1953 Bowman Color and B&W Card Backs

[G1911]

I have never found 113-128 to be tougher than 97-112. They used to be listed separately in the catalogs, but I've found no factual basis to support that they are tough. The PSA pop report strongly suggests that they are not tougher (https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...an-color/34128), which is not gospel, but difficult to manipulate in this quantity when they're all 250-300 straight grade pops for commons. Very large sample size of this series.

I don't believe this old myth that they are tougher; perhaps the pack out meant some areas only some parts of a sheet in greater quantity than others, but on the whole, there's no real quantifiable evidence that suggests they are actually tougher. Also, it just doesn't pass the common sense test that half of a sheet would be scarcer.

A lot of things are said in the hobby that contradicts actual data and doesn't pass the smell test. This one should be put to bed, I think, unless non-subjective evidence can be mustered.

[tedzan]

"G1911" (you could at least give us your first name)

Anyhow, back in the 1980's & 1990's (when there were many collectors working on completing sets), I helped many of them with their various BOWMAN sets.
With respect to the 1953 BOWMAN set, I saw many, many want-lists AND the majority of the cards needed were #113 - 128.

So, you can call it a "myth" (or whatever)....however the empirical data says, you don't know what heck you are talking about.

Personally, I have completed FOUR sets of these 1953 BOWMAN's, and I can attest to the fact that this group of 16 cards (#113 - 128) are tougher than other
cards in this set. Especially cards #121 to 128.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

"G1911" (you could at least give us your first name)

Anyhow, back in the 1980's & 1990's (when there were many collectors working on completing sets), I helped many of them with their various BOWMAN sets.
With respect to the 1953 BOWMAN set, I saw many, many want-lists AND the majority of the cards needed were #113 - 128.

So, you can call it a "myth" (or whatever)....however the empirical data says, you don't know what heck you are talking about.

Personally, I have completed FOUR sets of these 1953 BOWMAN's, and I can attest to the fact that this group of 16 cards (#113 - 128) are tougher than other
cards in this set. Especially cards #121 to 128.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Maybe I don't know "what heck" I'm talking about. What I claim is that I can look at the numbers, and see they do not add up. I'd love to see how what you concede is 'empirical data' is wrong. I'd love to see any actual evidence to back up this myth. Logic tells me that when the data contradicts the anecdotal narrative, there is something wrong with the narrative. I have no emotional tie to one conclusion or the other, I simply look at the data.

Argue on the merit, on the claim and on evidentiary grounds. Argument on appeal to authority or ad hominems have nothing to do with actual truth.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by G1911

Maybe I don't know "what heck" I'm talking about. What I claim is that I can look at the numbers, and see they do not add up. I'd love to see how what you concede is 'empirical data' is wrong. I'd love to see any actual evidence to back up this myth. Logic tells me that when the data contradicts the anecdotal narrative, there is something wrong with the narrative. I have no emotional tie to one conclusion or the other, I simply look at the data.

Argue on the merit, on the claim and on evidentiary grounds. Argument on appeal to authority or ad hominems have nothing to do with actual truth.

Where is your "data" that you are referring to ? Useless pop-reports, or what ? Show us your so-called "DATA" !

At least I have data from my numerous experiences as a dealer/collector for 40 years.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Where is your "data" that you are referring to ? Useless pop-reports, or what ? Show us your so-called "DATA" !

At least I have data from my numerous experiences as a dealer/collector for 40 years.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

A direct link was provided already in my first post. There are mid 200's to 300 of each common card in the series, fluctuating within this range about equally in the series.

Hall of Famers and stars are of course higher, but we have a massive sample size of 1953 Bowman's here. Crack and resubmit is a thing, but there is no reason to think Jim Hegan is less susceptible to this effect than Bill Serena. Calling a database compiling over 10,000 cards from this series "useless" and "so called DATA" is an absurdist proposition. It would cost someone tens of thousands of dollars to silently manipulate it 0 gain. Personally, I don't like grading and crack every single PSA case I get, but it's very large sample size of cards.

If you have created a properly verified and curated database of 1953 Bowman examples over those 40 years, I'd truly love to see it. That would be a very helpful and large data point too. Otherwise, this is an anecdotal appeal to authority.

It should not be about people being right or wrong or thinking that some narratives should not be examined or questioned on evidentiary grounds. We should follow the data and apply logical principles to arrive at truth. Otherwise, we aren't doing anything useful but repeating stories. Data often shows things I used to think were true are not, or proves that something is not true that I wish was. That's why data is valuable; it isn't emotional. The publicly available data does not support this narrative; no data has been brought to light that does support it. Reason tells me that it would be unwise of me to persist in its belief in the face of the data.