1953 Bowman B&W

[brett 75]

Looking for a little hobby history help. In 1953 Bowman produced a 64card black & white set (?) in the same style as it's color set . Why ? Was this a test issue of some kind ? Did it come out before or after the color version ? Standard Catalog doesn't shine much light on it beyond it was the same as color just in black & white. Also Beckett stated that there are 1 cent wrappers anyone remember buying packs ? Any help or info is greatly appreciated , Brett

[tedzan]

The story that I've heard on this subject is that the 160-card Bowman color set (which was issued in the Spring/Summer of 1953) was very costly
to produce.

By the Summer of 1953, Topps had issued 220 cards in their BB set. Bowman responded by printing a series of 64 more cards in a B & W format. By
not extending their "Kodachrome" color process to these 64 cards, Bowman cut down on the cost of producing them and was able to get them into
the market quickly in order to compete with Topps.

But, as we all know, Topps followed up by issuing a Hi # series of 54 additional cards.


TED Z

[brett 75]

Thanks for the reply Ted . A cost saving measure , I 'm sure that went over well with kids collecting in 53' after busting packs all year then to open one with black & white cards probably wasn't a big seller . 1 cent packs only or did they have 5 cent packs as well? I plan on cross checking did any players appear in the color as well black & white ? I did a quick check this morning but ran out of time . Work always seems to mess up collecting time ! Brett

[toppcat]

The story that I've heard on this subject is that the 160-card Bowman color set (which was issued in the Spring/Summer of 1953) was very costly
to produce.

By the Summer of 1953, Topps had issued 220 cards in their BB set. Bowman responded by printing a series of 64 more cards in a B & W format. By
not extending their "Kodachrome" color process to these 64 cards, Bowman cut down on the cost of producing them and was able to get them into
the market quickly in order to compete with Topps.

But, as we all know, Topps followed up by issuing a Hi # series of 54 additional cards.


TED Z

This may have had to to with a licensing fee paid to Joe DiMaggio for the color set (he is featured on advertising) as well as just general cash flow. New set, not in color may have meant no royalties to Joe D. Just my opinion but I see it as a real possibility.

[tedzan]

There is no duplication of players when you compare the Bowman 160-card color set with their 64-card B & W set.

However, in the color set, there is an unexplainable duplication of Al Corwin with two different images. He appears
on card #126 and again on card #149.

The B & W cards were available in 5-cent packs.


TED Z

[Volod]

Definitely appears that Joe D's endorsement contract was limited to the color cards. Warren Bowman must have been hard pressed for cash by mid-1953 - or maybe just tight-fisted.

[Volod]

Thanks for the reply Ted . A cost saving measure , I 'm sure that went over well with kids collecting in 53' after busting packs all year then to open one with black & white cards probably wasn't a big seller . 1 cent packs only or did they have 5 cent packs as well? I plan on cross checking did any players appear in the color as well black & white ? I did a quick check this morning but ran out of time . Work always seems to mess up collecting time ! Brett

Hey Brett - quit that pesky job, so you can devote more time to the important things in life, like card collecting. By the time you retire, the sets may be too hard to complete.

[toppcat]

Definitely appears that Joe D's endorsement contract was limited to the color cards. Warren Bowman must have been hard pressed for cash by mid-1953 - or maybe just tight-fisted.

Warren was already gone by then-he left in May of 1951. They had a new Board that had renamed itself Haelan Laboratories by '53 and then fairly soon after John Connelly (a corrugated cardboard mogul in Philly) somehow gained control, probably through a combination of populating the board with friendly faces and some stock purchases. Bowman was a division of Haelan by then.

Connelly is the guy that drove the sale of the Bowman Gum Division to Topps from what I know of it. He took his money and eventually formed one of the world's largest corporations (for a time)-Crown Cork & Seal.

Warren Bowman tried, among other things, to develop beachfront property in Florida and there is stretch on Sanibel Island called Bowman's Beach down there to this day that I'm pretty sure was his doing.

