1952 Bowman Baseball Picture Cards

[Volod]

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely. The stores in my area of upstate NY were flush with Bowman product, but I can't recall seeing any Topps cards in 1952 - except perhaps in the collections of kids who had travelled to the big city to get them - and those had mostly been scissored down to match the size of the Bowmans. I preferred the Bowman cards anyway - loved the horizontally oriented action poses, especially the catchers - Del Rice, Eddie Fitzgerald. I did not notice the stock variation issue when I was an eight-year-old, but thirty years later, when restarting my collection, it was quite obvious to me that cards in the first two series were often dark and muddy compared to others. It didn't seem to me to be a "variation" phenomenon, however - I simply upgraded to brighter and more vibrant examples. The registration problem did bother me, however, and I put together about four complete sets in the early '80's by continuously upgrading each card to find a sharper looking example. Thanks for your post, and the opportunity to reminisce.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Volod

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely. The stores in my area of upstate NY were flush with Bowman product, but I can't recall seeing any Topps cards in 1952 - except perhaps in the collections of kids who had travelled to the big city to get them - and those had mostly been scissored down to match the size of the Bowmans. I preferred the Bowman cards anyway - loved the horizontally oriented action poses, especially the catchers - Del Rice, Eddie Fitzgerald. I did not notice the stock variation issue when I was an eight-year-old, but thirty years later, when restarting my collection, it was quite obvious to me that cards in the first two series were often dark and muddy compared to others. It didn't seem to me to be a "variation" phenomenon, however - I simply upgraded to brighter and more vibrant examples. The registration problem did bother me, however, and I put together about four complete sets in the early '80's by continuously upgrading each card to find a sharper looking example. Thanks for your post, and the opportunity to reminisce.

This is awesome, I always like hearing from those who remember when the cards were fresh or new. I'm too young to have opened any vintage myself, so I live vicariously through this.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Volod

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely. The stores in my area of upstate NY were flush with Bowman product, but I can't recall seeing any Topps cards in 1952 - except perhaps in the collections of kids who had travelled to the big city to get them - and those had mostly been scissored down to match the size of the Bowmans. I preferred the Bowman cards anyway - loved the horizontally oriented action poses, especially the catchers - Del Rice, Eddie Fitzgerald. I did not notice the stock variation issue when I was an eight-year-old, but thirty years later, when restarting my collection, it was quite obvious to me that cards in the first two series were often dark and muddy compared to others. It didn't seem to me to be a "variation" phenomenon, however - I simply upgraded to brighter and more vibrant examples. The registration problem did bother me, however, and I put together about four complete sets in the early '80's by continuously upgrading each card to find a sharper looking example. Thanks for your post, and the opportunity to reminisce.

Thank you. That is cool to read! I can't imagine opening packs of these. That's just awesome! I love reading first hand accounts like this.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Volod

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely.

Reviewing this thread again (because as I said, this is my favorite set too).

Volod, I do have a question: How big was the gum that came with these cards? Where they big "card size" rectangles? Smaller rectangles like 80's era Topps cards? Stick gum like wrigleys? Was the gum wrapped, or did it just sit on top of the card? While the wax stains are very common on the back of these cards, I'm not sure I've ever seen an actual gum stain.

Just wondering what it was like to actually open a pack of these!

[G1911]

If I may add on - whose gum tasted better in the 50’s, Topps or Bowman?

[GasHouseGang]

I always loved the smell of opening any cards that came with gum. I'm not old enough to have tasted the Bowman gum, but I always liked the 1960's non-sports cards. There was always a variety of gum in those. Here's a few of my 1952 Bowmans.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I always loved the smell of opening any cards that came with gum. I'm not old enough to have tasted the Bowman gum, but I always liked the 1960's non-sports cards. There was always a variety of gum in those. Here's a few of my 1952 Bowmans.

Those are some great looking cards! That's definitely one of the nicer 52 Bowman Musials I have seen. That is one of my favorite baseball cards ever...I think it just looks like a masterpiece.

And I'm sure you've noticed how the 52 Bowman Mantle has been surging in price the last few months. I'm wondering if they will come back down to "pre pandemic" prices, or if these prices are the new normal.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Those are some great looking cards! That's definitely one of the nicer 52 Bowman Musials I have seen. That is one of my favorite baseball cards ever...I think it just looks like a masterpiece.

And I'm sure you've noticed how the 52 Bowman Mantle has been surging in price the last few months. I'm wondering if they will come back down to "pre pandemic" prices, or if these prices are the new normal.

I agree, the Musial is one of my favorites. It was the first 52 Bowman I bought. The Mantle price has been going crazy lately and I'm not sure why. It very well may drop back to what used to be its "regular" price.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Reviewing this thread again (because as I said, this is my favorite set too).

Volod, I do have a question: How big was the gum that came with these cards? Where they big "card size" rectangles? Smaller rectangles like 80's era Topps cards? Stick gum like wrigleys? Was the gum wrapped, or did it just sit on top of the card? While the wax stains are very common on the back of these cards, I'm not sure I've ever seen an actual gum stain.

