1953 Topps; White and Black Bio Text

[Cliff Bowman]

Sounds like that dirty trick where the card company purposely didn’t initially print all of the cards in a series to keep kids buying the packs looking for those few cards and then releasing those cards with the next series.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Sounds like that dirty trick where the card company purposely didn’t initially print all of the cards in a series to keep kids buying the packs looking for those few cards and then releasing those cards with the next series.

I'm not certain but while it seems that way, I think Topps may have held some numbers as they were afraid some players would have to be pulled as they got an adverse legal ruling in he middle of Feb. 1953 when Bowman changed tactics on appeal after losing their lawsuit over the 1952 cards. The three DP's in the 1952 Topps highs may have been due to three pulled players and Topps then hedged their bets going in to 1953. Indeed, both Topps and Bowman were both the subject of a temporary injunction issued on May 25, 1953, each prohibited from issuing cards of certain players. They would have had time to create the gaps after the initial ruling and before series one went out, especially since no checklists existed at the time. The final gaps in the 1953 Topps high numbers probably came about due to the injunction. Did Topps also reap a benefit from the missing numbers in terms of additional sales? Undoubtedly.

Topps also hedged their bets by using paintings and not photographs in '53 IMO, trying to circumvent the Bowman contracts, which specifically mentioned photographs.

[Volod]

Thanks for the legal history, Dave. I had not read about Topps using the paintings in '53 specifically to do an end run around "photos" in the Bowman ruling. That would pretty much explain the whole '53 approach. On the other hand, I don't see how any of the transpositioning of cards from one series to another would have resulted in greater profit for Topps, simply because there were no checklists. Kids spending their nickels in '53 might have figured out that five cards were missing from a series, but probably not before the next series was issued - and then there they were. How much extra profit could that have produced? Afterall, kids then were searching for players, not numbers.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Volod

Thanks for the legal history, Dave. I had not read about Topps using the paintings in '53 specifically to do an end run around "photos" in the Bowman ruling. That would pretty much explain the whole '53 approach. On the other hand, I don't see how any of the transpositioning of cards from one series to another would have resulted in greater profit for Topps, simply because there were no checklists. Kids spending their nickels in '53 might have figured out that five cards were missing from a series, but probably not before the next series was issued - and then there they were. How much extra profit could that have produced? Afterall, kids then were searching for players, not numbers.

The skip numbering ploy was started in the 1930's and I guess it worked to a degree. Some kids collected the whole series for sure. How much extra could Topps wring out of it? Not too much I'd say, but that never stopped them from doing something. Their early approach was to issue few big sets, sell a bunch of gum and then add lots of little things that added up to a bigger thing.