1951 Bowman Mantle and Ted Williams

edmundfitzgerald

Why is 1951 Bowman so undervalued ?

I see a PSA 8 Bowman Ted Williams for 1,900.00 on ebay, and I see some OLDER years of Ted Williams in PSA 8 in Topps
selling for more then the 51 Bowman.

Also, why is the 52 Topps Mantle so much more then the Bowman ? Is the topps that much harder to get ?

akuracy503

You'll probably hear the standard replies to this question that has been posted a handful of times.

But my take is that more and more people are starting to buy these 1951 Bowman Mantle's up and putting them away for personal collections knowing that they are still relatively affordable.

You see fewer '51 Bowmans than you do of the '52 Topps Mantle on ebay on any given day.
Although the population reports say they are about equal with just slightly fewer '52s in slabs.

The prices of the 51 Bowman has been strong lately, 707 just sold there PSA 5 on BIN for $5,250!!!
A PSA 4 just sold by prewarcardcollector went for $3,150.

If any card increases over the years, I feel it'll be the #253 1951 Bowman.

akuracy503

I think the Topps product is superior in its name and mainstream since they established the company in the '50s, bought out Bowman to eliminate the competition and there you have it.

I think the Bowman's are fine where they are at in prices and they have a niche following that is strong.

toc1000

The overgrown 1952 Topps Mantle close-up would seem the ugly duckling in comparison to the 1951 card, set off a gorgeous, blue sky.

Never understood the obsession with the second year card.

SDSportsFan

Personally, I've never really understood the "ugly-stepchild" status of the 1951 Bowman Mantle.

I guess it's due mainly to the allure of 1952 Topps being their first major set, along with the mystique of the high-numbers (and the dumping of them in the Atlantic Ocean). If you look at pure numbers, both cards exist in similar amounts.....the 1951 Bowman Mantle is also a "high-number". So it's really just romanticism of the 1952 Topps more than anything (to me anyway). 1952 Topps has been written and talked about ad nauseum. 1951 Bowman on the other hand, hasn't received anywhere near the press the other set has.


Steve

mcolney1

I would imagine the casual fan would be able to instantly identify the 52 Topps Mantle, but not the 51 Bowman. I would also guess that the novice doesn't even know that Bowman produced cards before 1990. When you've owned the market for several decades you become the brand to have. The 52 Mantle is a brand in itself and will undoubtedly demand more than the Bowman for years/decades to come.

Artistically speaking the 51 Bowman both football and baseball are superior to just about any year Topps has ever produced.

vladguerrero

the room for growth on the '51 is MUCH better than the '52 which imo is going to experience a drop off... i also prefer the 51 bowman

fattymacs

Shhhhhh, let's keep this quiet. I haven't bought the mantle for my 51 Bowman set yet. So in my opinion it's a dog, move along, the 52 is the way to go. Thanks, nothing to see here.

vladguerrero

I love my Mantle RC (with RC era signature)

thenavarro

<< <i>I love my Mantle RC (with RC era signature)


>>



Hey, I love that too!

vladguerrero

so whip yours out then...

scooter729

Time to share my '51 Teddy....

SDSportsFan

Here are my offending cards:




Steve

edmundfitzgerald

Scooter, there's a 51 Teddy in psa 8 on ebay for 1800. Is that too high ?

Nice Mantle psa 5 SD. That's the kind of one I'd be looking for in the future.

vladguerrero

Solid

Seller is a board member (Dizzle)

TNP777

<< <i>Solid

Seller is a board member (Dizzle) >>

careful, Dizzle is a known fandango alt. Or was it Lee? Or Nick?

I kid, I kid.

Love the '51 Bowman Ted - beautiful card.

bsidegrve

If I ever finish up the Football set I'm doing I would love to start picking up '51 Bowman Baseball
Everytime I see some of the key cards I begin to drool, maybe I can take a pill for that.....not sure

fattymacs

<< <i>Solid

Seller is a board member (Dizzle) >>



cool $200 ebay bucks, I'm in.

fandango

<< <i>The overgrown 1952 Topps Mantle close-up would seem the ugly duckling in comparison to the 1951 card, set off a gorgeous, blue sky.

