1952 Bowman Baseball Picture Cards

[G1911]

The 1952 Bowman’s have become my favorite of the Bowman Baseball issues. With artwork not shared in other sets (unlike 1950 and 1951), I think this was the peak of the 1950-1952 art-based design path. I’m a sucker for art cards and facsimile autos, so this one is near perfection in my book. Talking about this issue with vintagebaseballcardguy last night made me take my box out and go through them for the umpteenth time.

The lower cost of the set has been a huge help in collecting it. Without any major rookies (Minoso is the best, one of my favorite players of the era but not costly), and a pretty simple high number run that is noticeably scarcer than the earlier series but not very difficult, it’s mostly paying up for the names. Mantle, Mays and Musial. I found that Slaughter in the high series tends to go for more than one might expect, but maybe I was just browsing for that one at the wrong time.

I know these were printed in 36 card sheets, but I’m not sure this corresponds exactly to series in the actual pack out. Whether the first 72 cards constitute 2 series or 1, I’m not sure of. Anyone opened a pack of these? The first 72 have 2 distinct variations, a print run on a tannish toned stock with a muddied and darker appearance, or a white-bordered and clearer image variation. Both seem about equally difficult, the muddier cards are certainly less attractive and don’t such a good job exhibiting the colorful artwork.

After picking up Musial on the BST last year, I am down to just Mantle to complete my set, which will definitely be a thoroughly worn beater and will probably cost more than 50% of the total of my set. I got my first one about 20 years ago, Billy Goodman (not bad for a common, .300 lifetime average), and lately have been filling in the Master Se. Besides the 1-72 variations I’m not aware of any others, which would make a master set 324 cards (thankfully, none of the bigger names are in the first series or two, though plenty of Hall of Famers). Perhaps Bowman used two printers to get the cards out in time, or perhaps they corrected an issue with using the lower quality stock and print part way through the run; as far as I can tell there is no real evidence for why they were done in a much lower-quality run .

My set is between poor and vg/ex, with little regard for condition paid while pursuing completion. Round corners and a crease are a card that has been loved to me. It would feel out of place to have 4 sharp corners! The only condition I’ve cared about is avoiding out of focus/misaligned cards, as the art is the great appeal to me in this issue.

Attached are my favorites among the Hall of Famers (I know Minnie isn’t in, but he feels like one to me). Snider clobbering one out of the park and Irvin in the batting care are particularly great poses. As a Bay Area native that grew up on stories of Willie Mays being the God of Baseball, it does bother me that his autograph is depicted as “Willie May”. Michaels and Hutchinson show the difference between the two printing variations in cards 1-72. Most cards are pretty easy to tell which version they are in photos, in hand the difference is pretty big.

The commons in this set shine, tough to pick only a few of the highlight poses, but these are some of mine. The background of the Coan card always stands out to my eyes, and Stanky is probably my favorite if I have to pick one.

Any one else love this issue? Have a favorite pose or image or player? Any oddities, errors or notes? Or do you passionately dislike the art style and those fake signatures that don't even look like the player's writing half the time?

[ALR-bishop]

G-- I have the set and like it but also have the 52 Topps set and prefer it. Not sure if bigger is better, but I think that is one reason I lean that way, and maybe why the market then did as well.

Good luck on finishing with the Mantle. Your passion for collecting the set is great to see. Good post

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Great post, Greg! '52 B is a really pretty set, and I am enjoying putting it together as well. I just happen to have further to go than only Mantle at this point, but there's no rush. The fun is in the journey. Like you, I am building mine in lower grade...avoiding writing, paper loss, miscuts, etc. You are correct, the cards hold up pretty well. I am finding that some condition issues are harder to see once the cards are in my binder. They are relatively affordable as well.

The era from roughly 1950 to about 1956 or 1957 is my very favorite era of baseball history, and this set (for me at least) really helps to tell the story of this era. I read about this era extensively, and it is fun for me to obtain many of the commons almost as much as some of the stars because I have read about those common players. It is rewarding being able to put a face with the name from the book.

I think you forgot to attach your scans. I'd love to see them. This could be a fun thread. Most of my set isn't within my reach at the moment, but I will get my hands on it and share some of my favorites as well.

[G1911]

Sorry, it looks like some images uploaded last night are now not appearing in threads anymore, presumably due to the software issues. Trying again

[G1911]

It works now!

And here's an extra of a favorite card for me in the set. Ferris Fain was an excellent player, he did win 2 batting titles in the American League. My grandfather grew up in San Francisco in the time before the Giants had moved to the left coast, and to this day swears that DiMaggio and Ferris Fain are the most important SF ballplayers there ever were, though he does concede that that Mr. Mays fellow was pretty special too. Fain may be a common, but he's a special card in my book for sentimental reasons

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sorry, it looks like some images uploaded last night are now not appearing in threads anymore, presumably due to the software issues. Trying again

Awesome stuff! Thank you for sharing. I love those cards! They look great together. Your story about your grandfather and Fain is cool as well. Personal connections enhance enjoyment of these cards.

I learn something new everyday it seems. Before you mentioned it, I didn't know about the two tones/border colors. Those examples make it obvious. I am curious, are there any differences reflected on the backs? I mean can you tell the two versions apart by looking at the backs at all?

[Volod]

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely. The stores in my area of upstate NY were flush with Bowman product, but I can't recall seeing any Topps cards in 1952 - except perhaps in the collections of kids who had travelled to the big city to get them - and those had mostly been scissored down to match the size of the Bowmans. I preferred the Bowman cards anyway - loved the horizontally oriented action poses, especially the catchers - Del Rice, Eddie Fitzgerald. I did not notice the stock variation issue when I was an eight-year-old, but thirty years later, when restarting my collection, it was quite obvious to me that cards in the first two series were often dark and muddy compared to others. It didn't seem to me to be a "variation" phenomenon, however - I simply upgraded to brighter and more vibrant examples. The registration problem did bother me, however, and I put together about four complete sets in the early '80's by continuously upgrading each card to find a sharper looking example. Thanks for your post, and the opportunity to reminisce.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Awesome stuff! Thank you for sharing. I love those cards! They look great together. Your story about your grandfather and Fain is cool as well. Personal connections enhance enjoyment of these cards.

I learn something new everyday it seems. Before you mentioned it, I didn't know about the two tones/border colors. Those examples make it obvious. I am curious, are there any differences reflected on the backs? I mean can you tell the two versions apart by looking at the backs at all?

The backs appear to me to be indistinguishable, the same scratchy grey stock. Both seem to be about equally common, though my base set had more of the white stock cards because I think they look nicer.

Pretty sure these are something like the 1962 Topps Green Tints, a low budget print run or outsourced to a different than normal print shop to meet a deadline.

I think these are definitely 'true' variations, but a pretty boring one. I'm having fun using it as an excuse to build the first 2 series again! Thank the Lord Mickey isn't in the run affected...