NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:50 PM
darkhorse9 darkhorse9 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 556
Default Would you feel different about 1953 Bowman B&W if....

..they had numbered it as an extension of the color set?

It really gets little to no love compared to one of the greatest sets of all time. But it was really a high number series, which usually gets a lot of attention.

The B&W are harder to find, just like high numbers, but not treated like high numbers.

If the numbering were different what would that do to the value and demand?
__________________
2018 Collecting goals...

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:18 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,064
Default

The numbering would have not mattered to me. I thought of it as an extension and felt to need to have them as part of my 53 "set". Plus it even has a good variation.

It is interesting to me how revered the 53 color set is today versus what a market flop it was in 1953 in terms of sales versus cost
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:16 AM
KCRfan1 KCRfan1 is offline
Lou Simcoe
L0u Sim.coe
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 1,469
Default

The color series is gorgeous and has plenty of star power. Numbering or not, the B & W has no star power.
__________________
My new found obsession the t206!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-19-2019, 01:19 AM
Volod Volod is offline
Steve
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NEOH
Posts: 779
Default

Yeah, I have also wondered the same thing, so that after completing the "color" set, it was kind of a gnawing hole there that got me to finish the '53 issue by going after the B&W's. I had collected the color cards as a kid, but had never seen - or been aware of - the B&W cards because they were issued late in the year when youngsters were busy with other shenanigans. But, I doubt that numbering them as a "high number" issue would have made them more desirable in later years. Now, if Bowman had simply made them a Kodachrome final series, I think they would have become at least as sought after as the extant high numbers. The rationale usually given for the black/white set is that the color process became prohibitively expensive, but that has never seemed plausible to me. I think perhaps Bowman execs were kind of floundering around by that time and lost interest and focus to some extent.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:44 AM
toppcat's Avatar
toppcat toppcat is offline
Dave.Horn.ish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,979
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:45 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,064
Default

In his book Dean seems to indicate the higher production cost and unexpected poor sales led Bowman to scale back to B&W. I think he also points out the B&Ws were generally poor quality because they were shot in a format to be colorized and not as black and white quality film.

Last edited by ALR-bishop; 05-19-2019 at 09:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2019, 10:48 AM
ALBB ALBB is offline
Albert Bee
member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 136
Default 53 B blck/white

Yea, just the lack of star players hurts that set

I once had it complete..hated it..traded it
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2019, 11:02 AM
KCRfan1 KCRfan1 is offline
Lou Simcoe
L0u Sim.coe
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 1,469
Default

Is there any reason to why the sales of the 53 Bowman color were so poor back at the time of issue? Was it marketing and distribution or price per pack vs Topps? The 53 Bowman set is now regarded as one of the most beautiful sets produced. It's hard to imagine the set being so overlooked at the time.
__________________
My new found obsession the t206!

Last edited by KCRfan1; 05-19-2019 at 11:04 AM. Reason: run on sentence
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:09 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 6,064
Default

Lou-- Dean Hanley's book offers some reasons. First Warren Bowman, an astute marketing guy, sold out at a peak time, 1952. The buyer was new to baseball cards and apparently had no one to match Berger's creativity.

They did go all out in 53 but their production cost were very high versus the colorization process used by Topps, and the set was only 160 versus 274 or so for Topps. So kids could get more players from their specific teams. And a nickel got you gum and 6 cards from Topps versus gum and 5 cards from Bowman

The book indicates Topps sales in 53 were 3 x more than Bowman.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-20-2019, 04:54 AM
Volod Volod is offline
Steve
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NEOH
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toppcat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 PM.


ebay GSB