What If Bowman issued a '42 Play Ball Set...Sets that never were

[Phil68]

This is...kind of a pre-war thread...it's intended for creative guys and I hope it's somewhat informative...

Gum, Inc of Philadelphia produced all sorts of trading cards to offer with their Blony bubble gum. Production ceased for WW2. In addition, legal battled with a partner made production difficult along the way, as well.

So, obviously, Jacob Bowman issued sets from '48-'55 upon his return after WW2. He issued them--not as Play Ball--which was wildly successful from '39-'41--but under his name that were relatively poorly received. Most folks had no idea that Bowman WAS Philadelphia-based Gum, Inc.
Today, we adore them. However, back in 1952, the market shifted back to Topps Gum. Jacob Bowman eventually would sell to Topps in 1956.

In 2018, my company issued a 1942 Play Ball set. It's scaled back considerably from the actual '41 set. We figured war-time rations would have scaled back production quite a bit, so color was abandoned with exception to the pale flag on the reverse. But we designed them as they likely would have looked back in the spring of' 42.

Today, my company is producing a retro-set of 1952 Play Ball cards that would have gone toe-to-toe with Topps in the spring of '52. They are larger and using full color oil and crude air brush along with inconsistent color plates. The result is like the 49's & 51's had an oversized baby. Topps made a HUGE departure from their inaugural '51 issue. Dry and air-brush colorization of photos added a life-like feel and the close-ups of player's faces helped make them more popular...had Bowman made such a departure (their 52's are quite similar to their '51's--although beautiful), they may have looked like our retro-set.

In the end, Bowman would have still sold to Topps, eventually, but it's fun to think about a Play Ball set. I'm a huge collector of post-war Bowman's, and I'm having a blast with this '52 set. It is scheduled for 132 cards and will debut in March.

Finally, I enjoy when people do "cards that never were" with existing formats. I get it. But, for me, SETS that never were are my favorite.
I'd love to see everyone's original card designs. Please share them here.

[familytoad]

While I haven't acquired any of these gems (yet), I think these Banty Red cards are simply terrific. An outstanding aesthetic product!!

[Tripredacus]

TCMA released a 1942 Play Ball set in 1983.
https://www.tcdb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid...1942-Play-Ball

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by familytoad

While I haven't acquired any of these gems (yet), I think these Banty Red cards are simply terrific. An outstanding aesthetic product!!

You are so kind! Thank you!

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by Tripredacus

TCMA released a 1942 Play Ball set in 1983.
https://www.tcdb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid...1942-Play-Ball

Those are...interesting. No. Ours is different. It's all original--a 54-card set...here's a scatter of the cards...
I tried like 10 times to upload a 3-card panel and it simply wouldn't work.
This forum is great, but glitches when sharing pictures is definitely a shortcoming.

[Phil68]

Here is a sample of front and back of a card..I use the EXACT same method of posting both images...one comes up fine. The York card comes up like a postage stamp no matter what I do

[rhettyeakley]

Not to be a buzzkill or anything but do you have permission to use the images of players like Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio? The estates of many of the players in your "set" would be a bit upset at your use of their images if you didn't have permission to do so.

Also there is thought that Gum Inc actually did produce cards into 1942 and that is why some 1941 Play Ball cards can be found with and without 1941 copyrights on the first series cards, and potentially making the second series cards a 1942 production.

[Orioles1954]

I think these are pretty cool cards. Definitely not something I would buy but I do like the aesthetic. Are there licensing/likeness issues?

[topcat61]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Not to be a buzzkill or anything but do you have permission to use the images of players like Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio? The estates of many of the players in your "set" would be a bit upset at your use of their images if you didn't have permission to do so.

Also there is thought that Gum Inc actually did produce cards into 1942 and that is why some 1941 Play Ball cards can be found with and without 1941 copyrights on the first series cards, and potentially making the second series cards a 1942 production.

It depends on what state he's in. For instance, I live in Massachusetts where the right of publicity is murky at best. Some states it is clearly defined and others there are no rights of publicity after the person has died.

Anyway, I like the idea that this could invoke younger generations to get interested in Baseball and collect cards. I wouldve loved to have seen what Gum, Inc had in the works for other sports stars in Football, Golf, Boxing and Tennis, especially if they were sticking to their 1941 models. I always wondered if they had some mock-ups stashed away at the printer or George Moll's Ad Agency or something? This is pretty neat.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

I think these are pretty cool cards. Definitely not something I would buy but I do like the aesthetic. Are there licensing/likeness issues?

Hello!
Yes, there are some issues. Nothing money doesn't solve. Luckily, I own thousands of pre-1960s negatives as I am an avid collector for the past 30 years. Hundreds of original Conlon large formats as well--my favorites.
In addition, I use public domain images and many are out of copyright to begin with. I license roughly 6k worth of images each year to use in various projects. That's what eats up all my sales revenue. Of course, I get to keep my cards!
In the end, I have only one guy that doesn't want to be in any sets that have the "Tobacco & Ale" moniker. He suffered from the use of tobacco and I certainly respect that position. The coolest thing is the commissioned work the families request. 1-3 requests a month and it's great to build those relationships with family members. Typically grandsons.
Keep in mind...the populations of my cards--to date--have never reached 9 of any one card. The average population is just under 3. They sell for a few bucks--occasionally more--but it's not a mass-produced retail product.
People may view them differently if they were.

Another thing to note is, they're hand made and, with the exception of the '42s, our only b/w set, the images are hand-painted and there are few laws governing custom artwork. They are mounted to substrates from the approximate decade they represent--which I love. I think I'm the only guy that matters to, Lol.

