Uncut Bowman Sheets?

[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.

[tedzan]

1st....your "virtual uncut sheets" of the 1948 Bowman FB set is exact. In the early 1980's, I had the three uncut sheets
and I wrote this SCD article regarding this set.








2nd....Back then, SCD also featured an article I wrote on the 1952 Bowman LARGE FB set. When I find it, I'll post it here.
In the early 1980's I did a REAL survey of these LARGE cards (sampling approx. 1200 cards). If I recall correctly, the ratio
of the .... DIVISIBLE by 9 .... cards to the .... DIVISIBLE by 9 + 1 .... is 1 / 5.

Furthermore, the ratio of .... DIVISIBLE by 9 + 1 .... to all the other 112 cards in this set is 1 / 2.5

What this survey tells us is that Bowman RANDOMLY shifted their 36-card sheets in order to print all the cards. However,
they did NOT do it in an orderly fashion in order to equalize the number of cards printed. The printing of these cards was
done by shift workers, and there was no attempt to coordinate the process.

One final note..my understanding of Bowman's printing process (done by Zabel Brothers, Philadelphia) was that the width
of the cardboard accomodated two adjacent 36-card sheets. If this is confusing, I will provide a diagram in a forthcoming
post here.

I hope I have answered your questions ?

But, if it not, then I'll try again.

Regards,

TED Z

[nearmint]

Thanks, Ted, that 1948 Bowman article is great. I didn't know that the cards were released in series, and I didn't notice that only a few teams were represented per sheet. When I get a chance, I'll edit my web page and add a link to your article.

I'm looking forward to reading your 1952 Bowman Large article. I think I understand the truncating, I'm just not sure at what point the truncating took place. Was there a partial column printed on each sheet that got trimmed off, or was that column not printed in the first place? I don't know anything about printing, so I can't envision what the printers did to "shift" the sheet one way or the other.

That's all--at least 'til I read your article!

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by tedzan

One final note..my understanding of Bowman's printing process (done by Zabel Brothers, Philadelphia) was that the width
of the cardboard accomodated two adjacent 36-card sheets.

That makes a lot of sense. They printed Topps cards in similar fashion, i.e. two half sheets at once on a large master sheet. I have to suspect Zabel became Topps' printer after the Bowman acquisition but the transition took a few years I think.

ted, have you ever found much on Zabel Brothers? I spoke to Irv Lerner about them briefly at the National but there is very little on the web about the company.