What set sealed Bowman's fate?

[darkhorse9]

When the baseball card wars heated up it all came down to sales. Which card set did the kids prefer. Certainly Topps hit a home run with the 1952 set, but Bowman had time to fight back. They never could. I doubt kids really were brand loyal back then, so it was all a matter of who delivered the best product.

All things considered which set was the beginning of the end of Bowman's life? Here are my thoughts on each set. What do others think

1952...the set was too similar (almost identical) to the 1951 set. With Topps changing the game, Bowman's fate could have been sealed by the ultimate in standing still. Could that have been simply too much of a lead to make up?

1953...Bowman gave a valiant effort with the Kodachrome photos, but the cost got away from them. This could have been a game changer answer to 1952 but it was just too expensive. Dropping to a black and white series killed any chance at momentum.

1954...a plain ugly set. Bowman went back to colorized pictures while Topps had actual photos. Numerous errors and the loss of Ted Williams hurt as well

1955...a decent idea for a set, capitalizing on a new fad while Topps set was into their (in some cases) third year of using the same photos for players. The inclusion of umpires was a dog of an idea. No kid wanted pictures of umps.

Which set was the biggest dagger to Bowman's efforts in the war?

[t206blogcom]

I disagree with you on the 54 Bowmans. They're one of my favorite post-war sets.

[ALR-bishop]

Did not the Bowman owners make a home run in selling out to Topps when they did at their top market value. They "sealed" it themselves with a kiss

[nolemmings]

I too think Bowman ended up just fine on the deal. And as for '54, I think the Topps design is a winner, but have always thought the kids that year could have considered the set a real dog. There were 3 managers and 23 coaches in a 250 card set!!!! A better than 1 out of 10 chance you'd get some old coot in your pack. And sure, now we know Kaline, Banks and Aaron, but at the time these guys were mere prospects that Topps was just lucky to have signed. I wonder how many of the kids saw these guys as phenoms at the time.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I too think Bowman ended up just fine on the deal. And as for '54, I think the Topps design is a winner, but have always thought the kids that year could have considered the set a real dog. There were 3 managers and 23 coaches in a 250 card set!!!! A better than 1 out of 10 chance you'd get some old coot in your pack. And sure, now we know Kaline, Banks and Aaron, but at the time these guys were mere prospects that Topps was just lucky to have signed. I wonder how many of the kids saw these guys as phenoms at the time.

That's an interesting question, Todd. Back then, people didn't have the internet, or cable TV. Baseball fans then didn't have the exposure to up-and-coming prospects the way we do now. They didn't have access to scouting reports, nor did they know what the hell a 20 to 80 scale was. Ted Williams surely wasn't on the "radar" two years before he stepped onto the field at Fenway for the first time. Kids around America weren't watching him as a San Diego Padre, and they sure weren't watching him blast 500 foot home runs on Youtube.

I returned to the hobby two years ago. Since pretty much day one, I've known about Bryce Harper, and Mike Trout. Their baseball acumen, and raw physical tools, has been written about, and analyzed ad nauseam in Baseball America, Sports Illustrated, etc. I've been watching video of these guys doing their workouts, and taking batting practice, since they were 16 or 17 years old. So before they won the Rookie of the Year Award, I pretty much expected that they'd do it. Their performances at 19 (Harper) and Trout (20) didn't come as a surprise. If I open up a pack of cards now, I not only know who the prospects are, I know where they went to college (or what high school they went to). I know what position they play, I know their floor and ceiling, their relative risk, their injury history, etc. So, I know who the phenoms are going to be a lot of the time. Back then, the only people who really saw greatness early on were the scouts.

[nolemmings]

And one thing more--I may have ranted about this before either here or on another board. Suppose you're a young Cleveland Indians fan in 1954, your team is about to break the Yankee stranglehold of five consecutive World Series appearances in a big way, knocking off the Bombers and winning a record 111 games. Season to remember forever, and the bubblegum cards will help you relive it for all those years.

