What set sealed Bowman's fate?

[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.

[Paul S]

In an effort not to replicate many of the astute comments above and focusing on the vibrancy of the card sets, unless a person went to a game, they were otherwise relegated to seeing players in black and white -- whether the occasional game on TV or in newpapers. I still can't choose between the '55T or B sets because the T still pops out with color and the television B was such a great idea (who had a color TV back then?). Personally, although I have alot of 54Bs and enjoy them for the player selection, I find it a drab set, especially compared to the 54Ts. Regardless of quality players in the repsective sets, the Topps, being so colorful, must of had an impact on the buyer. I think Bowman dropped the ball that year -- maybe they were still making up the cost of their gorgeous color 53s (the last series B&W being a tell-tale sign).

[Brianruns10]

Yeah, the 54 Bowman is the weakest Bowman set...it looks like a weak carbon copy of the 52 Topps, and sort of represents a creative hesitation on their part. If they'd stuck with perfecting the full color process they tried in '53, they could've been years ahead of Topps and their '57 set.

Though they made an admirable recovery with the 55 set, and I would've loved to have seen their 56 set, with it's fence-hole concept, come to fruition. It was certainly more intriguing that Topps' 56 carbon copy of their own '55s.

[darkhorse9]

I agree that it would have been fun to see the "knot hole" cards, but all indications that I have heard from the famous Bowman test portfolios was that the design that Bowman would have used in 1956 would be the one that looks like the 1957 Topps football set. I think that would have been another loser for Bowman.

[toppcat]

It was more of a 30 month decline than any one set killing off the cards I think. Bowman started selling a smaller number of non sports sets starting in 1954 and when the 1955 Football set could not compete against Topps, their Chairman, John Connelly, decided to sell out to Topps for $200K. He took the money and sank it into Crown Cork & Seal and became quite wealthy. I don't think Bowman could compete with the Topps distribution network or keep up with their legal fees in the course of two lawsuits and related appeals over baseball player contracts. I am reasonably certain one of the reasons Bowman made black and white cards in 1953 was to stop paying Joe DiMaggio (their hired spokesman for the color set) royalties on the sale of color baseball cards but I can't find the contract to prove it.

There is story out there too (unconfirmed I believe) that Topps had been promised the 1956 NFL license by Bert Bell. If true, that may have been the final straw but I think it's one of those Sy Berger "stories" so who knows?

FYI-John Connelly owned Connelly Containers, which made shipping cartons for Bowman and that company owned Bowman at the time of the sale after Connelly had wrangled control of the board away from the prior directors. Warren Bowman had been gone almost five years by the time Topps bought them out.

[Volod]

Very interesting info, Dave - thanks for providing that. I agree that the 1953 DiMaggio contract was probably a very significant factor in Bowman's financial woes. The production of the final series in black and white seems to me a definite indication that legally the company was only obligated to pay Joe D. for the color cards, and thus weaseled out when they began to realize they had bought a pig in a poke.

[stewbacca]

In reguards to player selection, didnt the players have contracts with each company? If you signed with Bowman, you didnt have a Topps card and vice versa. I thought Bowman had the better players under contract at first.