It's 1955 and you have a nickel

[CobbSpikedMe]

I'm surprised at how few folks have said Topps in this scenario. I mean it's not even close. I think I'm the only one who would've chosen the Topps cards.

[1963Topps Set]

I have always been a Topps man myself. I do not like any of the Bowman designs. No thought to them. Topps was bold and innovative. That is my direction and nickel.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I'm surprised at how few folks have said Topps in this scenario. I mean it's not even close. I think I'm the only one who would've chosen the Topps cards.

I would have picked Topps. The 54 Bowman set was the ugliest set of the 50s until they made the 55 Bowman set. The 1955 Topps set is the best Topps set of the 50s and ranks 2nd overall to 1953 Bowman. I can't figure out what happened to Bowman after great sets from 1950-1953. It is like they ceased caring in 1954 and 1955. I hated the 1954 and 1955 Bowman cards as a kid and never tried to collect them.

[egri]

I also would’ve gone with Topps. I’m assuming that I wouldn’t know what each set looked like ahead of time. For me, the big drawback with Bowman is that with the exception of some 1949 cards, 1951 and 1955, they either didn’t put the players name on the front at all, or used a facsimile signature. I don’t like that I have to either decipher their handwriting or know them by face.

[50sBaseball]

I was 8 in July 1955 (almost 9) and grew up outside Hartford, CT and this was my 3rd year collecting cards thanks to the help of older brothers. Topps was our overwhelming favorite. I would have spent my nickel on Topps because 1) that is what my brothers (and some friends) bought and we traded, 2) we were "Topps customers," having bought their brand in the great 1953 and 1954 sets, and 3) I am not sure that Bowman was as available as Topps. Over the year, I too have developed a greater appreciation for the 1955 Bowman...some of their photos inside the colored TV format are pretty good.

[ALR-bishop]

Originally Posted by rats60

I would have picked Topps. The 54 Bowman set was the ugliest set of the 50s until they made the 55 Bowman set. The 1955 Topps set is the best Topps set of the 50s and ranks 2nd overall to 1953 Bowman. I can't figure out what happened to Bowman after great sets from 1950-1953. It is like they ceased caring in 1954 and 1955. I hated the 1954 and 1955 Bowman cards as a kid and never tried to collect them.

Much as Sy Berger was the driving force behind the rise of the Topps baseball card effort, J Warren Bowman was the soul of the Bowman gum company. Demonstrating great timing he sold the company at it's peak in 1951/52 to Connely Containers and the company thereafter lost it's focus in the gum card market.

Connely did make a heroic effort in 1953 to reverse the Bowman market retreat but the Color set, though innovative, was extremely expensive and still underperformed the 53 Topps issue. That plus the increasing cost of litigation over player contracts convinced Connely to exit that business.

Dean's book, The Bubble Gum Card War: The Great Bowman and Topps Sets from 1948 to 1955, is a great account of that rivalry

[ALR-bishop]

Double post

[profholt82]

Interesting. The 53 Bowman set is just beautiful too so it makes sense that it cost them a fortune to produce. That also accounts for the disparity between the quality of their 53 and 54 sets. 57 Topps seems to have taken inspiration from the 53 Bowman, but it pales in comparison in my opinion.

[jmoran19]

I would think who ever had the best gum would factor in for some 8 year olds