1952 Topps Mantle Overvalued?

Brianruns10 · January 4, 2011 6:58AM

I'm beginning work on a 52 set (I'll be starting a separate thread with images shortly), and I've been pondering the legendary Mickey Mantle card.

I'm afraid I don't understand the high price of this card? I mean I understand supply and demand, that there must be a greater demand than supply, hence the price goes up. But I'm wondering if the price hasn't become inflated? As I understand it, the Mantle was double printed in the series (leading to two distinct varieties). So it stands to reason that, even though the high series cards did not sell well and were not saved, it stands to reason that the Mantle would be one of the more common cards amongst the High Series, because of this fact. And since Mantle was a popular player, wouldn't it also stand to reason that more of his card would have been saved because of his popularity at the time? Yet it is the most valuable card of the set, and one of the most valuable cards in baseball. Or is it because he is so popular that demand for his card extends far beyond card collectors, to baseball fans as well?

And, as I've watched on ebay, there are a stunning number of Mantles for sale. If you simply search "1952 Topps" and sort by highest price, there are no fewer than 26 Mantles for sale on the first page alone, in a wide range of grades, from Poor 1 to 7 and 8, with well centering. Not only are there many for sale, but there is a range of conditions. And NONE are selling, from what I can see.

Is the Mantle overvalued? Is it ready to come down in price, perhaps in a big way?

Best,

BR

WinPitcher · January 4, 2011 7:06AM

Yes it's over valued IMO. Will it come down? I doubt it.

Steve

RipublicaninMass · January 4, 2011 7:06AM

I agree that it is overvalued, and you have made all valid points. However I think many people feel that if the price dips, they would be a buyer. Therefore they keep the prices up. For as many 52 Mantle cards as there are out there, there seems to be infinite numbers of buyers

mlbfan2 · January 4, 2011 7:08AM

According to the completed auctions, EIGHT of them were sold in the past two weeks, from $1,600 to $16,000.

RonBurgundy · January 4, 2011 7:15AM

Demand matters. It's the most iconic post war piece of cardboard, and one of the top 5.

I'm not saying what you're asserting is wrong, but it's the most iconic piece of cardboard post war, of the most iconic figure in the hobby.

akuracy503 · January 4, 2011 7:19AM

If I can reference to the past sales according to VCP just about all graded examples are selling in the green not the red trend.
Expensive cards dont sell overnight in this economy and I believe many potential buyers are being patient thinking there will be an opportunity with a desperate seller.

The demand still exceeds the supply curve, when you consider that most people have a specific budget in mind it really limits the options in terms of grade ranges.
So your example of over 26 available on ebay in reality only a fraction of those if any fit each individual buyers needs.

I've seen a lot of lower grade examples go up for sale in the past few months, there are opportunities, but let me tell you a year ago it was a real pain to find any in that range.

Blacklabelsociety · January 4, 2011 7:29AM

<< According to the completed auctions, EIGHT of them were sold in the past two weeks, from $1,600 to $16,000. >>

There was a PSA 7 sold on ebay for $40,000 about a month ago.

Justacommeman · January 4, 2011 7:38AM

It's the 1909 VDB-S Lincoln cent of sportscards. It's iconic, not excessively scare and expensive in high grade. Very high on a lot of collectors want lists and therefore it has a built in sustainable insulated market...................JMHO. MJ

ndleo · January 4, 2011 7:43AM

If anything, the 1952 Mantle will bring his other early cards along for the ride. Up market, down market, Mantle is still the gold standard for our hobby.

Dpeck100 · January 4, 2011 9:36AM

I don't see the average Mantle moving up or down much but I am 100% confident that a PSA 9 or one of the three PAS 10's are going up in value right now.

There is a ton of money around the globe that want's hard assets and high end vintage baseball cards meet those qualifications.

A high grade Mantle is still very rare and there are plenty of buyers for those cards.

WinPitcher · January 4, 2011 10:10AM

<< Winpitcher, I rarely disagree with your thought process (great minds think alike ). But how can something be overvalued if it's unlikely to come down in value? >>

See what justacommemguy wrote, that's about it. He just about summed it up perfectly.

It was promoted as his rookie during the 80's run up and I just don't see it coming down.

Too many people have too many dollars invested in that card to ever let it go on the cheap.

It's also a double printed card, so 2x as many of them were printed compared to other cards

on the same sheet.

