Any love for vintage bowman? Your thoughts?

[homerunhitter]

Hey guys,
What are your thoughts on collecting vintage bowman cards? To Mr it seems like there is not much love in the hobby for collecting vintage bowman cards. Am I missing something here? What are your thoughts on this?

[ALR-bishop]

I like them. Have done the 48 to 55 sets with variations. Also did the PCL set.

In general I like the Topps 52, 54 and 55 more. The 53 Topps is very good but the 53 Bomwn Color is hard to beat. See the current gallery thread on it. While the Bowman 51 set beats out any one of the five 51 Topps sets, I think the variety of Topps sets in 51 is pretty neat.

I also did the 48 Topps Hocus Focus baseball subset but while a very interesting concept the 48 Bowmans are heads above

[skelly423]

They are absolutely awesome. The cards are stunning, and I share your opinion that they don't seem to get the love of Topps cards from the same era.

1948 was groundbreaking as the first set to reintroduce cards to kids post WWII.

1949 added a bold splash of color and has my single favourite Bowman card (Satchel Paige).

1950 was the first set I built as an adult. Simple, elegant, sturdy, and beautiful, they're wonderful cards. Many people think the Jackie Robinson is his best looking card.

1951 took the formula and expanded the size and scope to new heights. Add in the Mantle and Mays, and it's rightly considered one of the best sets of all time.

1952 may have the best art on any set ever produced. The Mantle is my favourite card from his entire career (and I include the 1952 Topps, which I love).

1953 revolutionized card photography. It is the first set with full color photography, and the image/print quality is stunning.

1954 doesn't get enough love. The Ted Williams is one of the greatest cards ever made. The Mays is one of his best early cards, and I love Mantle's cheeky smile.

1955 is another card that doesn't get the love it deserves. The photos are beautiful, the color is bold, and the TV set borders are simultaneously modern for the day, and a time capsule for the modern collector. Shame about all the umpire cards though.

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by skelly423

They are absolutely awesome. The cards are stunning, and I share your opinion that they don't seem to get the love of Topps cards from the same era.

1948 was groundbreaking as the first set to reintroduce cards to kids post WWII.

1949 added a bold splash of color and has my single favourite Bowman card (Satchel Paige).

1950 was the first set I built as an adult. Simple, elegant, sturdy, and beautiful, they're wonderful cards. Many people think the Jackie Robinson is his best looking card.

1951 took the formula and expanded the size and scope to new heights. Add in the Mantle and Mays, and it's rightly considered one of the best sets of all time.

1952 may have the best art on any set ever produced. The Mantle is my favourite card from his entire career (and I include the 1952 Topps, which I love).

1953 revolutionized card photography. It is the first set with full color photography, and the image/print quality is stunning.

1954 doesn't get enough love. The Ted Williams is one of the greatest cards ever made. The Mays is one of his best early cards, and I love Mantle's cheeky smile.

1955 is another card that doesn't get the love it deserves. The photos are beautiful, the color is bold, and the TV set borders are simultaneously modern for the day, and a time capsule for the modern collector. Shame about all the umpire cards though.

Great post! I agree with your take on the 50 Robinson and 52 Mantle - especially the Mantle which I also consider his most appealing look on a card. Here are my 2.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by homerunhitter

Hey guys,
What are your thoughts on collecting vintage bowman cards? To Mr it seems like there is not much love in the hobby for collecting vintage bowman cards. Am I missing something here? What are your thoughts on this?

I suppose the reason for Bowman getting short shrift these days is simply that the company is regarded as having been "defeated" by Topps in 1955. So, in the view of many newer collectors who may see everything in terms of competition, the Bowman sets are relegated to an inferior position to the Topps cards. That, of course, ignores the superior art work and innovative photography that distinguished Bowman's efforts from Topps in the days of their rivalry. The 1951 Bowman set was the first I collected as a kid, and at that time, most candy buyers also thought Bowman's product was more attractive, since it easily outnumbered Topps packs on store shelves.

[BearBailey]

I like them all and feel they are underrated. With 1954 being my favorite.

[GasHouseGang]

I always kind of looked down on them. I especially thought the 1954's looked washed out. That was until I picked up some that were in near mint shape. I've totally changed my mind. Here's a "low grade" example.

[Bigdaddy]

Agree with the OP, and I don't think it's debatable that they take a back seat to the Topps sets from those same years. At least if you look at the prices (which are a reflection of demand) of the cards.

I had a stash of 1954 Bowman and had never really paid much attention to them. Finally decided to pursue the set and I now have a new found reverence for the cards once I put the set together in a binder. They really look good.

I love the artwork on the '51 and '52s (with 52 slightly ahead) and the photography on the '53s is heads and shoulders above anything Topps put out in those years. I like some of the smaller Bowman issues, but always find myself wishing the cards were bigger.

But, shhhhhhh..., don't let it out of the bag how good they are.

[Harliduck]

I love the later Bowman cards...I've built the 54 and 55 sets. I had a few 55s when I was a kid and they seemed like a piece of history to me...cool TV set cards...loved them. I plan eventually to do the 53's...

However, I do not care much for the smaller cards, the early 50s. I've owned a few through the years, and got rid of them. Cartoonish, too small, look terrible in a binder...just not interested.

[rats60]

I never liked the 1949 or 1955 sets, but the 1950-1954 Bowman sets are my favorite 50s sets along with 1955-1957 Topps. The 1951 set has Mays and Mantle RCs, two of the top post war cards. The 1953 set has the best photography of any 50s set. I think Bowman gets plenty of love.

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

However, I do not care much for the smaller cards, the early 50s. I've owned a few through the years, and got rid of them. Cartoonish, too small, look terrible in a binder...just not interested.

I may not be able to change your mind, but you need the right size of. Under page. The 1950 set in 12 pocket pages looks stunning in a binder.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Thanks, man. I like the look. A while back I used binders for everything (some newer sets are still in them) but I switched some to CS2s and boxes. Maybe I was just restless, not sure honestly. The 1950 Bowman never were in a binder, but I might change. I have also thought about moving my '52 Bowman set to the 9 pocket mini pages.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

54 and 55 don't have any of the major RCs of those glorious years -- Aaron, Banks, Kaline, Clemente, Koufax, Killebrew.

[Exhibitman]

The Topps cards are flashier but the Bowman cards are subtle beauties. I have become especially fond of some of the 1950s and 1954s:

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

This thread has brought me out of a little funk. I have moved my lower grade '52 set to pages in an Archival Methods binder along with the '50 set I am building. I do, however, have one little problem (it's always something isn't it?). With my '52 set Mantle and Mays are graded. I have been looking for reprints to fill their binder slots, but I can't find any reprints that are original size. The reprints are a little larger. I guess I could trim the reprint down to size and put them in their respective pockets, but I feel like that would look bad. Anyone know of any Mantle and Mays reprints from the '52 Bowman set that are original size?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk