1952 Bowman Large

[jefferyepayne]

You opened up a huge wound bringing this set up, Robert. 1952 Bowman L was one of the first one I completed when I started my to build pre-70s mainstream sets. Unfortunately my tastes have change in cards over time and now I wish I had been more choosy in the cards I bought. Someday I'll get around to perhaps upgrading some of them.

What a wonderful set to look at, though. I like all of the early Bowman sets but the large format of this set coupled with the dramatic colors just makes these cards POP.

Here are a few of the nicer ones I've got.







The only graded card I have in this set is the LAST card I was able to find. It's one of the short prints and was a bear to track down.



jeff

[revmoran]

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

You opened up a huge wound bringing this set up, Robert. 1952 Bowman L was one of the first one I completed when I started my to build pre-70s mainstream sets. Unfortunately my tastes have change in cards over time and now I wish I had been more choosy in the cards I bought. Someday I'll get around to perhaps upgrading some of them.

What a wonderful set to look at, though. I like all of the early Bowman sets but the large format of this set coupled with the dramatic colors just makes these cards POP.

Here are a few of the nicer ones I've got.







The only graded card I have in this set is the LAST card I was able to find. It's one of the short prints and was a bear to track down.



jeff

Always happy to help, Jeff! Those are some nice looking cards. I am afraid 52 Large might be a little out of my reach in the grade range I would want. I think it is a beautiful set. I am going to keep pricing it just to make sure before I give up on the idea. The 60s stuff is probably more my speed, and I am good with that. Meanwhile, I enjoy living vicariously through you guys.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[mmier118]

I don't have any pictures handy, but I'm putting this set together and it's really grown on me. I like how the sp's add an extra layer of difficulty in putting the run together. I didn't really have trouble picking up the sp's in psa 4-6 range, I did have to pay up for them though, but overall I didn't think it was too bad. From my short time watching for them I was surprised at how many lansford's showed up, and thought that conerly, stydahar, and Ronzani were more elusive. I guess Lansford could just get listed more often because of its reputation. I like how this set has a great mix of rc's and veterans, I find it amazing that most sports fans know baseballs HOF'ers of the era like Ted Williams, Willie Mays and Mantle, but when I ask my friends if they know who Otto Graham or Sammy Baugh are I just get blank a blank stare. They for sure don't know Hugh Mcelhenny or Steve Van Buren. I guess that's one of the reasons I enjoy this set, 1935 chicle and 1894 Mayo, these are the sets that have helped me learn about the pioneers of the game and I find their history to be amazing.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by mmier118

I did have to pay up for them though, but overall I didn't think it was too bad. From my short time watching for them I was surprised at how many lansford's showed up, and thought that conerly, stydahar, and Ronzani were more elusive. I guess Lansford could just get listed more often because of its reputation.

It is a myth that Lansford is more difficult to find in higher grade than the other SPs in this set. In fact, the entire concept in the hobby that the first and last cards in a set are found in lower quality is a myth perpetuated by the price guides. There is no evidence this is true at all. Stydahar and Ronzani were a BEAR to find and their prices were high.

Originally Posted by mmier118

I like how this set has a great mix of rc's and veterans, I find it amazing that most sports fans know baseballs HOF'ers of the era like Ted Williams, Willie Mays and Mantle, but when I ask my friends if they know who Otto Graham or Sammy Baugh are I just get blank a blank stare. They for sure don't know Hugh Mcelhenny or Steve Van Buren. I guess that's one of the reasons I enjoy this set, 1935 chicle and 1894 Mayo, these are the sets that have helped me learn about the pioneers of the game and I find their history to be amazing.

I love the history of the game too, Mike! It is frustrating how little the NFL seems to care about the history of the game. MLB does a much better job glorifying its past and propping up its stars from previous eras. For the NFL, if it happened before Super Bowl I, it's like it never happened at all.

jeff

[jefferyepayne]

A few more that aren't too bad.









jeff