1951 Topps Red Back Panels

[steve B]

There was a big find of those singlecard packs in the late 70s /early 80's, and at the time they were really inexpensive. I didn't spring for a pack at I think $10 or 15, but did buy a few wrappers for $5 for maybe 3 of them.

They're still pretty cheap compared to other unopened stuff from the 50's.

[toppcat]

The Doubles were issued in 1952 (so are a reissue) with no candy and they must have paid some poor slob to separate all the cards! Why not just fold them over? Pretty sure the reissue was to get around legal problems with Bowman.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by toppcat

The Doubles were issued in 1952 (so are a reissue) with no candy and they must have paid some poor slob to separate all the cards! Why not just fold them over? Pretty sure the reissue was to get around legal problems with Bowman.

I had thought that the caramel candy was used in Topps original issue in order to do an end run around legal concerns with Bowman's monopoly on "gum" cards. So, it seems like Topps just dropped the godawful candy altogether and reissued the cards alone to clear out their overstock.

[ALR-bishop]

There were never any contracts that provided a player could not authorize the use of their likeness in any other context. Topps and Bowman used contracts that purported to provide for the exclusive use of a player's likeness marketed with gum, candy or confections....the products both were peddling. Candy proved to be pretty messy

After Bowman was bought by Topps subsequent market entrants such as Fleer and Leaf could have always marketed cards with no insert, or with an insert other than gum and confections. But the market, kids, seemed to expect something. Fleer tied horrible cookies and Leaf tried marbles. Neither made a dent in the cards with gum market

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Volod

I had thought that the caramel candy was used in Topps original issue in order to do an end run around legal concerns with Bowman's monopoly on "gum" cards. So, it seems like Topps just dropped the godawful candy altogether and reissued the cards alone to clear out their overstock.

They still managed to get sued by Bowman over the use of the word "Baseball" in 1951. This probably right around the time the Blue Backs (and related ML All Stars) got released and that ended all their Baseball Candy Distribution for the 1951 season. The case wasn't decided until March 31, 1952 with Topps prevailing on that front. Overstock yes, but without a confection in the Doubles packs and with the word "baseball" very small compared to "Doubles".

I'd be curious when the Doubles were actually released in 1952 and why Topps thought to step on their Giant Size 1952 cards with them. It's highly probable to my mind they came out before the regular 1952 cards.