Your pitching staff includes Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, Mike Garcia (19-8) and Art Houtteman (15-8), and future HOFer Hal Newhouser is in the bullpen with Ray Narleski and Don Mossi. Stud staff--and Topps gives you cards of exactly ZERO of these hurlers. None, nada, zip. The one Cleveland pitcher shown on a '54 Topps card is the world famous Dave Hoskins, who appeared in all of 14 games for the Tribe that magical year. Are you flippin kidding me? If I'm growin up in Cleveland I'd tell Topps to pi$$ on their cards--remember, no checklists, so you keep rippin those packs and coming up with.....Dave Hoskins?

I'm not an Indians fan, but a few years ago I thought about starting a '54 set. There clearly are some iconic rookie cards, two Teddie Ballgames and some cool shots of Berra, Ford, Mathews and Spahn among others. Still, for some reason I just didn't think the set deserved my attention given the lousy player selection and spate of old men, and I spurned it almost as an homage to those kids in '54 who had to endure it.

There, off my soapbox now. I know I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as I chase some prewar sets that don't always have the best player selection and for which maybe some of the same arguments could be made. Still, it seems different for the '54 Topps cards, as the preceding two years had to have built up the young collector's expectations if not hopes and Topps came out and pretty much laid an egg IMHO.

[Harliduck]

Great comments by all, and great thread.

I am three cards away from finishing my 54 Topps set, so knee deep into this at the moment. I agree, they did get lucky with Banks, Kaline, and Aaron and as a kid all the coaches and unheard of players would have been a major bummer. I do believe there was enough stars at the time (Mays, Berra, Spahn, Ford, Ashburn, Rizzuto, Jackie, ect) to keep the interest of the kids and the design by far eclipses Bowman. Advertising Ted Williams in two series was big as well. To me the 54 Topps is one of the most iconic looking sets of the back half of the century.

With that said though, and the reason I will be doing the 54 Bowmans next, is they truly whipped Topps butt with players. No doubt hands down Mantle was the most exciting player of the time so right there enough said. The Indians team players comment was something I hadn't really thought of and have to admit that is spot on for who was hot in 54...if I was an Indians fan I would have felt completely gypped. While i think the Bowmans are truly a beautiful set in their own right, they are smaller and the pictures do not compete. Neither had checklists so that alone was a killer. Does anyone know who Bowman advertised on their wax boxes to entice the kids? I know Topps was all over advertising their rights to Williams. I think that was about the only way a kid could pre determine who had what before they actually spent their money.

As a 54 collector, I am choosing to do both sets to feel like I am completely covering the year. Did the 54 Topps put a nail in Bowmans coffin? I believe history says yes, but as mentioned, they sold at a high to their competition so who really won? I can add this too...as an 11 year old kid when Fleer and Donruss came into the picture in 1981, it was exciting to go into my corner store and have all three on the shelf. I LOVED it. I collected all three and traded off buying packs and hand coalated all three sets in 81, but admit back in then I still would have chose Topps over the others if had to. I have always thought if I was a kid in 54 I would have bought both, and loved trying to get my favorite player in two different cards. I think I would have been dissapointed in 56 to learn I no longer had a choice...that's just my guess coming from my 11 year old experience.

[Volod]

[quote=nolemmings;1109367]And one thing more--I may have ranted about this before either here or on another board. Suppose you're a young Cleveland Indians fan in 1954, your team is about to break the Yankee stranglehold of five consecutive World Series appearances in a big way, knocking off the Bombers and winning a record 111 games. Season to remember forever, and the bubblegum cards will help you relive it for all those years.

