Uncut Bowman Sheets?

[tedzan]

Howard Moll (of the George Moll Adv. Agency) told me that all 1948-1952 Bowman cards were printed
using a 38-inch printing press track and were 36 card sheets, configured 9 across x 4 rows.

All 1953-1955 Bowman cards were printed using a 43-inch printing press track and were 32 card sheets,
configured 8 across x 4 rows.


While the 1952-1956 Topps cards were printed using a 53-inch printing press track and were 100-card
sheets configured 10 across x 10 rows.


TED Z

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Howard Moll (of the George Moll Adv. Agency) told me that all 1948-1952 Bowman cards were printed
using a 38-inch printing press track and were 36 card sheets, configured 9 across x 4 rows.

All 1953-1955 Bowman cards were printed using a 43-inch printing press track and were 32 card sheets,
configured 8 across x 4 rows.


While the 1952-1956 Topps cards were printed using a 53-inch printing press track and were 100-card
sheets configured 10 across x 10 rows.


TED Z

Thanks Ted that is extremely useful information. I do note that the 55-56 Topps sheets were 110 cards but since they are horizontally printed the extra column is really a row and added to the length and not the width of the sheets. It all works out though whether they were 100 or 110 cards I think, per below.

Based upon the above, can we conclude Topps printed 200 or 220 card master sheets like they did later on with two 132 half sheets making up a full 264 Master? The math seems to indicate a double wide Topps sheet was possible if you take the shorter edges and add them up (2.625" x 10 cards = 26.25" + 26.25" plus .50" for the extra space on the left and right gutters equals a 53" double, or master, sheet).

The Bowmans must have had bigger gutters or they (more likely) had the ability to decrease the width of print pass as you could have printed the doubled master as 2.50" x 8 cards = 20" + 20" = 40" plus gutters. Interestingly, you could fit another row in this configuration at a full 43" and and be left with a spare .50".

Here is a 110 card sheet from '56 to illustrate. Note the rightmost column (on a vertically oriented sheet it would be a row) is a DP of the one next to it. A recent major auction also had a 110 card '55 sheet but I can't put my fingers on the scan right now. '53 and '54 half sheets are confirmed at 100 cards apeice and '52 likely is as well, even though I have only seen 5 x 5 card quadrants from that year. Topps must have gone to a new press in '57 as two double wides and gutters are about 55.5" across using 11 card columns at 2.5" per column of cards with 132 card half sheets. Maybe this is when they started using Zabel Brothers of Philadelphia to print cards? Or they could have printed single wides consisting of 12 cards at 3.5" across on the long edge, resulting in 42" of printed area plus gutters, which would have been possible on the Bowman presses.

More research (and math) seems to be next!

[Volod]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Howard Moll (of the George Moll Adv. Agency) told me that all 1948-1952 Bowman cards were printed
using a 38-inch printing press track and were 36 card sheets, configured 9 across x 4 rows.

All 1953-1955 Bowman cards were printed using a 43-inch printing press track and were 32 card sheets,
configured 8 across x 4 rows.


While the 1952-1956 Topps cards were printed using a 53-inch printing press track and were 100-card
sheets configured 10 across x 10 rows.


TED Z

I'm wondering why the 1952 Bowman sheet is a 32-card run, and not 36 as had always been presumed. In fact, isn't the supposed scarcity of card numbers divisible by nine in this set based on a 36-card sheet?

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Volod

I'm wondering why the 1952 Bowman sheet is a 32-card run, and not 36 as had always been presumed. In fact, isn't the supposed scarcity of card numbers divisible by nine in this set based on a 36-card sheet?

I think there is a different reason for that. There might be a thread on this if you search (maybe on the pre-war board) or Ted wrote an article somewhere but I seem to recall the big boys were "tight" on the sheet and this affected certain cards. They were trying to wedge 32 large cards on 36 card sheets designed for small cards I believe.

I have to say the artwork on those '52 Bowman football cards is stupendous!

[Volod]

Hmm, any way I try to look at it, it seems that the much-publicized scarcity would depend on the actual printing of a 36-card sheet. That is, cards numbered 1, 9, 10, 18, 19, 27, etc. - those on the edges of the sheet, were discarded due to damage from the smaller press guides. On the other hand, with a 32-card sheet, as shown above, cards numbered 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, etc. would be predicted as scarce....no? Or am I missing something?

[tedzan]

My sheet is missing the leftmost column of cards (#1, 10, 19 and 28). Bowman took their Small set and enlarged the size of
their cards in order to compete with the very popular larger 1952 Topps BB cards.
Bowman had not yet increased the printing press track to 43 inches (used in the printing of all their cards from 1953 to 1955).

In order to print all 144 cards in their FB set, they had to cut down the size of the cardboard to fit the press's track. Thereby,
cards on the rightmost column and the leftmost column of an original 36-card sheet were truncated.

That resulted in, all cards divisible by 9 are short-printed. And, all cards divisible by 9 (+ 1) are short-printed.





TED Z

[Volod]

Thanks Ted:
I think I read your article in BBC mag back in the '80's, but the 32-card sheet kind of stumped me until you explained.

[philliesphan]

To the best of my knowledge, there is only one 1955 Bowman baseball uncut sheet known -- it was pictured in a ~1985 or so Baseball Cards magazine. That uncut sheet was significantly learger than anything Ted has referenced.

Marc