Uncut Bowman Sheets?

[Volod]

Hmm, any way I try to look at it, it seems that the much-publicized scarcity would depend on the actual printing of a 36-card sheet. That is, cards numbered 1, 9, 10, 18, 19, 27, etc. - those on the edges of the sheet, were discarded due to damage from the smaller press guides. On the other hand, with a 32-card sheet, as shown above, cards numbered 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, etc. would be predicted as scarce....no? Or am I missing something?

[tedzan]

My sheet is missing the leftmost column of cards (#1, 10, 19 and 28). Bowman took their Small set and enlarged the size of
their cards in order to compete with the very popular larger 1952 Topps BB cards.
Bowman had not yet increased the printing press track to 43 inches (used in the printing of all their cards from 1953 to 1955).

In order to print all 144 cards in their FB set, they had to cut down the size of the cardboard to fit the press's track. Thereby,
cards on the rightmost column and the leftmost column of an original 36-card sheet were truncated.

That resulted in, all cards divisible by 9 are short-printed. And, all cards divisible by 9 (+ 1) are short-printed.





TED Z

[Volod]

Thanks Ted:
I think I read your article in BBC mag back in the '80's, but the 32-card sheet kind of stumped me until you explained.

[philliesphan]

To the best of my knowledge, there is only one 1955 Bowman baseball uncut sheet known -- it was pictured in a ~1985 or so Baseball Cards magazine. That uncut sheet was significantly learger than anything Ted has referenced.

Marc

[nearmint]

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but this is good stuff. So, Ted, if I understand correctly, there were actually 2 versions of each sheet, one with the leftmost column omitted, and one with the rightmost column omitted? So then the total number of card #4's printed would equal the number of card #1's printed plus the number of card #9's printed? (I tried writing that a number of ways, and they all came out confusing. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.)

[tedzan]

nearmint

I'm not quite sure I get what you are getting at.

Anyhow, the best way to understand this set of 144 cards is to realize that there are three levels of scarcity in collecting these cards.

1st....all 16 cards whose #'s are divisible by 9 are very, very tough to find.

2nd....cards #1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 82, 91, 100, 109, 118, 127, and 136 are tough to find (but, not as tough as the divisible by 9 group).

3rd....all the other 112 cards are relatively easy to find.


TED Z

[nearmint]

Thanks, Ted, that much I understand. What I'm trying to determine is if there is a relationship between the numbers of cards printed in the three groups. From your earlier explanation, it sounded like sometimes the first sheet included the multiple-of-9 cards, and sometimes it included the multiple-of-nine-plus-1 cards instead. So there were two versions of the first sheet. Is that correct?

If that's correct, then I think if you add the number of multiple-of-9 cards printed to the number of multiple-of-9-plus-1 cards printed, that equals the number of multiple-of-9-plus-2 cards printed. (Which equals the number of multiple-of-9-plus-3 cards, etc.)

(If anyone understands me and can state it more clearly, please do!)

The reason I'm asking is that I've created a bunch of "virtual" uncut sheets for other sets (here's an example), and I'd like to create them for the 1952 Bowman Large set, too. I'd also like to explain exactly how short-printed the short prints are, in relationship to the others.

Thanks again.