MantleMarisFordBerra · January 4, 2011 10:35AM

<< If anything, the 1952 Mantle will bring his other early cards along for the ride. Up market, down market, Mantle is still the gold standard for our hobby. >>

Yup.

vladguerrero · January 4, 2011 12:53PM

The generation that grew up with the card will lose interest, the interest that grew over the past 50 years will give way to more interest in his RC which has the same name as the popular RC sets of today.

I'm not saying by any means it will be surpassed in $ by the Bowman but IMO interest has nowhere to go but down even though it will always be a top card.

I look it in many ways the way I look at the UD Griffey RC...

Dpeck100 · January 4, 2011 12:58PM

What is driving a lot of older pieces is Korea, Russia, Brazil, Singapore and many other places around the globe.

A high grade Mantle could go for huge money to an Asian Tycoon.

Sorry these ultra high end iconic US memorabila items are not going down.

I think a PSA 9 Mantle would command at least $500,000

That is not lower then the last sale I don't believe

Mickey71 · January 4, 2011 1:05PM

The most significant card in the hobby by far. Almost everyone would love to have one. Much more significant than the Wagner. Most people want to find and sell a Wagner... that's about it. People want to keep the Mantle. There's alot of them and alot of buyers.

Mickey71

Dpeck100 · January 4, 2011 1:08PM

A 1952 Mantle is like art.

People will be impressed in this case no matter what it looks like.

Sorry not getting cheaper in investment grade material.

fkw · January 4, 2011 3:13PM

Mickey Mantle as a player is overrated, and the 1952 Topps card is even more overrated.

The value holds because like the T206 Wagner (another very overrated card), they are now and have been for a long time... Status Symbols.

The demand will always be there... well at least as long as the casual collector keep putting him on a pedestal.

TheCARDKid · January 4, 2011 5:17PM

I think it keeps going up. I think as the world gets more volatile (currency and economic volatility), people are going to want to park their money into hard assets.

Low grade Mantles could soar (if they have the eye appeal). They could double or triple, I wouldn't be suprised. Don't be suprised if really nice psa 2's sell for $10k. Silver was up, 80% last year? What would you rather buy, a metal that just sits there, or a miniature work of art?

I think really nice low grade examples (1-4) are eventually going to get put away in long term collections. Somewhat analogous to '52 wax packs. Remember when you could buy them for $1,000-1,500 in the 90's in SCD? Or 61 Fleer basketball packs.

parkerj · January 4, 2011 10:52PM

I agree with the similarities to the Wagner, there are several much more rare wagners, but none compare to the t206 in value. Same for mantle. As for him being overrated, i must agree, and there are many others who feel the same way. If he were black or hispanic, and/or played in a different market (st. louis, milwaukee, etc), his perceived greatness would be diminished. Sure, he was a great and talented player, but he benefited from being a white, blonde, blue-eyed Yankee in a time where race really mattered.

Saberman · January 4, 2011 11:01PM

<< I agree with the similarities to the Wagner, there are several much more rare wagners, but none compare to the t206 in value. Same for mantle. As for him being overrated, i must agree, and there are many others who feel the same way. If he were black or hispanic, and/or played in a different market (st. louis, milwaukee, etc), his perceived greatness would be diminished. Sure, he was a great and talented player, but he benefited from being a white, blonde, blue-eyed Yankee in a time where race really mattered. >>

When it comes to card values, all that stuff plays a big role.

Mantle, at his best(his 10-12) year peak is one of the absolute best baseball players of all time, no question.

Because he had a shorter career, there are more players that beat him out in career value...but the peak value is clearly better than Mays or Aaron.

We also do know in Mantle's case that leg injuries derailed him as well.

So Mantle's star on the field DID shine the brightest!

In his best 10 year peak, Mantle led the league in OPS+ 8 times.

In that same peak, he led the league in Win Probability Added SIX times. What this is, is a tool that makes the use of runs scored or RBI obsolete, because it measures his performances in each of the men on base and out situations, and tells you his run impact in how much he changed the outcome or probability of his team winning. You can take RBI and wipe your arse with it when you have a measurement like this.

