PDA

View Full Version : Show us your 1952 Bowman (large) cards


Archive
08-13-2007, 11:10 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>The toughest post-war FB set to complete is without a doubt the LARGE card version of the 1952 Bowman set.<br />I'll start by showing 32 cards from the 1st series on an uncut sheet....it includes Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Y. A. Tiddle, and Frank Gifford's rookie card.<br /><br />Show us your cards.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/b52football.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />TED Z

Archive
08-14-2007, 07:42 AM
Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>A great set indeed...since you already posted Tittle (my personal favorite from the set) I'll post my second favorite - Yale Lary's rookie in his Aggies uniform.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1187012501.JPG">

Archive
08-14-2007, 08:27 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The very first collection I ever bought, which goes back to about 1983, included many early 1950's Bowman and Topps cards, including a near Set of 1952 Large. I auctioned off the cards in groups and I remember the endless streams of calls and letters I got asking me to sell card #144 directly. It had no premium in the catalog, so at first I was surprised. But it was my first lesson about rare cards within a set. Of course, #144 Lansford today is a bit of a modern classic.

Archive
08-14-2007, 11:09 AM
Posted By: <b>JasP24</b><p>I've always wondered why the Bowman Small are valued less when they are in shorter supply. <br /><br />Love the 52 Bowman Large and Small..Great artwork really captures the feel of the era..<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1187024899.JPG"> <br /><br />Jason

Archive
08-24-2007, 05:54 AM
Posted By: <b>John E</b><p>The first time I looked at Ted's sheet something bothered me, but I couldn't figure out what. But now it dawned on me. Why are Spencer and Cone on the same sheet? Spencer is supposed to be a short print, but Cone isn't. Were the sheet combinations changed throughout the printing run?

Archive
08-24-2007, 06:30 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>JOHN E<br /><br />I assume you are familiar with this set's difficulty with all the cards in it whose # is "divisible by 9".<br />My sheet is very unusual in that it includes (in the rightmost column), the cards divisible by 9.......<br />namely, Spencer (#9)....Justice (#18)....Miller (#27)....Hancock (#36).<br /><br />Why these cards are tough to find is simple.....when Bowman decided in late 1952 to enlarge their<br /> regular issue (to compete with the larger size of the 1952 Topps BB issue), they increased the size<br />of their small set. But, in the process they used their existing printing facilities, which could not ac-<br />comodate the larger 36-card sheets. Therefore, cards at the ends of these sheets were "cut short".<br />As I said, cards that are divisible by 9 are the toughest; however, the cards at the left end of the<br /> sheet are also tough (but not as difficult as the "9's"). This sheet illustrates this as cards #1, #10,<br />#19 and #28 are missing from this sheet.<br /><br />I hope I have made this clear, if I haven't please ask some more questions. Also, I wrote an article<br /> on this in the SCD back in 1985. In that story I also explain why the last card in the LARGE set....<br />#144 Lansford is probably the toughest post-war FB card.<br /><br />If you want a copy of this SCD article, email me.<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br />

Archive
08-29-2007, 08:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Ryan</b><p><img src="http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k242/madisonry/1952%20Bowman%20Large/1952bowmanlargedonovan.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k242/madisonry/1952%20Bowman%20Large/1952bowmanlargerobustelli.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k242/madisonry/1952%20Bowman%20Large/1952bowmanlargewalker.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k242/madisonry/1952%20Bowman%20Large/1952bowmanlargelavelli.jpg">

Archive
08-30-2007, 09:02 AM
Posted By: <b>John H.</b><p>I've gotta say that those Bowman football issues from 1950-55 are some of the nicest looking cards ever made. Those sets are absolutely beautiful!<br /><br />John

Archive
09-02-2007, 07:29 AM
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1188653318.JPG">

Archive
09-07-2007, 03:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Absolutely, the toghest FB card has to be the Jim Lansford (#144) from the 1952 Bowman (large issue).<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/abowmanlansford.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/bbowmanlansford.jpg"><br /><br /><br />TED Z

Archive
09-09-2007, 09:29 AM
Posted By: <b>Clint</b><p>Great looking set but my favorites are still the 50-51 sets. Favorite card from the set would be the Tittle.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1189265337.JPG">

Archive
09-09-2007, 10:33 AM
Posted By: <b>Craig H</b><p>I love the 1952 Bowman (large) set as well--particulary the Lansford card. I have the small Lansford and I'd have to say that either the large or small of this card is not easy to find despite the gap in prices.<br /><br />Craig

Archive
09-10-2007, 10:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Michael Blaisdell</b><p>The 52 Bowman Large Football are one of my favorite sets. Here is my Lansford.....<br /><br /><img src="http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff79/buncerental/1952BowmanLgFBLansford.jpg">

Archive
09-11-2007, 09:14 AM
Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Ted,<br />Where would you rank the 1950 Topps Feltbacks in difficulty compared to the 1952 Bowman large? The SP's in the Bowman set are very tough, but the yellow backgrounds in the 1950 Topps set are no picnic either.

