1952 Topps #311 Mantle!!! Anybody have one???

[hofmichael]

The '52 Mantle is one of the major reasons we are all here today as collectors.

:?:

I'll explain.When the '52 Mantle started selling for bigger money in the late '70's/early '80's it started to push the sports card hobby into the mainstream.The Mantle was one of the cards that created the hobby boom back then.Without that card we wouldn't be were we are today in this hobby.Sure most of probrobly would have bought packs of cards as kids but not many of us would serious collectors in our adult years.I hope this is a better explanation.
Mike

 

[benmoss84]

The '52 Mantle is one of the major reasons we are all here today as collectors.

:?:

I'll explain.When the '52 Mantle started selling for bigger money in the late '70's/early '80's it started to push the sports card hobby into the mainstream.The Mantle was one of the cards that created the hobby boom back then.Without that card we wouldn't be were we are today in this hobby.Sure most of probrobly would have bought packs of cards as kids but not many of us would serious collectors in our adult years.I hope this is a better explanation.
Mike

I think your probably right... And as for the Jordan I do consider it his RC.. Star cards were released in team bags and were almost considered an oddball item until Beckett gave it credibility... Fleer was pack produced and much more mainstream in my opinion hence the "rookie" tag!

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I don't have a '52, but I'd love to hear the opinions of a few big Mantle collectors to see which Mantle is their favorite.

I enjoy the '52 because of the set its in and because RCs aren't a big motivator for me. His last card - the '69 Mantle - is as interesting or more interesting because it shows his entire career stats immediately after he stopped playing in a base Topps issue.

 

[elmalo]

I'd rather have a DiMaggio rookie. I could honestly care less about owning a 52 Topps Mantle.

 

[brouthercard]

I really don't understand the fascination with Mantle as a ballplayer.

Heck, I don't even get why Jeter is so revered.

It must be a Yankee thing.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm about the last person on the board with the power of salvaging a thread but here goes nothin...

I would love a '52 Mantle, but actually, I would be more happy with a 2004 Just Rookies Glen Perkins BLACK/50... I have personally set that as the "holy grail" of my collection (once I get my hands on a copy).

I guess that explains the 3 boxes of 2004 Just you bought from D&A's? I hope you hit the grail!

 

[ThoseBackPages]

I'd rather have a Ruth rookie. I could honestly care less about owning a 52 Topps Mantle.

fixed it for you

 

[JoshHamilton]

I'd rather have a Ruth rookie. I could honestly care less about owning a 52 Topps Mantle.

fixed it for you

Ruth is neither Italian nor Latino

 

[ThoseBackPages]

I'd rather have a Ruth rookie. I could honestly care less about owning a 52 Topps Mantle.

fixed it for you

Ruth is neither Italian nor Latino

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[The Cardboard Fan]

[quote="Liberate Baltimore":zm45fm74]In my current job, I've handled probably 30-40 1952 Topps #311 Mantle cards. I will completely divulge that I think it's an overrated card, but understand why people like it.

James

Your a Grader? Why do you think it's overrated?

Hello there,

I actually make my living in the auction industry. I am currently the Head Writer for Huggins & Scott Auctions in Silver Spring, Maryland. Reasons I think the card is overrated.

1.) It is NOT a rookie card. Just because some hobby magazine or grading company or anyone else perpetuates a mis-truth does not make it so. The #311 Mantle high number was released almost 16 months after Mantle's major league debut. The 1951 Bowman, 1952 Berk Ross and even the 1952 Bowman were released to the public earlier.

2.) Although 1952 Topps high numbers are relatively tough, there is still plenty of them to go around. Added to the fact that Mantle was a double print in the high series.

3.) As a previous poster alluded to, this card is drilled into hobbyists as one of the most important cards ever. Says who? Mickey Mantle fans? Yankees fans? The same notion is drilled into us about the T206 Wagner.....and that is not even Wagner's toughest tobacco card!

Those are my main reasons. However, I think the hobby's love of the 1952 Topps set, the ill-conceived notion that it's Mantle's rookie card (sorry, neither is the 1986-87 Fleer Jordan) and the New York ardor for Mantle has fueled this.

James

All points are indeed true. I think it has just as much to do with it being Topps' RC set. Although it's 51 playing cards were technically 1st, but then again they weren't solely baseball cards like the 52 set.[/quote:zm45fm74]

51 Bowman was an all baseball card set wasn't it? and I don't know why that would matter with their determination as so many of the sets that come out now are not baseball only sets... A&G is a good example

 

[Crash Davis]

Do you guys who have cards in banks ever go to just check them out from time 2 time?

I don't. I don't know anyone that would steal my cards, and if they did they would have no clue what to do with them.

Plus I am too young ::facepalm:: ::facepalm:: ::facepalm::

I might purchase some sort of lock box. I know it won't protect against fire, water etc etc, but it would be better than nothing

Walmart has a box that is supposed to be fire-proof.

It is on the office supply aisle.

Might be worth checking out because I think it's relatively cheap.

It's not very big, but it might fit a few of your better cards.

If you plan on keeping valuables @ your home, DO NOT GO CHEAP!

