1949 bowman display box REA mystery solved

[sflayank]

Here are the 2 variations of the 1950 box
Notice where the dates are
The box in REA has no date anywhere, so the theory is they used the same box as 49 and added 1950

[Eric72]

The REA listing shows, among other things, this image. Was the "5-Star" logo used in 1949?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Eric72

The REA listing shows, among other things, this image. Was the "5-Star" logo used in 1949?

According to Sports Collectors Daily:

"...interesting feature of card backs, one not seen on any other sports issue, is the red “Bowman 5-Star Picture Card Collectors Club” in the upper right-hand corner..."

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...-trend-setter/

This would seem to indicate the box on REA was from 1950. Of course, that was just me looking on the Internet for 5 minutes. The experts at REA and elsewhere almost certainly know something I don't. I'd love to hear the evidence which points to the box being from 1949.

[Casey2296]

The picture on the right shows the 1950 year on the bottom box, is that black ink or blue around the year?

[Lorewalker]

Box on the right also says Full Color. 1949s while color are not really full color especially compared to the 1950 Bowmans, which the box on the left is clearly from 1950.

[sflayank]

the 2 1950 dated boxes also say 1950 in the description on the bottom of the box...so i have to believe REA is right ..theres doesnt say 1950 anywhere
so must be 1949

[nolemmings]

Mile High sold what appears to be an identical box and listed it as 1950 even though the box had no 1950 identification.
http://www.milehighcardco.com/1950_b...-lot59411.aspx

Also, to Eric's point, I note that the 1950 Bowman cards have the distinctive five-star logo on the reverse, unlike those from 1949. This would seem to indicate that the REA box is from 1950, but these issues are way outside of my wheelhouse. Why they would have separate boxes, one stating the year and one not, I do not know.

[sflayank]

Mile high 1949
2 1950 dated variations say 1950 in the description on bottom box
The Mike high and this rea do not say that

[nolemmings]

Larry I get what you are saying-- you conclude that because one box says 1950 and the other does not, then it is beyond dispute that they must be from different years. It would seem others disagree-- at least Mile High. And you offer no explanation on why the distinctive five-star logo, which is on the back of the 1950 cards with the "Collectors Club" reference, appears on the REA and Mile High boxes, yet is not mentioned on the 1949 cards. Not definitive, especially since the logo was used by Bowman on non-sports cards from 1949, but surely curious, don't you think?

PS. Incidentally, REA itself previously offered what appears to be the same style box--no year stated-- as a 1950 issue: https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=44396

[sflayank]

Youre missing the point...the bottom of the box says Mr retailer your new 1950 bowman cards etc etc
The rea and mile high do not say that on bottom

[nolemmings]

So you're saying Mile High got it wrong, and when REA sold the same style box a few years ago, they got it wrong too?

[Eric72]

REA did not show a photo of the open box, did they? An image of that, if available, would potentially help a bit...

[sflayank]

Mike high got it wrong REA got it right

[nolemmings]

Did they get it wrong in 2017? Did you even see the link I posted?

[sflayank]

Without seeing bottom of box u can't tell

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by sflayank

Without seeing bottom of box u can't tell

So then how can you say REA got it right in 2017? You just said you can't tell.

Are you saying that the bottom of the box sold in 2017 might say 1950 on it but that Bowman then didn't put that date on the top or side of the box? If so then we have a third variation: 1) no date, top, side or bottom; 2) 1950 on top, side and bottom, and 3) no date top and side but yes on bottom (assuming the REA box in fact says that on the bottom). Is that your theory? I find it less than compelling.

[glynparson]

This box was full of 1950 bowman cards and the family had no 1949 bowmans. They did have. Number of 1949 leaf cards. I introduced the family tht consigned this and a number of cards to Brian. It was a pretty decent find the oldest child of the family that inherited them teaches with my wife. I got a number of cards graded for them at the national. From the leaf set as well as a number of 1950 and 1951 bowmans.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by glynparson

This box was full of 1950 bowman cards and the family had no 1949 bowmans. They did have. Number of 1949 leaf cards. I introduced the family tht consigned this and a number of cards to Brian. It was a pretty decent find the oldest child of the family that inherited them teaches with my wife. I got a number of cards graded for them at the national. From the leaf set as well as a number of 1950 and 1951 bowmans.

That's certainly a compelling piece of information.

[sflayank]

This is not complicated
3 boxes.(1)..1950 on top and the front of bottom insert half and on bottom of box in description
(2) No 1950 on top...1950 on front of bottom insert half of box and in description on bottom on box
And (3) no 1950 anywhere on box which should make this the 1949 box

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by sflayank

This is not complicated
3 boxes.(1)..1950 on top and the front of bottom insert half and on bottom of box in description
(2) No 1950 on top...1950 on front of bottom insert half of box and in description on bottom on box
And (3) no 1950 anywhere on box which should make this the 1949 box

Please explain how they owned zero 1949 bowmans then but owned hundreds of 1950 bowmans. This was an original collection put together in years of issue not a collection curated over time. Why do you think it’s impossible that some boxes didn’t have year on them? After all we know of multiple series so why assume boxes were identical. The fact they owned zero 1949 bowmans but literally hundreds of 1950 which were kept in said box makes me think you are wrong here. I understand that’s rare as you are often dead on accurate but I think in this rare case you are incorrect.

[sflayank]

Not 100% ...but bowman making 3 different boxes same year?...possible..just seems unlikely because of the description on bottom of box telling dealers about the new 1950 cards...why would they have a box that doesn't say that?
I guess we will never know for sure

[glynparson]

Yeah I guess he could have gotten from the local store or something and candy shop owner just stuck the new packs in the old box on the shelf. I suppose there are reasons. It could have happened that they got a 1949 box. One of those I guess we we’ll never be 100% on

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by sflayank

the 2 1950 dated boxes also say 1950 in the description on the bottom of the box...so i have to believe REA is right ..theres doesnt say 1950 anywhere
so must be 1949

Larry, I must have missed that in the description. Could you post a scan or link to a box that says "Mr retailer your new 1950 bowman cards etc" on the bottom?

[sflayank]

Here..bottom of box

[tedzan]

For whatever it's worth, here is a 1951 BOWMAN wax-pack box (for comparison's sake).

Of course this box is 3-dimensional. I scanned it in 2-dimensional form so that all sides of it are visible.




..................................

..................................



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[etsmith]

So it seems in 1949 and 1951 boxes had no dates on them, but 1950 did which seems odd.

[Pat R]

interesting that the 51 box says pictures of 340 major league players.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tedzan

For whatever it's worth, here is a 1951 BOWMAN wax-pack box (for comparison's sake).

Of course this box is 3-dimensional. I scanned it in 2-dimensional form so that all sides of it are visible.




..................................

..................................

BOWMAN may have originally intended to print 340 subjects; however, we know they issued the 1951 set with 324 subjects.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by tedzan

BOWMAN may have originally intended to print 340 subjects; however, we know they issued the 1951 set with 324 subjects.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Nice detective work, Ted. I agree with you that because Bowman advertised 340 subjects that indeed was their original intent.