Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat
My own thoughts, probably unprovable at this point, were that Bowman decided not to pay Joe DiMaggio any more royalties for his image and name in promoting the color set. His contract very well could have specified he was endorsing "color" picture cards. Switch to B&W, remove Joe's image and there you go. I can't see printing in color added that much to the cost overall. Joe's cut was probably on a percentage deal and it got too expensive in this scenario. Like I said, unprovable but a possibility to my mind.
|
Dave - I believe you are right about DiMaggio's contract with Bowman. The company probably anticipated possible poor sales and left itself an out from Joe D's cut by tying it to the words, "color cards." As a nine-year-old, I avidly bought both gum companies product that year, but I doubt that I even noticed DiMaggio's image and endorsement on the wrapper, much less cared about it. I believe that Topps was much more aggressive in its marketing, and its cards were probably much more visible on store shelves and available in greater quantities, as my fuzzy recall is of many more '53 Topps cards circulating in school and playgrounds that year than Bowman. I do recall being fascinated by the marvelous color photography of the Bowmans and wanting more of them, but not finding nearly as many as the Topps, which had an advantage of their own in the more entertaining cardbacks - the "baseball quiz" feature.