Archive
09-12-2007, 08:19 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>MIKE B<br /><br />Your Jim Lansford card is amazing. As you know, I'm mainly a BB card collector, but I've put together the 1948 Bowmam,<br />1950 B and 1952 B (small & large) sets. And, I have searched for a decent Lansford for more than 20 years. So, I really<br /> appreciate seeing your card.....thanks for sharing it with us.<br /><br />TED Z

Archive
09-12-2007, 01:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Michael Blaisdell</b><p>Thanks Ted, <br /><br />It is always good hearing from you. I have owned that card for over 20 years and it is definitely the crown jewel of my 1952 set.<br /><br />Best wishes - Mike<br />

Archive
09-12-2007, 03:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Then it sounds like you acquired it for a very reasonable price. As you recall, I wrote an article in SCD in 1986,<br />on the 1952 Bowman (large) set and in it I stated that the Jim Lansford card should sell for about $400. And, I<br /> was laughed at by some in the hobby saying the Price Guides show it as a $25 card.....HA....I guess I had the<br /> last laugh.<br /><br />TED Z<br />

Archive
09-12-2007, 04:59 PM
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />And now a PSA 8 Lansford would go for $15-$20,000.<br /><br />Jim

Archive
09-12-2007, 05:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>JIM<br /><br />Do you have one in that condition ?<br /><br />I've had several of them, any where from Vg to Ex (usually off-center) and they would fly off my table at the Philly Show.<br />One of the nicer ones I sold to a dealer and at the next show I bought it back, only to sell it again. And, everytime I sold<br /> this same Lansford, I made a nice profit. You just cannot have enough Lansford's.<br /><br />TED Z

Archive
09-12-2007, 07:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Jim Crandell</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />No--its one of 7 cards(I think) that are not in PSA 8--I caved and bought a 6 from Mint State as part of a large deal.<br /><br />UI was offered an 8 for $18,500 but I passed. Probably will cost me at least that when the next one comes up.<br /><br />I do have the Small in 8.<br /><br />Jim

Archive
09-14-2007, 12:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Here's an example of why the 16 cards in this set, whose #s are....DIVISIBLE by 9....are very tough, as most were<br /> printer's defects.<br />Charley Conerly is one of these, being #63, this one in this condition should have been rejected by Quality Control.<br /><br />In order to compete with the very popular 1952 Topps BB cards, Bowman re-printed their initial issue of FB cards in<br /> a larger size. However, being in a hurry to do this they used their 38-inch press (used in printing all their smaller is-<br />sues....1950-52). As a consequence, the 9th card on each row was mis-printed and usually discarded.<br /><br />I show here Groucho Marx from Bowman's 1952 NBC TV stars set to illustrate that by the very end of 1952 they in-<br />creased the width of their printing press to 43 inches in order to accomodate the larger size sheets. Then, in 1953<br /> Bowman produced their photographic quality 160 card BB set, a 64 card B & W BB set, a 96 card FB set, and a 96<br />card NBC TV stars set.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/conerlymarx1952.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/astanmusial1953.jpg">

Archive
09-19-2007, 05:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred Y</b><p>Not sure who is responsible for starting this PostWar Forum, but I Thank You.<br /><br />It is my era of growing up & collecting as opposed to the PreWar Forum which I have been reading for a long time, but not being able to contribute to very often.<br /><br />The '52 Bowman Large has always been my most treasured FB set--I put it together back in the day & have never added to or upgraded a single card from the day I opened the packs to get them.<br /><br />Last yr I decided to have the whole set graded by SGC (minus 21 cards that appear NrMT but are victims of Bowman poor cutting methods)<br /><br />Here are a couple plus my Lansford (which of course I thought deserved a higher grade! LOL!)<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb096.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb117.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb144.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I hope to be able to contribute to this forum on a much more regular basis--and THANKS again to whomever's idea this was!