And this was coming from a center fielder!

frankhardy · January 4, 2011 11:02PM

<< <<Mickey Mantle as a player is overrated.>>

I'm suing you for breaking my back as I fell to the floor when I read that comment. If you think Mantle is overrated as a player, you know NOTHING about baseball. >>

He is not alone in stating that. Sure, if you say that he wasn't injured so much he would have been much better - I would agree with that. In my opinion, he would have been one of the top 5 of all time. However, as it stands, I think he is very overrated as a player. He played 18 seasons and had only 4 years with over 100 RBI's. His batting average was under .300 (.298). Stat wise, he is in the same league as Eddie Mathews and Mike Schmidt.

WinPitcher · January 4, 2011 11:15PM

Baseball you are lucky, Frank didn't throw his skewed stats at you too.

Saberman · January 4, 2011 11:17PM

FrankHardy, as outlined above, Pujols could only wish he had a peak as good as mantle's.

Mantle's peak dwarfs Pujols, and Mantle did it in a tougher era to outdistance the league average peers.

That is just offensively I am speaking about.

When you consider that Mantle did it in CF and Pujols mostly at 1B...not even close in baseball terms.

The Win Probability Added makes RBI obsolete.

Career wise, sure, Mantle gets surpassed by more players...but we also know there is a story behind that.

1966CUDA · January 5, 2011 1:03AM

<< His batting average was under .300 >>

Didn't his lifetime avg. drop below .300 cuz of 1968 season, his last year (.237)?? I think before the last season he was .301???

Saberman · January 5, 2011 1:17AM

It would probably surprise a lot of people on here to say that Mantle's last season of 1968 where he hit .237, that Mantle was actually still pretty darn good with an OPS+ of 142.

People have to realize that offense was tough to achieve those years. Very tough. Check out the league's batting average and then you will see Mantle's .237 in a different light. Do the same with the OB%.

It isn't like the last 15 years of now where you can take all these achievements with a grain of salt...and not because of PED's, but because all 'rules' are geared toward making the power/elite hitters dominate. I.E. smaller parks, livlier ball, no inside pitching allowed, body armor, and rapid expansion.

byronscott4ever · January 5, 2011 1:20AM

1968 was the year of the pitcher. Yastrzemski was the batting champ with lowest average ever to lead the league at .301

PowderedH2O · January 5, 2011 1:24AM

Mantle's peak was way overrated. I mean, from 1954-1964 he played ten full seasons (he missed most of 1963) and in those ten seasons he only led the American League in OPS+ eight times and finished second the other two times. Even when he was 'washed up' by 1968, he was still #8 in the AL in OPS+. And he was a good looking guy who played for arguably the best team in the history of baseball in its biggest media market. The 1952 set is the iconic Topps set. And the 1952 card is in the high number series, and it is a pretty good looking card as well. I think the card is worth what it is worth BECAUSE it is double printed. Can you imagine the value of it if it was a short print?

frankhardy · January 5, 2011 1:24AM

Well, I envisioned my 5000th post to be better than having to defend a previous post. Oh, well.

First of all, I never brought Pujols into this. I will say this, if you want to talk about a peak - Pujols' entire career has been a peak. He has been on his peak since 2001 and he has been remarkably consistent ever since.

The RBI and batting average just stand out, that's the only reason I brought it up. If you look at baseball-reference.com, it shows at the bottom that Mantle's stats matched Mike Schmidt and Eddie Mathews. They don't just take batting average and RBI's. They look at all stats. I was just passing on that info. Was Mantle more iconic? Absolutely. Would Mantle have been a much better player had he not been injured? Without a doubt, he would have been a top 5 player. But the fact that he was injured a lot plus the fact he was a drunk and did not take care of himself has to be factored in. Even in the World Series, sure he was great in hitting 18 HR in 65 WS games, but he batted .257.

All I'm saying is that Mantle gets treated like a top 3 player of all time when in reality he just wasn't. He is more like a top 25 player (which is nothing to sneeze at). To me that is overrated. You can be great and still be overrated.

I figured I would get killed on that, but oh well. Hammer away again.

***********

Edited to say that I just found something pretty interesting. Mantle's OPs+ for his career was 172. Guess what Pujols is - exactly 172. I thought that was interesting.

frankhardy · January 5, 2011 1:35AM

Here is a list of the top 20 OPS+ in history. Mantle may be better than I thought. Yes, I may be changing my mind a little.

