Better looking card: 1953 Topps Mantle or 1956 Topps Mantle?

[ReggieBush22]

Without considering price, just based on pure eye appeal, design, etc.

[towerymt]

[hxcmilkshake]

53..my 2nd favorite after the 52

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[pawpawdiv9]

Hands down 53...not even close

[ReggieBush22]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Thanks for posting.

Side topic: Taking significance aside, i would say 1953 > 1952 when it comes to pure eye appeal/design.

[rats60]

1953 Bowman. Those two cards are ugly in my opinion.

[JustRachel]

The '56 Mantle is among my favorite cards of all time. The '53 Topps is beautiful too, iconic, classic, all that, but the '56 Topps set just "does it" for me.

[FlyingDutchman]

The ‘53 Mantle is a great design, but I think what puts the ‘56 over the edge for me is the depiction of Mantle playing along with the action shot of the fans. It’s cool to me how the in-game action and fans blend into the design!

Maybe I should have voted for option 3, both are

[sickmantz]

The 53 design is one of the best of all time

[LCM1223]

Originally Posted by rats60

1953 Bowman. Those two cards are ugly in my opinion.

But that’s not the question is it

Question is what’s the better looking between the 2

[rats60]

Originally Posted by LCM1223

But that’s not the question is it

Question is what’s the better looking between the 2

There was no option for I don't like either.

[MJGOAT23]

I'm partial to the 57 actually

[vintg]

really great question.

glad you included option #3, b/c thats what i voted for.

the '56 is iconic, the '53 is jaw-dropping

equals tie.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by MJGOAT23

I'm partial to the 57 actually

I agree. Much nicer than the only two options.

[ReggieBush22]

Really close poll. These have to be 2 of THE most attractive Mantle cards ever made. Definitely hoping to add both to my PC at some point in time.

[ReggieBush22]

Originally Posted by rats60

1953 Bowman. Those two cards are ugly in my opinion.

[ReggieBush22]

Originally Posted by rats60

There was no option for I don't like either.

[ReggieBush22]

Posted this in another thread but i thought worth mentioning here. I was watching this item and seller offered a discount of about $500. Unfortunately, the offer came overnight while i was sleeping and another watcher jumped on it and bought it. Needless to say, unbelievable looking 1.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/23550172789...mis&media=COPY

[sheetskout]

It's a tough decision. Second-year Mantle vs. Triple Crown Mantle?

I want them both - but the '53 is going to always be more-rare and get the premium.

[towerymt]

3rd year mantle. ('51, '52, '53)

[sheetskout]

Second year Topps Mantle. But you're correct.

[jchcollins]

Due respect to an outstanding '53 effort and the unique Dvorak paintings - but '56 Topps is routinely ranked among the greatest sets ever issued.

For me, the infatuation with the '56 Mick started when I saw it in the Yankees Surf book in the late 80's. I was mesmerized by the set, the combination of portrait and action shots - and then I saw the Mantle.

One miniscule complaint - not even really, but to point out - Topps doctored the inset action image considerably. The real pic of that play is from Mantle's rookie season in 1951, and it was not a fantastic catch at the wall - the ball apparently was over his head and ended up higher in the stands, and the real pic has a wild-eyed picture of him - not the Joe Cool just made a sweet catch image that we get on the card. Yes, of course they also photoshopped (or the 1950's equivalent) the ball into his glove. The stands to the right of the action Mantle image were more empty in the original photo, (which was actually just cutoff) so Topps simply moved some of those folks that were to the left in the action shot over to the right, so the stands would look more full. That is why if you look closely at the background, the fans on the right side don't appear to be looking at the play in front of them, but somewhere else. Topps couldn't swivel their heads to fit the story, I guess.

[ReggieBush22]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Due respect to an outstanding '53 effort and the unique Dvorak paintings - but '56 Topps is routinely ranked among the greatest sets ever issued.

For me, the infatuation with the '56 Mick started when I saw it in the Yankees Surf book in the late 80's. I was mesmerized by the set, the combination of portrait and action shots - and then I saw the Mantle.

One miniscule complaint - not even really, but to point out - Topps doctored the inset action image considerably. The real pic of that play is from Mantle's rookie season in 1951, and it was not a fantastic catch at the wall - the ball apparently was over his head and ended up higher in the stands, and the real pic has a wild-eyed picture of him - not the Joe Cool just made a sweet catch image that we get on the card. Yes, of course they also photoshopped (or the 1950's equivalent) the ball into his glove. The stands to the right of the action Mantle image were more empty in the original photo, (which was actually just cutoff) so Topps simply moved some of those folks that were to the left in the action shot over to the right, so the stands would look more full. That is why if you look closely at the background, the fans on the right side don't appear to be looking at the play in front of them, but somewhere else. Topps couldn't swivel their heads to fit the story, I guess.

How does one even find out about something this nuanced? LOL

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ReggieBush22

How does one even find out about something this nuanced? LOL

I'd love to take the credit, but it wasn't me. I ripped this off from Net54, where others did the work. It is cool to see all laid out like that, however.

[jbiskup61]

56 Set is a work of ART!!