Archive
09-20-2007, 07:14 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Great looking 52 B's<br /><br />Since I have done a lot of research on this set.....I am curious which card #s are yor mis-cuts ?<br /><br />And, are they miscut as bad as my Conerly (shown in above post).<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />TED Z

Archive
09-20-2007, 04:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred Y</b><p>Good question--and since 100% of my set is original purchase cards by me alone & stored all these yrs maybe my answer will be useful & insightful as to the make-up of this wonderful set.<br /><br />Of the 21 cards I DIDN'T have graded--4 were actually because of some creasing rather than being mis-cut.<br /><br />That leaves 17 cards that WERE mis-cut & not graded--Here are the #'s:<br /><br />9-18-26-36-42-43-45-47-49-50-51-52-53-54-58-59-71.<br /><br />The unique thing is they were ALL Series I (1-72) and 5 were SP's--None were the plus 1's! The 2nd Series was BY FAR the better centered cards--and got the majority of the higher grades.<br /><br />None of my miscuts were anywhere near like your Conerly example--All 17 were about like the following 2 cards, which were the WORST CUT of the 17. The other 14 showed just a wee bit more of a border. (Cards shown are 2 SP's--9 & 18) <br /><br />PS---I just noticed they are the last cards in Row 1 & 2 of your sheet! Wonder where they printed cards 1-10-19-28???<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb9-18mc.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Hope this info may shed just a tiny bit more enlightenment as to the make-up of this classic set. <br /><br />Any other questions are welcome as I have the set handy by & can easily check any card.

Archive
09-20-2007, 06:41 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Thanks for the all that info.<br /><br />1st....I'll answer your last question....you are very knowlegable on this set; and, you are aware that cards whose #s are....#1<br />and all others that are (divisible by 9 + 1) are tough to find in decent shape. So, #1 Van Brocklin, #10 Bednarik, #19 Connor,<br /> and #28 Kyle Rote are not on my sheet, since Bowman had to shift the cardboard sheet to the right as they printed. They had<br /> to do this in order to print the cards in the rightmost column (#s divisible by 9). In their early press runs the printing track in <br />their press was unable to accomodate a complete (large) 36-card sheet.<br /><br />2nd.....To provide you an answer to your experience regarding getting better cut cards in the 2nd series (#73-144), I have to<br /> ask you where you lived as a kid collecting these 52 B's ? And, do you recall how early or late in the Fall of '52 you were acquir-<br />ing them ?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />TED Z

Archive
09-20-2007, 07:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred Y</b><p>I grew up in the late '40's--early 50's in Western New York---in the shadows of the Attica State Prison! (Which by the way, is not far from Buffalo & the Canadian border!)<br /><br />My folks owned a hotel there from 1946 until 1953 and I bought just about all my cards in local Mom & Pop drug stores, variety stores, ice cream parlors, etc--just anywhere in a small town that carried cards!<br /><br />I also have complete 1950 & 51 Bowman FB I bought the same way, along w/ my 48 thru 52 baseball sets & singles.<br /><br />So as far as I can remember, I bought cards as soon as they hit the stores up until the end of the given season & the next releases were on the shelves!<br /><br />Will be interested to see what you can deduce from that info!! LOL!!!<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Fred<br /><br /><br /><br />

Archive
09-21-2007, 09:38 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>OK. first I will refer to my post here (9/13....1:20 PM) and to the Groucho Marx card. This NBC stars set of 36 cards were the 1st<br /> large cards that Bowman produced with their new larger press. This coincided, late in 1952, with the a 2nd press run producing<br /> more 2nd series (large) FB cards (#73-144).<br /><br />Now, my understanding is that regional distribution of the new 52 B cards to areas such as upstate NY were later than the major<br /> cities like NY, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., and that would perhaps explain your luck in getting the Hi#'s in better shape than most<br /> others.<br /><br />A recent huge find of 52 B FB cards in a small town in the mid-west reinforces this theory as this collection had some really great<br /> looking Hi#'s.<br /><br />TED Z

Archive
09-24-2007, 10:43 AM
Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Fred and Ted,<br /> Here's my Justice..... OC<br /><br /><img src="http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/hogan6g/Scan0002-6.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Be well Brian<br />

