 52 Mantle card is top of the mountain! This card has it all. The 52 topps Mantle will continue to rise in value, especially psa grades 7 to 10, because there are less than one hundred in existence. The '51 Bowman is considered the rookie card for Mantle, but with that said, everyone knows that the '52 is Topps' first issue. Side by side, there is no comparison for eye appeal. The '52 Topps will soon be the next Honus Wagner. Take a look at memory lane auction, 52 Mantle Psa 9 $150.000.00 not including 17% commision. Case closed 52 topps Mantle the real rookie!!!!!!!!

JoeBanzai

I too say no. I always liked the Bowman Mantle better than the Topps.
JB

jaxxr

The question is about "rookie" not value, importance, or beauty.

The 52 Topps Andy Pafko card is worth a tremendous amount , yet no one considers it his RC..
The 1933 Goudey Nap LaJoie card is worth much, perhaps next only to the Wagner and 52 Mantle, yet no one considers it his RC.

Bowman was a "Major" card producer from 1948 to 1955, the first regular issue major card of Mantle , thus called his rookie card, was the 1951 Bowman.

As awj did state before, and even the Topps company proclaims...........

Bowman is the home of the rookie card !!!!

Stone193

<< <i>Case closed 52 topps Mantle the real rookie!!!!!!!! >>


I agree that the 52T is the better looking card and I wish I had picked one up back in the 80s.

But, value and eye appeal has nothing to do with hobby rules.

I think Ryans 69T is better looking than the 68...

can I, then, say that it's the real rookie?

mike

Allen

What if Pujols had a 2000 Bowman card? How would that play out? Anyone know of another case like the Mantle issue?

TheCARDKid

The '52 Mantle has been referred to as his "rookie" for about as long as I can remember.

I remember when I was 8, 9, 10 years, I got a few of those "how to collect baseball card" books. I read about the Wagner, Plank, Lajoie rarities. And the '52 Mantle was inevitably his "rookie". Although no explain as to why his '52 bowman wasn't a rookie or '52 Berk Ross.

As time has gone by, I"ve paid less and less attention to the "rookie" designation. Did it mean more in the 80's and 90's?

I agree high grade Mantles will continue to go up in value. After 10+ years of grading, it seems like the supply is going to remain fairly fixed.

If the T206 Wagner is worth $2 million now, say, then it seems like that would raise the bar for Mantle, Lajoie, and other key 9's and 10's. I wouldn't be suprised if perfectly centered 8's closed for over $100 k in the near future.

dontippet

I've never looked at the '52 Mantle as his rookie card. It is the most significant card of the second half of the 20th century of a great player on a great looking card with some scarcity to it.

1420sports

My collecting days started in the late 70's/early 80's and was always under the impression that the 52 Topps issues were the rookies .... as well as the 51 Bowman issues. So I still consider both to be "rookies" in that regard. I voted "no" on the poll however.

fsjeter

<< <i>What if Pujols had a 2000 Bowman card? How would that play out? Anyone know of another case like the Mantle issue? >>



The glaring example that comes to mind is Mark McGwire. The only card catalogued as a "Rookie Card" is his 1985 Topps. None of his other first year (ie. 1987) issues are given the "RC" designation. He has a "Rated Rookie" in the 1987 Donruss set as well as a card in the 1987 Donruss "The Rookies" set and 1987 Fleer Update but none of them are catalogued with the RC designation. There is a two year difference between the years the McGwire cards were issued and only one year between the Mantle/Mays issues. Maybe the distinction is the fact that the manufacturers issued sets in the same year as another manufacturer but didn't issue a card of those players. In other words, the RC's had to be issued in the same year to be designated as such. Otherwise, you would have to consider Rickey Henderson's 1981 Fleer and 1981 Donruss cards to be his RC's for those respcetive companies. It is confusing sometimes.

Scott

Lothar52

With all the talk about the 52 mantle...the Mays is a nice card, great purple color....and freaking undervalued in comparison regardless if its a SP or not.

Loth

fsjeter

<< <i>With all the talk about the 52 mantle...the Mays is a nice card, great purple color....and freaking undervalued in comparison regardless if its a SP or not.

Loth >>



The irony is, as scarce as the card is, the Mantle is actually a DP (Double Print). ALso, I don't know how many people know that a couple of variations exist, or so I've heard. I understand that one variation is missing the black box around the Yankees logo on the front and the other is the stitching on the ball with the card number on the reverse. The stitching can be found going clockwise or counter clockwise.

Scott

1989FleerBillRipkencollector

IMO SGC should not put RC on the flip of the 52 Mantle.

fsjeter

Received this email from SGC:

Good Morning,

When SGC opened in 1998, these cards were more commonly referred to as Rookies than they are now. For the sake of consistency, we decided to keep the Rookie designation on these cards.

Regards,
Bob Luce

And there you have it!

Scott

stown

<< <i>I've never looked at the '52 Mantle as his rookie card. It is the most significant card of the second half of the 20th century of a great player on a great looking card with some scarcity to it. >>

GDM67

<< <i>

<< <i>Case closed 52 topps Mantle the real rookie!!!!!!!! >>


I agree that the 52T is the better looking card and I wish I had picked one up back in the 80s.

But, value and eye appeal has nothing to do with hobby rules.

I think Ryans 69T is better looking than the 68...

can I, then, say that it's the real rookie?

mike >>

That's my position, too. It's all semantics and the 52 Topps will probably be the Holy Grail of the hobby, at least until the last Baby Boomer dies, but it's still not really a rookie card.

Mike's observation is dead on, though. I can name a ton of guys whose second card, the first one they're on by themselves, is more appealing than their rookie, just aesthetically.