[mintacular]

My impression is that this partial set is not very collectible/popular for the most part, with the exception of Casey Stengel

[Chris Counts]

"However, in the color set, there is an unexplainable duplication of Al Corwin with two different images. He appears on card #126 and again on card #149 ..."

Ted, I've long imagined that the second Corwin replaced a card that was pulled. I've seen a proof for a Ferris Fain card, so I've wondered if it was possible that his card was pulled because he got traded. The guy he got traded for, Eddie Robinson, shows up in the B&W set, so Bowman had more time to get a photo of him wearing an A's jersey. Curiously, I can't think of any White Sox players in the B&W series, so that might explain why Fain isn't pictured in his new jersey like Robinson. It's also possible Fain had an exclusive Topps deal that year. Since he was the defending A.L. batting champ, both companies no doubt would have wanted him in their sets. Have you ever heard any theories why there are two Corwin cards?

[tedzan]

Your Ferris Fain theory is quite interesting. Fain led the AL in batting in 1951 and 1952 while playing for the A's. The Bowman Gum Co. was based in
Philadelphia. So, Fain should have been in color or the B & W set.

If you compare the backs of the two Al Corwin cards there is a typo in the first one (#126). His birth month (December) is misspelled...."Recember".
They corrected this mistake on his Hi # card (#149). But, this is certainly not a big enough deal to issue a 2nd card of Corwin.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts regarding the absence of Fain in this set.


TED Z

[tedzan]

Here are the two Al Corwin cards in the color set that were mentioned in the prior post.

.......... #126 ................................................. # 149

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/alcorwin126b149b.jpg


TED Z

[ALR-bishop]

Very interesting observation Chris. Good looking cards Ted.

I am mostly only a Topps collector ( Fleer 1923 and 1959 to 1980 as well), but the Bowman color set has always tempted me, mainly because I am a Cardinals fan and that Musial is special.

[ls7plus]

Casey's card captures the essence of the entire era, and is consequently quite popular. Although the focus seems to vary quite a bit, it is probably made even more dramatic in black and white. If you notice the postings, it is usually missing from '53 B&W offerings. For me, it was a must-have amongst
'50's cards, but I have absolutely no interest in any of the other cards from the set.

Larry

[Volod]

Now, if Corwin had been in the B/W set as well, that would have made for some interesting speculation: George Moll's nephew?

[toppcat]

Now, if Corwin had been in the B/W set as well, that would have made for some interesting speculation: George Moll's nephew?

Not sure why he was picked to fill a hole-Bowman did not restart their 16 card cycle pattern through each team until 1954 so it's not like they needed a NYG. My best guess is they had to pull a card right before printing (not uncommon in the Topps vs Bowman era), needed a picture right quick and his was handy.

[tedzan]

Starting with the 1949 Bowman BB set, there was a team sequence pattern in their design, in which a given team would repeat every 16 cards.
For example, 1949 #1 is Bickford (Boston Braves)....#17 is Torgeson (Boston Braves), etc., etc. A similar pattern exists in the 1950, 1951, 1952
and 1954 BB sets. While this sequence was not strictly adhered to throughout in some of these sets, it is apparent that the cards were not just
arbitrarily assigned.

However, as Dave H. pointed out, the 1953 Color set does not appear to follow such a team sequence pattern. So, regarding the two Al Corwin
cards, the bio on their backs is identical (except that "December" is misspelled...."Recember" in the #126 card).
Furthermore, Corwin's Lifetime Stats. (in both cards) do not reflect his 1951 season Stats.

That's all folks....as I see it.


.......... #126 ................................................. # 149

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/alcorwin126b149b.jpg


TED Z

[Volod]

Good point, Ted. Didn't they also arrange the selection in order of team standings - Yankees, Dodgers usually the first card? Then, in '53, first card is Dave Williams of the Giants for some reason.