Rank Player Adjusted OPS+ Bats
1. Babe Ruth+ 206 L
2. Ted Williams+ 190 L
3. Barry Bonds 181 L
4. Lou Gehrig+ 178 L
5. Rogers Hornsby+ 175 R
6. Mickey Mantle+ 172 B
Albert Pujols (30) 172 R
8. Dan Brouthers+ 170 L
Shoeless Joe Jackson 170 L
10. Ty Cobb+ 168 L
11. Jimmie Foxx+ 163 R
12. Pete Browning 162 R
Mark McGwire 162 R
Dave Orr 162 R
15. Stan Musial+ 159 L
16. Hank Greenberg+ 158 R
Johnny Mize+ 158 L
18. Tris Speaker+ 157 L
19. Dick Allen 156 R
Frank Thomas 156 R

PowderedH2O · January 5, 2011 1:39AM

Frank, I think it is a fair assessment. But baseball-reference looks at the career data, irregardless of how it is achieved. But let us also consider the comparison that you made with Mike Schmidt. Mike Schmidt was pretty darn dominant from the mid 70's to the mid 80's. I think a strong argument could be made that Schmidt is among the top ten players of all-time. So Mantle compares favorably with him, plus has all the huge popularity factors to be added in. This is an assessment of why the card is so valuable, not whether Mantle is the best player of his time (which he was). If Schmidt was on a New York team that had won oodles of Series titles, don't you think his card would be worth even more? And the same applies to Pujols as well.

PowderedH2O · January 5, 2011 1:41AM

I see the second post. Yep. Mantle was pretty darned special.

akuracy503 · January 5, 2011 1:42AM

All this time I thought Willie Mays was the best from that era, where does Mays stats stack up?

bking · January 5, 2011 1:48AM

OPS+ doesn't take the different eras into account, IIRC. If that's true, then Pujol's 172 doesn't compare to Mantle's AT ALL.

frankhardy · January 5, 2011 1:52AM

By the way - Willie Mays is tied with Hank Aaron at 21st with an OPS + of 155.

Hmmm. Does this mean that Mantle was a better player/hitter than Mays or Aaron? I would have never thunked it, there is an argument to be made for it when you look at OPS+. Hard to believe that one stat has changed my mind, but it just may have.

RonBurgundy · January 5, 2011 1:53AM

This is a great debate. I am reading "The Last Boy" right now about Mantle and did not realize his value as a player from a statistical standpoint that others here have referenced. Everyone has heard about the long home runs, the WS performances, the speed and the power, but his actual value as a baseball player has been somewhat overlooked. The stats and sabermetrics bear out just how great a player he was.

WinPitcher · January 5, 2011 1:55AM

I have to agree with GUY.

sigh, I knew it would happen eventually.

Steve

Saberman · January 5, 2011 2:44AM

Mays and Aaron were remarkably great, and remarkable how they stayed very good to great for so long. They do have Mantle in career value.

Peak value certainly has its value. I'm not talking about a one year or two year flash in the pan..I mean a true 10 year peak where a player really could establish how good he was before injuries or whatever start to pick away at you.

In terms of peak, Mantle is easily in the top ten of all time(just a matter of how high)...yes, ahead of Mays and Aaron.

The unfortunate thing about Mantle are the leg injuries...it killed him. Also, 1968 was still a very good season for him, but was masked by the league wide depression in offense...had he stuck around just one or two more years, he would have been able to play in a league again that was more offense friendly, and his counting numbers would look better to the average fan.

Maybe the league wide depression fooled Mantle himself when he said he could no longer do what he was used to doing, and then retired.

When you look at those tops OPS+ career leaders, Mantle and Ted Williams are the only ones in the top 10 or so who did not play the bulk of their career in the Pre War era, or this modern live ball era...both the era's that were conducive for the elite to dominate their leaguemates.

Saberman · January 5, 2011 3:10AM

If you look at the times players led the entire MLB in OPS+, here are the best...

Ruth 11
Cobb 8
Williams 7
Bonds 7
Mantle 6
Musial 4

For comparison
Aaron 3
Mays 2
Gehrig 2
Pujols 2

Ruth and Cobb were great, but lets not forget the Man among boys syndrome going on in those era's(or for Ruth a league filled with dead ball style hitters on top of that).

Upgraded on that list is Ted Williams due to his military service in the smack prime of his hitting career. He most likely adds three more of those titles.

There are obviously other factors, and other advanced Measurements that need to be used. But if you are looking at the 10 year peak of players, Mantle probably falls just behind Ruth and Williams. Bonds is up there too(PED's aside).