Just wondering what it was like to actually open a pack of these!

you're really busting my feeble memory cells with that question. As best as I recall, the Bowman gum was a flat pink rectangle the same size as the cards, and since the cards had gum dust on them, I don't think there was any buffering in the waxpack. I have also been puzzled by the high percentage of cards that show stains on the reverse. Since the 5-cent packs had six cards, only one of the cards could have been in contact with a gum slab, and I seem to recall the gum usually being right on top - contacting the front of the card - when my grubby little fingers ripped it open. So, I have to believe that the stains, as common as they are, were perhaps caused by wax from the wrapper - maybe being still warm during the packing process. But, that still would not seem to account for the high percerntage of staining, since even that causal factor would only affect one of the six cards in each pack. So, another mystery of time and space, I guess. And, to your other question - I don't recall noticing any difference in the gum used by Bowman and Topps. If you look at the ingredients listed on the packs, they seem to be the same toxic junk, so maybe some kids just liked one brand a lot more because they happened to find a Mantle or Mays in the pack, instead of another duplicate of Peanuts Lowrey.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Volod

you're really busting my feeble memory cells with that question. As best as I recall, the Bowman gum was a flat pink rectangle the same size as the cards, and since the cards had gum dust on them, I don't think there was any buffering in the waxpack. I have also been puzzled by the high percentage of cards that show stains on the reverse. Since the 5-cent packs had six cards, only one of the cards could have been in contact with a gum slab, and I seem to recall the gum usually being right on top - contacting the front of the card - when my grubby little fingers ripped it open. So, I have to believe that the stains, as common as they are, were perhaps caused by wax from the wrapper - maybe being still warm during the packing process. But, that still would not seem to account for the high percerntage of staining, since even that causal factor would only affect one of the six cards in each pack. So, another mystery of time and space, I guess. And, to your other question - I don't recall noticing any difference in the gum used by Bowman and Topps. If you look at the ingredients listed on the packs, they seem to be the same toxic junk, so maybe some kids just liked one brand a lot more because they happened to find a Mantle or Mays in the pack, instead of another duplicate of Peanuts Lowrey.

Thanks for the response! So it sounds like the gum WAS a big, card size rectangle (not like the thin, brittle pieces I grew up opening in my 80's Topps packs).

As for the number of wax stains, I guess that might come down to how many 5 cent packs were sold as opposed to the 1 cent packs. I know there were two types of packs (as I've seen both wrappers for sale). Sounds like you were opening 5 cent packs, but I *THINK* I read somewhere that 1 cent packs were more common (1 cent = 1 card). So EVERY card in the 1 cent pakcs would have been touching the back of the wrapper. I feel like at least 50% (if not more) of the 1952 Bowmans have wax staining...so the 1 cent packs being more common would make sense.

I also appreciate you clearing up that Bowman and Topps gum pretty much tasted the same

This did get me thinking about the 5 cent packs with 6 cards. To my knowledge, the 5 cent packs only contained one piece of gum...so by 1952 the cards were DEFINITELY the main draw for buying packs (as opposed to the gum). In the 30's, I don't think Goudey had any 'multi-card' packs...so I wonder if kids in the 1930's still were mostly after the gum (and it was cool that they also got a card), of if they still would have put down a nickle for multiple cards, but only one piece of gum?

[Volod]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Thanks for the response! So it sounds like the gum WAS a big, card size rectangle (not like the thin, brittle pieces I grew up opening in my 80's Topps packs).

As for the number of wax stains, I guess that might come down to how many 5 cent packs were sold as opposed to the 1 cent packs. I know there were two types of packs (as I've seen both wrappers for sale). Sounds like you were opening 5 cent packs, but I *THINK* I read somewhere that 1 cent packs were more common (1 cent = 1 card). So EVERY card in the 1 cent pakcs would have been touching the back of the wrapper. I feel like at least 50% (if not more) of the 1952 Bowmans have wax staining...so the 1 cent packs being more common would make sense.

I also appreciate you clearing up that Bowman and Topps gum pretty much tasted the same

This did get me thinking about the 5 cent packs with 6 cards. To my knowledge, the 5 cent packs only contained one piece of gum...so by 1952 the cards were DEFINITELY the main draw for buying packs (as opposed to the gum). In the 30's, I don't think Goudey had any 'multi-card' packs...so I wonder if kids in the 1930's still were mostly after the gum (and it was cool that they also got a card), of if they still would have put down a nickle for multiple cards, but only one piece of gum?

Agree with most of your points. Since my pack-opening days were as an eight to ten year old kid, I have to think there may be some gaps in my recall, as well as some subjectivity in what I do recall. Agree that by the '50's, the gum was no longer the main attraction in a pack of cards. The advent of television had made the games and the players much more alluring to kids than bubblegum. Personally, I think I only chewed the gum because it was there and quickly discarded it. I am of the opinion that both Topps and Bowman used different marketing strategies based on population density. In my small town, I only saw five-cent packs and was surprised to learn many years later that there were one-centers. Perhaps the one-cents packs were mainly distributed in larger cities, and rarely found in smaller markets. However, I find it difficult to believe that the reason for the stain prevalence is that so many more one-cent packs were produced than five's, with most of the surviving cards having come out of one-cent packs. Seems doubtful that anyone has ever thought of doing an actual analysis of the stains on cards. Perhaps guys working in the production facility back then simply moved quickly from pouring wax to collating cards and gave no thought to washing their hands. Seems as plausible to me as any other theory.