I PULLED IT !!!! STRASBURG SUPERFRACTOR OH YEAHHHHHHHHHHH

[Therion]

1952 has long been considered Mantle's rookie card. Sorry. I know there is a 1951 Bowman card. I know. But if you polled 1,000,000 people 995,000 of them would say the 1952 was the RC. Just like the XRC debate, popular opinion wins.

I disagree with you on this. If you polled a million people, 995,000 would say 1951. This would be because collectors are somewhat of a rarity and most would have no idea. If you gave them the 2 options, they would more likly than not choose the earlier year.

However for those who do know cards, most would choose the topps over the bowman. I would consider them both rookies

However if it was my card, I think I might go after the 51. Not only could you likely buy the card strait up but in 10 years if stras doesn't make it you could say that you traded a bowman stas rookie for a bowman mantle rookie.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

"

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

1952 has long been considered Mantle's rookie card. Sorry. I know there is a 1951 Bowman card. I know. But if you polled 1,000,000 people 995,000 of them would say the 1952 was the RC. Just like the XRC debate, popular opinion wins.

I disagree with you on this. If you polled a million people, 995,000 would say 1951. This would be because collectors are somewhat of a rarity and most would have no idea. If you gave them the 2 options, they would more likly than not choose the earlier year.

However for those who do know cards, most would choose the topps over the bowman. I would consider them both rookies

However if it was my card, I think I might go after the 51. Not only could you likely buy the card strait up but in 10 years if stras doesn't make it you could say that you traded a bowman stas rookie for a bowman mantle rookie.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

Can you explain WHY you think the '52 is his RC.

Two different questions as well.

1) The first question is more exact. People will hear the years, hopefully KNOW that Mantle played more than 1/2 a season in 1951, thus making it his rookie year with a rookie baseball card in the same year.

2) The second question is, "Here are two cards, pick one". In this scenario, the people have no idea what year the card is, unless you are allowing them to flip it over. If they know the hobby, they would pick the '51. If it's just a casual fan who doesn't know much, they will likely pick the '52. Does this mean the '52 is a rookie card? I guess if you want to base your opinion on uninformed people it is.

 

[Therion]

1952 has long been considered Mantle's rookie card. Sorry. I know there is a 1951 Bowman card. I know. But if you polled 1,000,000 people 995,000 of them would say the 1952 was the RC. Just like the XRC debate, popular opinion wins.

I disagree with you on this. If you polled a million people, 995,000 would say 1951. This would be because collectors are somewhat of a rarity and most would have no idea. If you gave them the 2 options, they would more likly than not choose the earlier year.

However for those who do know cards, most would choose the topps over the bowman. I would consider them both rookies

However if it was my card, I think I might go after the 51. Not only could you likely buy the card strait up but in 10 years if stras doesn't make it you could say that you traded a bowman stas rookie for a bowman mantle rookie.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

Can you explain WHY you think the '52 is his RC.

Because it has been considered his RC for longer than I have been alive. I'm not asking you to agree but popular culture has dictated it so. The Honus Wagner card isn't the rarest of that set but it is still the most valuable. Sometimes things just are what they are.

 

[TomMurry]

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

1952 has long been considered Mantle's rookie card. Sorry. I know there is a 1951 Bowman card. I know. But if you polled 1,000,000 people 995,000 of them would say the 1952 was the RC. Just like the XRC debate, popular opinion wins.

I disagree with you on this. If you polled a million people, 995,000 would say 1951. This would be because collectors are somewhat of a rarity and most would have no idea. If you gave them the 2 options, they would more likly than not choose the earlier year.

However for those who do know cards, most would choose the topps over the bowman. I would consider them both rookies

However if it was my card, I think I might go after the 51. Not only could you likely buy the card strait up but in 10 years if stras doesn't make it you could say that you traded a bowman stas rookie for a bowman mantle rookie.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

Can you explain WHY you think the '52 is his RC.

Because it has been considered his RC for longer than I have been alive. I'm not asking you to agree but popular culture has dictated it so. The Honus Wagner card isn't the rarest of that set but it is still the most valuable. Sometimes things just are what they are.

Very small sample I know but being that this board is mostly modern card prospectors, I think it says something in reference to "popular culture".
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89416

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a[/url]

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

Can you explain WHY you think the '52 is his RC.

Because it has been considered his RC for longer than I have been alive. I'm not asking you to agree but popular culture has dictated it so. The Honus Wagner card isn't the rarest of that set but it is still the most valuable. Sometimes things just are what they are.

Very small sample I know but being that this board is mostly modern card prospectors, I think it says something.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89416[/quote:nvgigjxj]

I'm not really sure where Wagner comes into this either. The T206 isn't even the rarest Wagner out there, there are more than a few that top it.

 

[jeff550]

So, Got anymore good offers

 

[JzWand]

No kidding!!!!

 

[Russ S.]