Of those top guys, Mantle beat them all in positional value/defensive value as well.

Other than those guys, one would be hard pressed to find a player at their 10 yr peak time to beat Mantle.

So yeah, he WAS that good!

akuracy503 · January 5, 2011 4:05AM

Excellent analysis Saberman!

Blacklabelsociety · January 5, 2011 9:51AM

<< I agree with the similarities to the Wagner, there are several much more rare wagners, but none compare to the t206 in value. Same for mantle. As for him being overrated, i must agree, and there are many others who feel the same way. If he were black or hispanic, and/or played in a different market (st. louis, milwaukee, etc), his perceived greatness would be diminished. Sure, he was a great and talented player, but he benefited from being a white, blonde, blue-eyed Yankee in a time where race really mattered. >>

Agreed. Race and being a yankee is the reason his cards are worth what they are. Its not like he was the Michael Jordan of Baseball in terms of playing ability. He's not one of the top ten players of all-time.

PowderedH2O · January 5, 2011 10:08AM

Um... yeah, he WAS the Michael Jordan of his time.

Saberman · January 5, 2011 10:36AM

PowderedH20,

THat blacklabelsociety guy is absolutely clueless. This is the same clown that thiks a very good Qb in Bradshaw is one of the best five QB's ever because his team won four titles, and he had a couple of lucky games in the Super Bowls where his receivers made him look good.

Blacklabel, if that is your criteria on greatness, then Mickey Mantle has how many titles????? He played how well in the World Series????

Blacklabel is simply another guy that lets the overwhelming evidence slap him in the face...and then probably just thinks that it was some large Pittsburg Steeler's p e n i s, so it doesn't faze him, and because it is business at normal he then ignore said evidence.

Downtown1974 · January 5, 2011 10:43AM

1952 Topps Mantle overvalued?....Yes
Is Mickey Mantle over-rated?....No
Is Frank Gifford a bum for his remarks about Mantle?...Yes

brendanb438 · January 5, 2011 11:03AM

Mickey Mantle doesn't have shiat on Kenny Powers.

That is all............

Dpeck100 · January 5, 2011 11:27AM

Well guys overvalued or not, you are not going to see these trading down anytime soon I don't think.

If you ask any adult who Mantle is they will certainly know who he is. There are a ton of people globally with cash and fit the age profile of someone who watched him play and followed his career.

The other big issue is people have been conditioned to believe his card should be valuable and now it is simply assumed it will be expensive.

Once this occurs you build a floor for the card and then it moves forward. I really think everyone will be stunned when the next high grande Mantle gets auctioned.

Many alternative asset classes are booming. Believe it or not Scotch Whiskey has been an incredable investment and continues to rise in value.

Marlyn Monroe collectables are booing globally with massive demand out of Asia.

These forces are converging on the collectables market and hobby mega pieces like a 1952 Topps Micky Mantle fall into this category.

The stats relative to modern players mean nothing and is worthless to debate. This guy was a United States hero and older US icons are not going down in value by any streach of the imagination.

MeteoriteGuy · January 5, 2011 12:23PM

Isn't that a little overboard Saberman?

WinPitcher · January 5, 2011 12:34PM

I'm just grateful he ain't whining about Ryan Howard.

David, just about everyone that said his card was over valued also said

they did not think it would go lower.

Not sure what you are revealing there.

Dpeck100 · January 5, 2011 12:51PM

I am not really revealing anything.

Just reinforcing I don't think the card is going down.

I personaly think it is really cool that a card of this magnitude exists.

akuracy503 · January 5, 2011 3:32PM

There was no more dominant athelete in a team sport than Michael Jordan, IMO sport to sport comparison.

But who can argue Mantle's greatness the man hit a 634 Foot Home Run!

Blacklabelsociety · January 5, 2011 6:37PM

<< PowderedH20,

THat blacklabelsociety guy is absolutely clueless. >>

..

No. You are clueless. Top 50 NFL PLAYER OF ALL-TIME....NFL NETWORK....NUFF SAID.

I would put Mantle in the top 20 best of all-time.

Comparing him with Jordan or Gretzky is laughable at best.

CEOBIDMC · January 6, 2011 6:38AM

Mantle is an all time great, but not the greatest, might sneak into the top 10, but just by a whisker.

1952 Topps Mantle Overvalued?

Comments