1953 Bowman Color and B&W Card Backs

[G1911]

I too have noticed; there appears to be a very light color stock variant, I’ve been calling them white backs vs. cream in my notes. The very light backs are much tougher than the normal cream. I’m not sure if it runs through every series (I still am not sure what the series even are, I suspect 5 series of 32 but nobody seems positive or has brought direct evidence), I will have to go through my set. I do not believe it to be toning but am happy to be shown wrong.

Bowman used different stocks in 1952 1-72 as well, and of course the 1949 1-3, 5-73 series’.

[tedzan]

Excerpts from my 1953 color BOWMAN (5-page) article, June 1986 BASEBALL CARDS Magazine.



Al Corwin is repeated in two cards in this Color set. I don't understand why ?
Although I noted in my BASEBALL CARDS Magazine story that his birth month is mis-spelled "Recember" in card #126. His card #149 has it corrected (December).

For a major set, such as this one, there are very few errors. One error I know of, is card #159 which claims to be Mickey Vernon. But, actually depicts Floyd Baker.

It is definitely one of my favorite post-WWII sets.

Regarding the Series make-up of this set, I have had (or have seen) 4 of the 5 possible 32-card sheets of this set. The Hi # sheet (cards # 129 - 160) is somewhat
more available than the other sheets. I have not seen a 4th sheet (cards # 97 - 128). It is quite a mystery as to why cards #113 - 128 on this sheet are difficult to
find with respect to cards #97 - 112 ? ?


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[jingram058]

I put the entire 53 Bowman set together over the span of just a few months, start to finish. I got a big start on the set by trading a bunch of my duplicate Topps stars (Mantle, Mays, Koufax, etc.) for the 53 Bowman color stars (Mantle, Reese, Musial, etc.). Then I got several big groups, including high numbers, from folks right here on net54. It was really fun putting the set together. All raw cards, with the exception of Smoky Burgess and one other (I forget which one) that were PSA slabbed that I cracked out because I wanted a raw set. Once done, I quickly realized I needed the black & white set to truly make it the entire 53 Bowman set. I just bought the entire black & white set of cards all at once. Then, still not fully satisfied, I had to have the cherry on top, so to speak, by having the BBBBGTM add-on black & white set of stars missing from the 53 black & white set (officially accepted as part of the set).

Now, looking back through my set, and as I noticed as I put the set together, I see two altogether different card backs. One is the usual grayish-brown, and the other is more reddish. It is definite, and not my bad eyesight. It is apparent only in the color cards, not the black & whites. No one has officially stated there are 2 different backs for 53 Bowman color cards, but other collectors of the set have noticed this, including folks here at net54.

[ALR-bishop]

James---I also added the 16 card B&W extension set to my 64 card original
(65 with the 2nd Behan). Am glad to find out you have officially designated the extension as an accepted part of the set. Surely that will cause the value of that set to take off.

[toppcat]

PSA pops don't support the 97-112 SP theory, probably some weird shortage in a major find back in the day in the day led to the idea like the 1967 Topps Brooks Robinson.

[Volod]

Here is Ted Z's original complete article from BBC Mag. I believe he won't mind my posting it for the edification and enjoyment of those who have never seen it. I did have to edit it down, removing the illustrations, in order to make the text as readable as possible here under the posting size limitations. Still, probably best viewed using browser zoom control, if you have such.

[tedzan]

Hi Steve

I appreciate you posting the text of my 1953 BOWMAN article. Bob Lemke started this BASEBALL CARDS magazine in 1981.
It was a really great hobby publication during the 1980's.

I love this colorful picture in my article. Bob Lemke produced it for this article.




Gee, this invokes many fond memories of this great hobby during the 1980's.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by toppcat

PSA pops don't support the 97-112 SP theory, probably some weird shortage in a major find back in the day in the day led to the idea like the 1967 Topps Brooks Robinson.

Hi Dave

Perhaps, I did not clearly state my thoughts regarding the 4th sheet (cards #97 - 128). It has always puzzled me that the first 16 cards (#97 - 112) of the "mysterious" 4th sheet
are comparable in availability to the Low numbers in this set. However, the other 16 cards (#113 - 128) on this 4th sheet are much tougher to find. And in my opinion are tougher
than the High #cards (#129 - 160).

Back in the early 1980's, when I was completing my 1953 set, cards #113 - 128 were definitely the last ones on my want-list. And, especially cards #121 - 128.

Furthermore, the proof of the scarcity of these 16 cards was evident in the following scenario. I lived in Toms River, NJ then. In town was a BB card store owned by Bob O'Leary. He
made a trip to a little town in Mississippi, where he acquired an original collection of approx. 2000 cards (1953-1955 TOPPS and BOWMAN's). It included approx. 250 cards of 1953
BOWMAN. The majority being Color ones and some B/W. Most interesting was that the assortment of the color cards were numbered #113 through #160. Really, there were no Low
number cards in this group. The 32 Hi #'s averaged 6 cards each. The #113 - 128 cards averaged 3 cards each.

Dave....you are an expert on TOPPS and BOWMAN's from that era, can you explain this apparent "split-personality" of the 4th sheet cards ?

Thanks Dave,

Originally Posted by tedzan

Regarding the Series make-up of this set, I have had (or have seen) 4 of the 5 possible 32-card sheets of this set. The Hi # sheet (cards # 129 - 160) is somewhat
more available than the other sheets. I have not seen a 4th sheet (cards # 97 - 128). It is quite a mystery as to why cards #113 - 128 on this sheet are difficult to
find with respect to cards #97 - 112 ? ?

Or, anyone else who would like to chime in here on this particular subject.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.