It's 1955 and you have a nickel

[ALR-bishop]

Crack still might be cheaper than some packs today.

[62corvette]

I lived this choice. The corner grocery store was a block away in Scottsbluff, NB. by the time I got there with my nickel, Bobby Forrest (whose dad was the Cadillac dealer) usually had bought the boxes of Topps. I did buy a Topps pack (1955) that I remember well, because in it was a green 1954 Topps #50 Yogi Berra. I still haven’t figured that out. This particular store never stocked Bowman. If they had, I would have bought those.

[Volod]

It seems that geographic distribution quirks may play a considerable role in this contest. On the other hand, I wonder if the "poll" might be tainted by more recent bias in the hobby toward Topps and against Bowman. In July of 1955, however, I don't think most kids were even paying much attention to cards, as summertime diversions of other sorts were more attractive. Like most kinder of that time period, I had collected cards as a seven to ten-year-old, and my fondest recollection is of the 1953 sets from both companies. But, by the spring of '55, my interests had turned to eleven-year-old girls and sports generally, so that the only card set I actually could later recall from that year is the Bowman, probably because of its unusual design, plus the fact that Bowman had to some extent cornered the card market in my small hometown.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I'm happy to see some more votes for Topps in this scenario. Like I said in my initial post, when I was 8 in real life I didn't like the Bowman cards. That wasn't in the actual 50's of course, but still. As a kid, it was all Topps for me. Now I actually love the old Bowman sets and really like the 55's, but not then.

[pawpawdiv9]

Between a KFC & McDonalds-- i'd go for a 15c burger or 20c shake.

[flkersn]

I was ten and in my first “real” year of colllecting. (I had picked up a few 1954 packs late the previous year—loved Topps,hated the bowman.)

So when 1955 started, I bought Topps and was disappointed that they were horizontal and looked so similar 1954 pictures. In my area (upstate New York) stores carried either Topps or Bowman (like Coke and Pepsi today). I went to a store that sold bowman and picked up a pack. Loved the design, and kept buying Bowman, eventually completing the entire set. I did not mind the umpire cards, since they were as much a part of the game as the players. And they were pretty colorful characters. The write-ups on the backs were often just short of hilarious. I was fascinated by the blonde TV sets in the first series.

The Topps looked more like comic books and the Bowman looked more like real life.

AND there were more cards in the pack. I don’t remember much difference in the gum. Besides I traded the gun to my sister for her cards.

Good memories.

Bill

[Exhibitman]

I'd loan the nickel to the dumb kid down the block for 6 cents the next week, then loan the 6 cents out and so on until I had a dime to buy one of each.

As for which pack to buy under the OP rules, I'd have gone with Bowman. More cards and bigger names. I mean, watching my friends rip the Topps packs, I'd have wondered "who are these guys?" This Koufax guy hasn't ever played ball before, and nobody with a name like Harmon Killebrew will ever be a ballplayer. And "Roberto", I'm not sure about that. Besides, he hit only .257 in the minors and the Pirates suck anyway.

[Zach Wheat]

If I were alive at that time I would buy the '55 Topps. I would have been one of the first to buy them and not aware that the set didn't have Mantle until assembling the set.