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

[uniquebaseballcards]

Mantle obviously played in a different league than Aaron and Mays, making comparison difficult!

 

[The Cardboard Fan]

Mantle obviously played in a different league than Aaron and Mays, making comparison difficult!

Yes but the NL I think was stronger back then than it is now... personally I am not big on that argument but have heard it before

Pujols plays in the NL and I am not sure I would say anyone in the AL over the last decade has been a better player than him

 

[1995BBRefractorGuy]

i would rather have a high grade '51

 

[elmalo]

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.

There are a lot of people who say he is.

 

[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.

There are a lot of people who say he is.

It's all a personal opinion.

 

[JoshHamilton]

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.

There are a lot of people who say he is.

There are a lot of people who say Nickelback is a good band

 

[brouthercard]

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.

There are a lot of people who say he is.

There are a lot of people who say Nickelback is a good band

LOL, there are also a lot of people who say Rajon Rondo is better than Ray Allen and Paul Pierce

 

[ffgameman]

My late father owned one, but it burned in a fire with his other vintage cards (before I was born in '87).

 

[The Cardboard Fan]

I know most don't but I like the look of the 51 Bowman better anyways which happens to be his actual RC

As a Braves fan/collector though I would much rather have a hi-grade such as a SGC 84 = 7 1952 Topps Eddie Mathews RC as that would be a PC card

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Horizontal cards pretty much suck as a whole. i think if the '51 Bowman were what is now considered a "normal" size, and a vertical picture, it would be more popular

 

[nborton]

[quote="Liberate Baltimore":1nt4c6b1]

[quote="Liberate Baltimore":1nt4c6b1]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:1nt4c6b1]

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[/quote:1nt4c6b1]

51 Bowman was a regular baseball set. I was talking about the 51 Topps set. They were playing cards. Not baseball cards like today. By solely baseball cards I meant they weren't just baseball cards. They were part of a game you played with them. Basically they were playing cards with baseball players on them.

 

[nborton]

Horizontal cards pretty much suck as a whole. i think if the '51 Bowman were what is now considered a "normal" size, and a vertical picture, it would be more popular

I agree. I think you may be onto something there. Neither of those things help that's for sure.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Horizontal cards pretty much suck as a whole. i think if the '51 Bowman were what is now considered a "normal" size, and a vertical picture, it would be more popular

I agree. I think you may be onto something there. Neither of those things help that's for sure.

Thinking about it more...the 1952 Bowman as a "card" is far more iconic then his '51

 

[markakis8]

WTF is this? Is there some inside joke behind this? He looks like a character from MAD TV here.

 

[nborton]

Horizontal cards pretty much suck as a whole. i think if the '51 Bowman were what is now considered a "normal" size, and a vertical picture, it would be more popular

I agree. I think you may be onto something there. Neither of those things help that's for sure.

Thinking about it more...the 1952 Bowman as a "card" is far more iconic then his '51

Hmmm..... just off the top of my head I can recall the 51 easier. I do think the oversized Bowman thing does hurt some. Even when Bowman came back in 89 they were still oversized. Which hurt then as well I think.

 

[The Cardboard Fan]

Horizontal cards pretty much suck as a whole. i think if the '51 Bowman were what is now considered a "normal" size, and a vertical picture, it would be more popular

I agree. I think you may be onto something there. Neither of those things help that's for sure.

I'm not big on the oversized cards either I just think it is a much better looking card

 

[elmalo]

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.

There are a lot of people who say he is.

It's all a personal opinion.

Yes, it is personal opinion. I myself never saw any of them play so I cannot say either way. Who the greatest player of that era is debatable. I know there are many who feel he was. The thing with Mantle is that he played for the Yankees, won a ton of World Series and was the most famous player of his era. People from that generation talk about him like he was awe inspiring. I remember reading Satchel Paiges book, and Paige said Mantle was the greatest player he ever saw.

 

[chromerookies]

The Greatest player of Mantle's era was between Mays and Aaron, Mantle doesn't even compare to either. And the only reason why the Yankees won all those Word Series wasn't only because mantle, it was everybody on that team including him. How many HOFers were on those teams? Mantle wasn't the only one. He just happened to be more of a star than anyone else because he hit more HR's doesn't mean he was the sole reason why the Yankees won.

 

[chromerookies]

Here's a Mantle that should be very affordable and if any of you wanted a cheap one, well here's your chance from this months Hunt auctions..........................

 

[ChasHawk]

Please rank the following players based on their 162 game avgs, and see if you know which is which:

Player A - 37HR - 113RBI - 69BB - 68K - .374OBP - .555SLG - 6.2war - 155OPS+

Player B - 36HR - 102RBI - 117BB - 115K - .421OBP - .557SLG - 6.7war - 172OPS+

Player C - 36HR - 103RBI - 79BB - 83K - .384OBP - .557SLG - 7.0war - 155OPS+