1952 Bowman Baseball Picture Cards

[G1911]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Awesome stuff! Thank you for sharing. I love those cards! They look great together. Your story about your grandfather and Fain is cool as well. Personal connections enhance enjoyment of these cards.

I learn something new everyday it seems. Before you mentioned it, I didn't know about the two tones/border colors. Those examples make it obvious. I am curious, are there any differences reflected on the backs? I mean can you tell the two versions apart by looking at the backs at all?

The backs appear to me to be indistinguishable, the same scratchy grey stock. Both seem to be about equally common, though my base set had more of the white stock cards because I think they look nicer.

Pretty sure these are something like the 1962 Topps Green Tints, a low budget print run or outsourced to a different than normal print shop to meet a deadline.

I think these are definitely 'true' variations, but a pretty boring one. I'm having fun using it as an excuse to build the first 2 series again! Thank the Lord Mickey isn't in the run affected...

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by G1911

The backs appear to me to be indistinguishable, the same scratchy grey stock. Both seem to be about equally common, though my base set had more of the white stock cards because I think they look nicer.

Pretty sure these are something like the 1962 Topps Green Tints, a low budget print run or outsourced to a different than normal print shop to meet a deadline.

I think these are definitely 'true' variations, but a pretty boring one. I'm having fun using it as an excuse to build the first 2 series again! Thank the Lord Mickey isn't in the run affected...

I fully agree on the Mantle..gulp! Thanks for the info on these. I'll admit, if/when I get a complete set, I would be open to picking up those "other" first 72 again.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Received this Mays for my set today. Very happy with it!

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Hey guys, glad to see 1952 Bowman being discussed.

This is also my favorite vintage set. I have been building a mid-grade (mostly EX) set for the last three years. I am 90% of the way done, and just a couple weeks ago, pulled the trigger on a Mantle. So I have all of the high dollar cards already purchased (Mantle, Mays, Musial, Berra, Snider) and most of the other hall of famers.

I'm honestly in no rush, because I really enjoy the pursuit. When I finish the set, I'll be sure to post some pics and some stats along the way. I keep records of when I get the cards, where they come from (i.e. in person, online as well as state shipped from), etc.

As of now, I don't plan on getting both versions of cards 1 - 72. I definitely prefer the whiter versions, but I have a mix of both. I don't think I would necessarily enjoy having duplicates of all those cards.

However, I do have the other major variation...the #248 Bill Werle "missing part of signature" card (as you can see in the picture below, the variation has part of the "W" missing in his signature). This one can be fairly hard to track down (in a reasonable price). You can usually find some very over priced ones on Ebay at any given time....but if you are patient, I've found that the variations comes up a couple times a year in a straight auction format...and that's how I acquired mine.

Another interesting bit of information I found online was this old blogpost that discusses the series release dates based on trades. I can't vouch for who wrote this, or the accuracy, but I think it gives a valid estimation of WHEN the different series were released.

https://pjdenterprises.com/baseball_...52_bowman.html


At any rate, keep posting your updates and thoughts on the 1952 Bowman set...because I could read about it all day.

Here are a couple pics from my set for now...both versions of the Werle, as well as my newly acquired Mantle.

E18861C3-EE16-411E-99ED-686047E808C7.jpg

Mantle.JPG

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Received this Mays for my set today. Very happy with it!

Oh, and I forgot to mention vintagebaseballcardguy, that Mays is sweet. Crease free and a good image. Thanks for sharing.

Mine is centered pretty much like yours (which is to say, pretty off centered). But those high numbers are almost IMPOSSIBLE to find perfectly centered...and when they are, they typically sell for a premium.

So I'm perfectly fine with off centered high numbers...because that's how the kids were pulling them out of the packs back in 1952

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Oh, and I forgot to mention vintagebaseballcardguy, that Mays is sweet. Crease free and a good image. Thanks for sharing.

Mine is centered pretty much like yours (which is to say, pretty off centered). But those high numbers are almost IMPOSSIBLE to find perfectly centered...and when they are, they typically sell for a premium.