Your pitching staff includes Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, Mike Garcia (19-8) and Art Houtteman (15-8), and future HOFer Hal Newhouser is in the bullpen with Ray Narleski and Don Mossi. Stud staff--and Topps gives you cards of exactly ZERO of these hurlers. None, nada, zip. The one Cleveland pitcher shown on a '54 Topps card is the world famous Dave Hoskins, who appeared in all of 14 games for the Tribe that magical year. Are you flippin kidding me? If I'm growin up in Cleveland I'd tell Topps to pi$$ on their cards--remember, no checklists, so you keep rippin those packs and coming up with.....Dave Hoskins?

I'm not an Indians fan, but a few years ago I thought about starting a '54 set. There clearly are some iconic rookie cards, two Teddie Ballgames and some cool shots of Berra, Ford, Mathews and Spahn among others. Still, for some reason I just didn't think the set deserved my attention given the lousy player selection and spate of old men, and I spurned it almost as an homage to those kids in '54 who had to endure it. quote]

Todd - Well, after all, Topps was and is located in NY, so no huge surprise that the good folks in that company did not appreciate the Cleveland Indians trying to stop their heroes from owning every title in sight. Kind of ugly, though, to let childish rooting bias govern their publishing judgement - did they feel that the nickels of kids in the midwest were not as important to their profit picture as their institutional grudge against the infidels? I wish I could say that as a kid, I boycotted Topps for giving short shrift to the Tribe, but at the age of seven or eight, I had no clue why the great Indian hurlers were left out of the 1954 Topps set. Not that I bought much of it - had moved on to building model airplanes after '53.

[the 'stache]

I agree with Al. Bowman's owners made out well, and now Bowman is Topps' best brand.

[Brianruns10]

I thought Bowman was doing an admirable job of competing with Topps, and it rather mystifies me some times that they sold out to the latter. They scored some great players in 54 and 55, and while their sets grew in size, Topps sets shrank every year after 52...the 55 set is downright anemic.

And Bowman kept trying to respond with greater artistry. I think their 55 set was really an outstanding effort, and my dad fondly remembers these cards being the first ones he bought (though sadly they were not saved for whatever reason, unlike his later Topps which he kept).

Meanwhile, I think Topps was a little complacent...re-using the same images year after year...and the 56 set too closely mirrors the 55 for my liking. If I were a kid buying them at the time, I'd have been kinda miffed.

And then they buy out Bowman, and what does Topps do but shrink its card size! From 57 on, I think the each year is diminishing in returns, and none top the artistry of the 52-56 years, when they were in direct competition with Bowman. Goes to show what a competitor will do in terms of impacting the quality of your product.

[Theoldprofessor]

1950 Bowman Williams.jpg1951 Bowman Williams.jpg

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

1952...the set was too similar (almost identical) to the 1951 set. With Topps changing the game, Bowman's fate could have been sealed by the ultimate in standing still. Could that have been simply too much of a lead to make up?

Great thread! But the preceding is, in my opinion, not quite correct. I'm an old guy -- I collected in the early 50s --- and I remember that my friends and I did not care for the set that in many ways replicated the set from the year before. But that was in 1951. Many of those cards were just longer versions of the same picture. See, for example, the Williams entries for 50 and 51.

It's true that the 51 set had more cards, but they were still pretty much ignored, at least in my crowd. We liked the autographed 52s much better, not to mention that set from the new company ... um ... Topps. They were really cool.

[Il Padrino]

Originally Posted by Theoldprofessor

Attachment 94728Attachment 94727


Great thread! But the preceding is, in my opinion, not quite correct. I'm an old guy -- I collected in the early 50s --- and I remember that my friends and I did not care for the set that in many ways replicated the set from the year before. But that was in 1951. Many of those cards were just longer versions of the same picture. See, for example, the Williams entries for 50 and 51.

It's true that the 51 set had more cards, but they were still pretty much ignored, at least in my crowd. We liked the autographed 52s much better, not to mention that set from the new company ... um ... Topps. They were really cool.

Great post, thank you for sharing your early collecting experience. I can only imagine what it must have been like to pull pack fresh Mantles, Joe D, Willie Mays, etc. sure takes you back in time and I wasn't even there.