Never understood the obsession with the second year card. >>





ummmm, its his first TOPPS card.....

ShawnyD

yes, its his FTC, but its not his rookie, def. room to grow with the 51 Boman and IMO a much prettier card.

akuracy503

In my opinion the '52 Topps Mantle is more appealing in a modern day way.
I think it's the set that changed the industry, anything pre 1952 did not have the same flare (although I could make an agruement for the 1933 Goudey set on my own statement)

On that note I think the '51, '52 Bowman baseball and football issues are in a league of their own, just something about them..

TheCARDKid

I think it's a couple of issues.

-Being a horizontal card hurts it. Especially Mantle.

Has anyone seen the SGC 98 '63 Topps Rose rookie in Robert Edwards auction? A four player rookie is probably the worst. Horizontal is probably runner up.

Think about the great cards in history...

T206 wagner
1915 cracker jack cobb, jackson
1933 goudey ruth, gehrig, lajoie
1938 goudey dimaggio

All the way to the 60's or 70's. Almost no major cards are horizontal. I think it takes away from the overall impact, especially being smaller than a 52 topps card. A 52 Mantle is like a Rolls Royce. A 51 Bowman Mantle is like a Bugatti. A little more esoteric.

-It's similar with the t206 wagner. There are Wagner cards which are more rare, but they don't sell for as much (and probably never will). The 52 topps mantle got such an early lead, I don't think it'll ever be topped.

1960toppsguy

OK, with all this being said . . . why is it the opposite with the Willie Mays cards from the same years?

WinPitcher

Sadly, back in the day most collectors were white middle aged men and wanted Mantle etc and not Mays and Aaron.

So, the values of those cards have always lagged behind.

It is also one reason why in the early 80's Topps gave up on basketball.

At least this is what I experienced when I had a store from 83 through 90.

Mantle, meanwhile got very popular in the 80's boom and people who dealt in them

wanted moon money for them. Same with Brk. Dodger cards and to a lesser degree NY Giants.


Steve

TomGshotput

<< <i>Sadly, back in the day most collectors were white middle aged men and wanted Mantle etc and not Mays and Aaron >>



Most collectors (of 1950s cards) are still middle age white men. Do the same prejudices still hold true or is there now a different reason for the price gap between Mays and Mantle?

vladguerrero

<< <i>OK, with all this being said . . . why is it the opposite with the Willie Mays cards from the same years? >>



touche

TheCARDKid

<< <i>OK, with all this being said . . . why is it the opposite with the Willie Mays cards from the same years? >>



It's not politically correct, but Mantle was a white kid from Oklahoma who embodied what it meant to be an all american baseball player. And playing with the Yankees, that was every kids dream.

Mays was a better player, but he didnt have those things. I think his rookie and 2nd and 3rd year cards fall under technical reasons, for why the bowman is more valuable, then the 52 topps, then 53, etc.

Mantles 52 topps card gets special consideration. It gets a special bump.

summerof68

"Mr. Mint" wrote a book back in the 80's and in a chapter regarding card investments his number #1 rule was: buy white and buy New York. As previously mentioned this was the mindset during the '80s--not sure if it still exists today.

vladguerrero

I think the bottom line is there's Mantle and then there's everyone else, collectors chose the 52 card (rightly or wrongly) and that's the grail. I do not believe the race card pertains to his specific situation.

SDSportsFan

<< <i>OK, with all this being said . . . why is it the opposite with the Willie Mays cards from the same years? >>



With reference to the other answers, I don't think this question relates to race; rather, 1960TG is simply asking - If the 1952 Topps is considered Mickey's "rookie card", then why isn't Willie's 1952 Topps considered his "rookie card"?

I think it just goes back to the 1952 Topps high-number "mystique".

The 1952 Topps Mantle is a high-number. The 1952 Topps Mays is only a semi-high-number. Both the 1951 Bowman Mantle and Mays are high-numbers. Normally, the 1951 Bowmans of both would be considered their "unquestioned" rookie cards. Due to the mystique of the '52 Topps high-numbers however, the Topps Mantle out-performs the '51 Bowman, and is looked at by many (albeit incorrectly) as his "rookie card".


Steve

mittec