Get a safe that can either be bolted to the floor or would be difficult, if not damn-near impossible, for a thief to walk off with.

Take it from somebody who got took for his cheap, dinky, fireproof safe purchased @ Wal-Mart for $59.95. The burglar just walked out with it. Probably tucked it under his jacket. Out went some cash, my wife's AMEX card and a savings bond in my daughter's name. Luckily, I removed my T206 HOF collection a week before, otherwise I would've been really screwed. Unfortunately, I had to move the T206s to recoup the loss.

Now, I spent $300 on a big, heavy safe that would require Hulk Hogan on steroids (redundant anyone?) to remove.

 

[Crash Davis]

I really don't understand the fascination with Mantle as a ballplayer.

Heck, I don't even get why Jeter is so revered.

It must be a Yankee thing.

Mickey Mantle was the iconic baseball player of the 1950s and 1960s.

It does have a lot to do with him being a Yankee, of course. The Yankees were winning Championships almost annually, and he was the best player on the Yankees.

Same goes for Derek Jeter.

It also doesn't hurt that they have a rather large female fan-base.

 

[elmalo]

I'd rather have a Ruth rookie. I could honestly care less about owning a 52 Topps Mantle.

fixed it for you

DiMaggio

 

[brouthercard]

I really don't understand the fascination with Mantle as a ballplayer.

Heck, I don't even get why Jeter is so revered.

It must be a Yankee thing.

Mickey Mantle was the iconic baseball player of the 1950s and 1960s.

It does have a lot to do with him being a Yankee, of course. The Yankees were winning Championships almost annually, and he was the best player on the Yankees.

Same goes for Derek Jeter.

It also doesn't hurt that they have a rather large female fan-base.

So technically, shouldn't Mantle's popularity die off gradually as the people who were old enough to watch him play die off?

Do you think he will stand the test of time like Ruth?

I think Michael Jordan will always be consider the greatest in basketball, like Ruth in baseball, shouldn't Mantle's popularity die off as well eventually? Even modern day Yankee fans should gradually lose attachment to Mantle....

It seems like Mantle is a baby boomers phenom. As they die off, so will his popularity. He wasn't even the best player in his era.

 

[G $MONEY$]

 

[elmalo]

I really don't understand the fascination with Mantle as a ballplayer.

Heck, I don't even get why Jeter is so revered.

It must be a Yankee thing.

Mickey Mantle was the iconic baseball player of the 1950s and 1960s.

It does have a lot to do with him being a Yankee, of course. The Yankees were winning Championships almost annually, and he was the best player on the Yankees.

Same goes for Derek Jeter.

It also doesn't hurt that they have a rather large female fan-base.

So technically, shouldn't Mantle's popularity die off gradually as the people who were old enough to watch him play die off?

Do you think he will stand the test of time like Ruth?

I think Michael Jordan will always be consider the greatest in basketball, like Ruth in baseball, shouldn't Mantle's popularity die off as well eventually? Even modern day Yankee fans should gradually lose attachment to Mantle....

It seems like Mantle is a baby boomers phenom. As they die off, so will his popularity. He wasn't even the best player in his era.

He wasnt?

 

[Crash Davis]

I really don't understand the fascination with Mantle as a ballplayer.

Heck, I don't even get why Jeter is so revered.

It must be a Yankee thing.

Mickey Mantle was the iconic baseball player of the 1950s and 1960s.

It does have a lot to do with him being a Yankee, of course. The Yankees were winning Championships almost annually, and he was the best player on the Yankees.

Same goes for Derek Jeter.

It also doesn't hurt that they have a rather large female fan-base.

So technically, shouldn't Mantle's popularity die off gradually as the people who were old enough to watch him play die off?

Do you think he will stand the test of time like Ruth?

I think Michael Jordan will always be consider the greatest in basketball, like Ruth in baseball, shouldn't Mantle's popularity die off as well eventually? Even modern day Yankee fans should gradually lose attachment to Mantle....

It seems like Mantle is a baby boomers phenom. As they die off, so will his popularity. He wasn't even the best player in his era.

I would disagree when with your statement of him not being the best player of his era. Statistically, he didn't hit the most HRs or have the highest BA, but he won a Triple Crown and multiple MVPs and World Championships. He was arguably the best player of his era, meaning the same case can be made for other peers such as Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente.

 

[The Cardboard Fan]

I would disagree when with your statement of him not being the best player of his era. Statistically, he didn't hit the most HRs or have the highest BA, but he won a Triple Crown and multiple MVPs and World Championships. He was arguably the best player of his era, meaning the same case can be made for other peers such as Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente.

Or Hank Aaron... bias fan here if you didn't figure it out

 

[IndyManning18]

He wasn't even the best player in his era.

He wasnt?

No. I would consider Willie Mays or even Hank Aaron better than Mickey Mantle. One could argue Ted Williams. Great player, but not the best of his era.

 

[The Cardboard Fan]

He wasn't even the best player in his era.

He wasnt?

No. I would consider Willie Mays or even Hank Aaron better than Mickey Mantle. One could argue Ted Williams. Great player, but not the best of his era.

I agree even Eddie Mathews had comparable #'s to Mantle throughout his career but of course he didn't get the NY market exposure