Archive
09-24-2007, 06:49 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred Y</b><p>Now that I have mentioned about all the miscuts I have I thought I would keep the thread going by picturing some of my nice Stars & some of the tough Rookie SP's. A couple of them were top POP's when I had them done last yr, but I don't know about now.<br /><br />Anyhow, hope you enjoy seeing them. The Romanik & Ronzani are especially tough!!<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb1078.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb126135.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb127142.jpg">

Archive
09-24-2007, 09:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Those 5 Hi#s are the sharpest I have seen in all the years I've collected this set.<br /><br />They are definitely from the later press runs when Bowman got their act together in producing the Larger cards.<br /><br />TED Z

Archive
09-25-2007, 05:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred Y</b><p>Ted--<br /><br />Thanks for your nice comments. <br /><br />You have in-depth knowledge of this set (and many others) & collectors owe you a debt of gratitude for your dedicated research & documentation---It shows a great passion for not only collecting, but for the collectors themselves by passing on key information as to why this set (or any another) is what it is!<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Fred

Archive
10-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Here is the second lowest pop in the set in psa 8 or better(pop 2!!!!!!)The Schweder(#72 is a pop 1).<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1191457218.JPG">

Archive
10-05-2007, 06:10 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Like I said, your "divisible by 9" cards are about the best I've ever seen. Now, I'm curious how nice your....divisible by 9 + 1....cards are ?<br /> You've showed us #10 and #127....can you scan some of these: #1, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 82, 91, 100, 109, 118, and 136 ?<br /><br />Thanks for your nice words,<br /><br />TED Z <br /><br />

Archive
10-06-2007, 06:16 PM
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Here is a brutal card in PSA 8. This recently graded card increased the pop to 3.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1191629731.JPG">

Archive
10-07-2007, 12:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred Y</b><p>Interesting request Ted--and I think the results further support your research of this set AND your theory as to the make-up of my set.<br /><br />I have taken 4 scans of the 16 cards that comprise the 9 + 1's--1st 2 scans are Series 1 (in # order) and 2nd 2 scans are the Series II.<br /><br />The breakdown is this:<br /><br />Series 1: <br />EX 5--2 <br />EX/NM 6--1 <br />NRMT 7--2<br />NRMT+ 7.5--1 <br />NRMT/MT 8--2<br /><br />Series II:<br />EX 5--1 (2 tiny corner tics)<br />EX/NM 6--0<br />NRMT 7--3<br />NRMT/MT 8--4<br /><br /><br />Centering is certainly much tougher in the 1-72 of mine, that's for certain.<br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb1a.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb1b.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb1c.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/52fb1d.jpg"><br />

Archive
10-07-2007, 03:19 PM
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>I have had no problem getting psa 8s in the 9 plus 1s. The multiples of 9 are a bear however.

Archive
10-09-2007, 06:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>JIM C<br /><br />I have collected, sold, and researched these cards since 1983 and I will tell you that cards in this set whose #'s are....Divisible by 9 + 1....<br />at all grade levels....are tougher to find and especially centered.<br /><br />Obviously, they are not as tough as the "Divide by 9"......but, are certainly tougher to find than all the other cards in this set. Just read my<br /> 5-page, Jan 3 1986 SCD article on this Bowman FB set.<br /><br />Also, observe my original uncut (LARGE) sheet, it is missing the four cards in the leftmost column (#1 and the Divisible by 9 + 1). Missing are <br />Van Brocklin, Bednarik, Connor and Rote.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/b52football.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />TED Z collection

Archive
03-21-2008, 11:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Carl Lamendola</b><p>Here is what my Lansford looks like...<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1206162774.JPG">

Archive
03-22-2008, 12:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Fred Y</b><p>Carl--<br /><br />GORGEOUS card! Is that the highest grade given?<br /><br />My Lansford is going to be reviewed---There is a 6 on the SGC Registry that looks worse than my 5.5!

Archive
03-22-2008, 12:45 PM
Posted By: <b>Carl Lamendola</b><p>It was until recently. There is an SGC-92 that recently sold in a auction for around $30K+juice.<br />Not to shabby!

Archive
04-27-2008, 04:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Do any of you know why the 1952 Bowman large have some cards with the players name and his college/pro team name inside the banner and others dont? Im glad I found this thread its great to read all your posts, this set is by far my favorite! BTW very nice cards! <br />Thank You, Paul<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z236/paulyp123/scan0009.jpg">?t=1209336956<br /><br />

Archive
07-12-2008, 09:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Not many posts here in a while, anyone have anything new?