So I'm perfectly fine with off centered high numbers...because that's how the kids were pulling them out of the packs back in 1952

Thanks! I am trying to keep my spending in check on this set, so I was satisfied with this particular Mays, especially considering the centering difficulties that plague those highs. Like you said, I was happy to find one minus creases and with a decent image. Your Mantle is killer! I look forward to giving that link you provided a read. Thanks.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

The backs appear to me to be indistinguishable, the same scratchy grey stock. Both seem to be about equally common, though my base set had more of the white stock cards because I think they look nicer.

Pretty sure these are something like the 1962 Topps Green Tints, a low budget print run or outsourced to a different than normal print shop to meet a deadline.

I think these are definitely 'true' variations, but a pretty boring one. I'm having fun using it as an excuse to build the first 2 series again! Thank the Lord Mickey isn't in the run affected...

Just different stock, probably from a separate press run at the same printing plant. Topps did the same in certain years and series. The stock that stays white I call brilliant white.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Just different stock, probably from a separate press run at the same printing plant. Topps did the same in certain years and series. The stock that stays white I call brilliant white.

Reminds me a little of '57 Topps, with some of the photography being a little brighter and some a little muddier.

[G1911]

Very nice Willie "May"!

I'm looking for a Werle still, I'd classify this as a recurring print defect, but it's tough to acquire. There are plenty of them out there, but those selling think they are worth like 10x the ones that have actually transacted.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm looking for a Werle still, I'd classify this as a recurring print defect, but it's tough to acquire. There are plenty of them out there, but those selling think they are worth like 10x the ones that have actually transacted.

I think one thing that helps keep the actual price down for the Werle in a straight auction is that the 1952 Bowman is so much less popular than 1952 Topps. And as a collector, that is fine with me...as it feels like this set is a relative bargain, even though I personally greatly prefer them to Topps due to the artwork. I think a similar scarce variation/error/defect in 1952 Topps would sell for MUCH higher. If you look at the pop report on PSA and SGC, they are really low (but granted, I feel like some of them were graded PRIOR to it being identified as a variation).

Not much info here, but here is a short thread from 2007 with a couple Net54 members discussing the rarity:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ighlight=werle

With patience, it feels like a mid-grade Werle variation should be valued in the $50 to $80 range. But you're right, they are often listed with it Buy It Now price of about 10x that.

I feel like quite often, sellers don't really know what they have...so they aren't listed as "missing signature". Only those of us that are actively looking at the scans are identifying them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

I think one thing that helps keep the actual price down for the Werle in a straight auction is that the 1952 Bowman is so much less popular than 1952 Topps. And as a collector, that is fine with me...as it feels like this set is a relative bargain, even though I personally greatly prefer them to Topps due to the artwork. I think a similar scarce variation/error/defect in 1952 Topps would sell for MUCH higher. If you look at the pop report on PSA and SGC, they are really low (but granted, I feel like some of them were graded PRIOR to it being identified as a variation).

Not much info here, but here is a short thread from 2007 with a couple Net54 members discussing the rarity:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ighlight=werle

With patience, it feels like a mid-grade Werle variation should be valued in the $50 to $80 range. But you're right, they are often listed with it Buy It Now price of about 10x that.

I feel like quite often, sellers don't really know what they have...so they aren't listed as "missing signature". Only those of us that are actively looking at the scans are identifying them.

I can only imagine what the rate would be if it was a Topps instead! I love the 1952 Topps issue as well, definitely prefer the larger size and the backs, but I like the artwork on the Bowmans better and the 'fun per $' equation makes me favor the Bowmans. Helps that the high numbers are not so nearly in demand with the Bowmans. If this issue had been done in the size of the 53-55 sets or had a Bowman Large version like the 1952 Footballs, I think it would be a lot more popular.

I don't think PSA recognized Werle until fairly recently; I've seen a fair number of them but usually not for sale or at museum BIN's. Definitely less than 10% of all Werle's though, I'll be patient and hopefully get one at a decent figure.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Reminds me a little of '57 Topps, with some of the photography being a little brighter and some a little muddier.

Yup, card stock and coloring of the card itself can affect the look. Look at 1952 Topps 1-80 Red/Black or the 3rd series grays vs regular print cards. I try to weed the dingy ones out of my late 60's Topps sets, where the crummy stock was prevalent. It's really noticeable on the reverses in 1967 and '68 especially.