'54 BOWMANS

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

after looking at the B&W photos on the "look familiar" thread here, i've come to the conclusion that the 1954 bowman is intentionaly colored as it is as to give it a different look than the '53s. IMO it gets little collector respect because it followed the '53 Bowman color set,which is heralded as the most beautiful post war set ever. do you agree or do you feel it is really not a very atractive set,hastily put together on the cheap and just poor colorization.i would especially like to hear comments from people who collected this set as a kid in 1954. what did you think when you first viewed these cards over 50 years ago???

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

Nice timing. I'd been thinking about this set lately, as there's been a little action surrounding it here. I didn't begin to collect them until about 1967, when I really began to put together cards from all the different years. I am always going back and forth about how much I like them (or not.) I'm in a positive frame of mind now about them, but two things usually hold me in check: the combination of there being no real action pictures -- they just look too static for my taste, and whatever the process was that gave them that "pastel" look which diluted any sharpness in the photo. What I like about them most, I guess, is that they put me in a time and place. Not easy for me to dislike any card.

I've wanted to post some anyway, and will do so later on.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

some of my favorites

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Furillo and Reese. Dead centered, stellar colors, booming gloss, etc. I wanted them in those black holders for display.

I'd say some of the 1954s are spectacular, even better than the 1953s, which I always thought were overrated, but then I prefer some identification on the card fronts. Others, however, are crappy looking. I love the Reese, Furillo, Minoso, Roe, Mantle, Williams. I think the Campy is ridiculous; looks like he's wearing a beanie. Mays is washed out. Newcombe is too cartoony; looks like he's pitching in Toon Town.


Edited to Add:

I got them back; they are now in SGC 88 holders. The colors just mesmerize me on these two; never seen any 1954s so vibrant before.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

I always figured Bowman went to the hand-colored photos in '54 because the process was cheaper. The fact that Bowman issued its black and white series '53 after its color series leads me to this conclusion. I've also read on several occassions that Bowman invested heavily in the '53 set and lost a lot of money in the process. Regardless, the '54 and '55 sets pale in comparison to the '53 set, in my opinion. In defense of the '54 and '55 sets, I believe the sets Bowmans issued from 1950 to 1953 contain more great images and better artwork than any other comparably large sets in baseball card history, so they had a hard act to follow ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

Here's some of my HOFers. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that 54 Bowman looks very spiffy in a VG condition but doesn't hold as much eye appeal as other years do once they start to go somewhat South. BTW that's a cat hair on the Campy, not a scratch on the card.


*edited to add: Bowman could have certainly done a better job on the design of the colored rectangles backing the signatures.

[Archive]

Posted By: bobw

I noticed something about the first picture you posted, all your pitchers are playing with their b*lls!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

'54 Bowmans are known to be a very Freudian set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I've always felt that the 54 Bowmans have some of the best pictures in any card set -- the Reese, Furillo, Williams, Mantle, and Snider are all outstanding. But that stupid rectangular box really brings down the overall appeal of the set in my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Harrell

was the 54 Bowmans. I started collecting with both the 52 Topps and Bowman sets when I was 6 or 7 but really got hooked on the 54 Bowmans, especially the players' pics and backgrounds, compared to the 54 Topps or 53 Bowmans. The 55 Bowman tv sets were horrible by comparison. Even today, I still have a special place in my heart for the 54 Bowmans. Brings back memories of going to the mom and pop grocery on the corner by my grammar school and spending part of my lunch money on cards. I liked the 54 Topps Scoop cards too.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

My HOFers:





Including a broadcaster:

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

Is the 54 Campy shown wearing an early batting helmet, or protective cap? It always looked weird to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: bobw

It's a hat, I think the angle and the lens makes it look funny, plus they didn't paint in the eyelets of the hat.

[Archive]

Posted By: George Dreher

Here is a raw one I just picked up recently. Scan doesn't do it justice. Hoping for a PSA-9 when I send it in.

<br/>

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

Dave -- I think that weird "beanie" look is a bit of the distorted fisheye effect that occurs when a camera lens is held too close to the subject being photograph. Sort of like a door peephole. It also gives his face somewhat enlarged features, especially around the nose. Odd angle too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred Y

Amongst my collection of '50's sets I have a complete 1954 Bowman BB in terrific condition--another one of my childhood treasures that has remained virtually untouched since I put it together from wax packs in 1954.

There is 1 vintage card I have always wanted (well, not just 1, as there are MANY I want) but never was able to pick up along the way in all my years---until last week!

I just kinda' stumbled across the listing while jumping around EBay--and something drew me to it and I pulled the trigger, made an offer and it was accepted.

So I now have a REALLY COMPLETE '54 B set--along with the original 224 and the Vic Raschi & Dave Philley Variations which I have had for many years, I have added the one I really wanted--#66A Ted Williams.


While this card is not ultra RARE, it is quite scarce and always commands a nice price, especially in the higher grades. I was drawn to this one because of the fine clarity and cleanliness of the picture, 4 nice square corners, being very decently centered, the reverse being bright w/ no gum stain or fading and it was graded by SGC.

I thought at the time it appeared to be a beautiful card for a EX 5, even allowing for the tiny light stain on the upper rt corner front & back. Now that I have it in hand I am VERY PLEASED w/ the overall appearance and it definitely has the look of a higher grade. It appears to be very ACCURATELY graded and I have no doubt it would be a EX/MT 6 if the lite stain was not present. I paid an even $1,000 for it.

Would be interested in what you all think.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

The 54's get no love. Although I like the 53's and 55's better the 54's are still quite nice. I'm a fan of all the Bowman sets, even the 48's and 49's. Their Football and Non Sports cards are in the visual porn category as well mostly.

A lot of the Bowman photos and artwork are really sharp throughout a wide range of sets. I have to think this is because of the advertising company connection (George Moll) as the composition on Bowman's photos surpasses even the nicest early Topps cards. Topps had better graphics and writers and made more out of less IMHO, but Bowman had better photos and art due to a deeper archive and talent pool.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

Dave, I'm with you on everything you said. I didn't know that about George Moll and the advertising connection -- makes sense to me. Now, I love '53 Topps as much as the next person but can you imagine what the '50 and '51 Bowman's would have looked like if they'd have been that same size?