I'm glad you like them. If you'd like to know more, just drop me a line.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by topcat61

It depends on what state he's in. For instance, I live in Massachusetts where the right of publicity is murky at best. Some states it is clearly defined and others there are no rights of publicity after the person has died.

Anyway, I like the idea that this could invoke younger generations to get interested in Baseball and collect cards. I wouldve loved to have seen what Gum, Inc had in the works for other sports stars in Football, Golf, Boxing and Tennis, especially if they were sticking to their 1941 models. I always wondered if they had some mock-ups stashed away at the printer or George Moll's Ad Agency or something? This is pretty neat.

You are well informed.
You also "get" the idea here. Imagination and fantasy are huge components that draw us to collecting, in general. I am actually hoping there are some other guys here that have some sets or singles that they have made with ORIGINAL designs with a year assigned.
That's what I wanted to draw out in the thread.

[rhettyeakley]

Apparently Phil didn't like my question which I felt was a valid one.

His response to me...


First, you are, indeed a buzzkill...and a rather confrontational one. A simple "hey, that's neat...looks like a shit-ton of work" or just move on. BUT, since you asked, I pay thousands of dollars to license images, use public domain images and, also own thousands of pre 1960 images--including nearly 700 original Conlons. I am a vintage negative collector. You putting "set" in quotes speaks volumes of your level of tolerance for anything you cannot comprehend.

How about "Hey, Phil, how do you handle the licensing on these? How does that work?" in a private message--or even in the thread?
You didn't ask that, because you aren't actually interested in the information or response--only to be a "buzzkill".

Frankly, many estates absolutely love the cards and have them in their possession. There is one fellow that I will not include in any sets as he requested it due to the "tobacco and ale" moniker. I respected that. As far as estates having any say on an image I license and don't retail, not much to talk about there.

The second remark about Play Ball actually doing a '42 set is interesting and more on point. I'm sure he thought about it...he probably thought about a lot of things. At the end of the day--he didn't do a '42.



I am actually not very confrontational on this board and help out other collectors & board members whenever I have a chance and simply asked a question about the use of the images of those players who have estates that protect the images of the players. I know Topps for example has exclusive rights with certain long retired (and deceased) players to produce cards of them.

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Apparently Phil didn't like my question which I felt was a valid one.

His response to me...


First, you are, indeed a buzzkill...and a rather confrontational one. A simple "hey, that's neat...looks like a shit-ton of work" or just move on. BUT, since you asked, I pay thousands of dollars to license images, use public domain images and, also own thousands of pre 1960 images--including nearly 700 original Conlons. I am a vintage negative collector. You putting "set" in quotes speaks volumes of your level of tolerance for anything you cannot comprehend.

How about "Hey, Phil, how do you handle the licensing on these? How does that work?" in a private message--or even in the thread?
You didn't ask that, because you aren't actually interested in the information or response--only to be a "buzzkill".

Frankly, many estates absolutely love the cards and have them in their possession. There is one fellow that I will not include in any sets as he requested it due to the "tobacco and ale" moniker. I respected that. As far as estates having any say on an image I license and don't retail, not much to talk about there.

The second remark about Play Ball actually doing a '42 set is interesting and more on point. I'm sure he thought about it...he probably thought about a lot of things. At the end of the day--he didn't do a '42.



I am actually not very confrontational on this board and help out other collectors & board members whenever I have a chance and simply asked a question about the use of the images of those players who have estates that protect the images of the players. I know Topps for example has exclusive rights with certain long retired (and deceased) players to produce cards of them.

I stand by every word. Although I attempted to keep things between two men private, I predicted you would follow EXACTLY as you did, by posting it. Your type is dreadfully predictable.
You are, indeed, a confrontational, childish fellow.
It's ok. I'm sure you have good qualities, too. This area of one's life is, hopefully, a small sample size.
If you had any inkling of what motivates me and what I do--and, perhaps, vice versa, we would get along well.
Today, you just acted like a woman with a bad haircut , ugg boots and a latte that wants to "see the manager"

Finally, you can see above Orioles54 asked a "legitimate question" and received an honest, detailed, response.
Not being a dick is actually pretty easy. I'm not actually thin skinned...just tired of group think and rudeness.

[Orioles1954]

Hey Phil....three questions for you. Why do you think these “retro themed” art cards are generating such a following? If someone wanted to commission a card what would be your rate? Finally, where in the world did you come up with the brand name? 😀

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Phil68

I stand by every word. Although I attempted to keep things between two men private, I predicted you would follow EXACTLY as you did, by posting it. Your type is dreadfully predictable.
You are, indeed, a confrontational, childish fellow.
It's ok. I'm sure you have good qualities, too. This area of one's life is, hopefully, a small sample size.
If you had any inkling of what motivates me and what I do--and, perhaps, vice versa, we would get along well.
Today, you just acted like a woman with a bad haircut , ugg boots and a latte that wants to "see the manager"

Finally, you can see above Orioles54 asked a "legitimate question" and received an honest, detailed, response.
Not being a dick is actually pretty easy. I'm not actually thin skinned...just tired of group think and rudeness.

Really man, childish name calling now? (although it is funny to be called a "Karen" that actually made me laugh pretty hard) I had a legitimate question that you took personally, all because I put quotes around the word "set". Not sure how this makes you look good in any way? Your cards look nice, your attitude sucks.

What exactly did I post that was rude?

[RCMcKenzie]

I think it's just a misunderstanding between you guys. Quotes can sometimes be taken the wrong way. I think if the cards sold for a lot of money, people would be coming out of the woodwork to get paid...