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a[/url]

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

Can you explain WHY you think the '52 is his RC.

Because it has been considered his RC for longer than I have been alive. I'm not asking you to agree but popular culture has dictated it so. The Honus Wagner card isn't the rarest of that set but it is still the most valuable. Sometimes things just are what they are.

Very small sample I know but being that this board is mostly modern card prospectors, I think it says something.
http://www.freedomcardboard.com/forum/v ... =2&t=89416[/quote:2r5prblf]

I'm not really sure where Wagner comes into this either. The T206 isn't even the rarest Wagner out there, there are more than a few that top it.[/quote:2r5prblf]
Quit killing this guys thread.
It's about HIM and his STRAS.
Take your banter elsewhere.

 

[matchpenalty]

What did red out of 5 sell for? Just over 1k????

I think economy and even with Wossa selling high end stuff. Market on this card isn't going to be as high as expected. Will be interesting what it does sell for. If you get no good offers. Will you let it roll in normal auction? I'm sure you will get some nice bidding wars on it.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a[/url]

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

Can you explain WHY you think the '52 is his RC.

Because it has been considered his RC for longer than I have been alive. I'm not asking you to agree but popular culture has dictated it so. The Honus Wagner card isn't the rarest of that set but it is still the most valuable. Sometimes things just are what they are.

Very small sample I know but being that this board is mostly modern card prospectors, I think it says something in reference to "popular culture".
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89416[/quote:1nrjqs0b]

I think this is good discussion. I'd throw in/add that a player's first most valuable card is not always his first card or his rookie card. A player's first card is simply his first card, a player's rookie card is his rookie card (although sometimes they're the same). The whole value discussion is another matter entirely as value doesn't impact whether a card is a first card or rookie card.

 

[JoshHamilton]

http://cgi.ebay.com/1951-Bowman-253-R-M ... 563c259a7a[/url]

I think it would depend on how the question was presented. If you said the following, I'd agree with you: "Mickey Mantle has a baseball card in 1951 Bowman and 1952 Topps. Which one is his RC?"

However, if presented this way I think I would be right: "Which of these two cards is Mickey Mantle's RC?

Can you explain WHY you think the '52 is his RC.

Because it has been considered his RC for longer than I have been alive. I'm not asking you to agree but popular culture has dictated it so. The Honus Wagner card isn't the rarest of that set but it is still the most valuable. Sometimes things just are what they are.

Very small sample I know but being that this board is mostly modern card prospectors, I think it says something in reference to "popular culture".
http://www.freedomcardboard.com/forum/v ... =2&t=89416[/quote:3szczy8a]

I think this is good discussion. I'd throw in/add that a player's first most valuable card is not always his first card or his rookie card. A player's first card is simply his first card, a player's rookie card is his rookie card (although sometimes they're the same). The whole value discussion is another matter entirely but people like to pull it into the discussion where it doesn't really belong.[/quote:3szczy8a]

Do you consider this card a rookie?

 

[moxacaine]

if you want to discuss what a rookie card is make a different thread please.

 

[prospectorgems]

You actually may be better off letting it run auction style. I have found that when I had some really high end cards, people would make some silly offers and then when it ran auction, it would far exceed any of the offers I had ever received. I am sure you are in no hurry to move it just yet, let's just hope Strasburg doesn't get into a career ending accident and then the card would be virtually worthless.

 

[Lancemountain]

You actually may be better off letting it run auction style. I have found that when I had some really high end cards, people would make some silly offers and then when it ran auction, it would far exceed any of the offers I had ever received. I am sure you are in no hurry to move it just yet, let's just hope Strasburg doesn't get into a career ending accident and then the card would be virtually worthless.

Or it sits there unsold till Chrome comes out.

Tomorrow is Sunday. Start it at .99 at 4pm, 7 day listing and let it go.

 

[bozemanbreaker]

You actually may be better off letting it run auction style. I have found that when I had some really high end cards, people would make some silly offers and then when it ran auction, it would far exceed any of the offers I had ever received. I am sure you are in no hurry to move it just yet, let's just hope Strasburg doesn't get into a career ending accident and then the card would be virtually worthless.

Or it sits there unsold till Chrome comes out.

Tomorrow is Sunday. Start it at .99 at 4pm, 7 day listing and let it go.

+1. I would be happy with whatever it ends at. Sometimes with big cards after release, you're better off just letting the bidders go at it instead of worrying about how much you can get. Just sit back and let it ride

 

[teachervido]

bump for publicity....feature on yahoo.com today along with Freedom Cardboard

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_le ... mlb,243549

 

[brouthercard]

I love the reference to the Longoria super.

 

[Russ S.]

bump for publicity....feature on yahoo.com today along with Freedom Cardboard

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_le ... mlb,243549

Guess you didn't read a couple pages back. :lol:

 

[rum151man]

now at 13,600 after yahoo