Why did Topps make cards smaller?
 

So in 1957 (is that the correct year?) Topps starting making smaller cards, which are still being used today. Why did the company make this change? The bigger cards that were manufactured from 1952 - 1956 were very popular with collectors, no? Was Topps trying to save some paper? :)

I don't know, nor do I know why more and more people start sentences with the word 'So'...as if interrupting a thought stream?

It also occurs to me that more and more oral conversations are started with 'I mean'...is this just to assure the listener that the speaker is sincere?

These last two non-answers are grammatically correct. I just thought I would show off as, evidently, one of the last humans to care enough to communicate properly.

Randy - all this is in jest of course, as I am constantly trying to amuse whatever audience appears. I trust you will not be too offended.

Back onto your question, I am grateful, that, once they did change the card size, they stuck with it. It sure is more convenient for both displaying and storage.

.

Don't quit your day posting. The bar for humor on this board isn't that high, but you didn't clear it. So, I hope you won't be too offended.

They did it to save money-more cards could fit on a sheet by reducing the size a little and less wrapper size was needed, so you got more wrappers per roll. After working their way up to it they went to Giant Size as a marketing strategy to outsize the competition in 1952 with Baseball then Wings, and then after the Bowman purchase in '56 shrank 'em again, starting with Elvis Presley. 132 cards per half sheet vs. the 110 they were using in '56. For Baseball you could print 6 series over 5 sheets essentially (a simplification but close enough) with the saved real estate.

Focus groups in 1956-57 likely hadn't yet arrived 60+ years ago to influence a corporate decision, so my guess is the Topps' suits decided to cut overhead by downsizing their product: less paper / less ink = more Topps' profits. I doubt collectors' interests were even a consideration.

This would be my guess as well. Or perhaps the smaller cards fit better between bicycle spokes.

They did not start large. The first baseball subset in 1948 was small, and two of their 5 sets in 1951 were small. The 55 and 56 Hocus Focus baseball subsets were small and smaller. And they would go small with the 69 Supers, 75 Minis and 85 Minis. And then there were even bigger ones, the 64 Supers, the 70 and 71s. But I agree with Dave...and Dave... cost savings and the end of completion led to the standard size we have had since 1957, but for various test designs and odd ball sets over the years

So, did you forget to take your pills today? :)

So is your first sentence intended to be a question?

So was this a serious question or tongue in cheek sarcasm ?:)

so it goes, and :D

so well, just when things were going

I'm not offended at all John. Thanks.

The last time I cleared a bar, I blamed it on gas.


We geniuses never expect to be appreciated during OUR lifetimes.


=

That's seems to be true Raymond. Sheldon Copper often says that as well:)

I always thought Topps made their cards bigger to compete with Bowman. After they bought Bowman out, they reduced the size to save money. 1956 cards were already designed, remember Bowman had prototypes for a 1956 set, so the change was made in 1957.

And while there was some moderate nostalgia for the Topps 1988 Big set, I think they had a hard time giving away the 89s

So, I mean, it could be both.

That sounds feasible. Does anyone reading this have any of the prototypes?

I'd love to see one. Please post 'em if you got 'em.

.

Amazing
 

Every day I learn something new on Net54. This is an amazing place.

Rick

WOW! Thanks Howie!

AMAZING!!

Thanks for that link Howie

Please keep in mind that going into 1957, there was no "standard size" for baseball cards. The sizes of the cards previous was all over the boards. When Topps unveiled their 1952 series, it was bigger and bolder then anything else, but it was not standard. With Bowman out of the way in 1956, reducing the card size for 1957 allowed Topps to expand on the set (and to keep expanding). It just so happened that the size they selected became industry standard, but then there was no one to challenge them in a bigger card size, because that company would of lost money.

Grammar
 

Watching a televised political discussion the other day, one of the panelists - who was introduced as a PHD in the humanities - started nearly every one of her sentences with the annoying conjunction. I think it must be a new didactic requirement for doctoral candidates.:rolleyes:

There is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction. Many teachers back in the stone age taught that it was incorrect because kids would overuse them.

Your arrogance belies your ignorance.

Oh, and I thought Topps reduced the size of their cards so they would fit in those plastic sheets. :rolleyes:

The people who made those 1, 2, 3, 4 and other odd size pocket sheets were probably protesting Topps decision to go with the current standard size

Arrogance vs Ignorance
 

My stone age teacher (the guy that starred in those Geico commercials) used to ask kids who started sentences with a conjunction what they were conjoining. The kid would then scratch his head and mumble, "huh...?":)

My favorite similar grammar-related comeback is this classic from Cheers:

Sam: Haven’t you got customers to be waiting on?
Diane: You ended that sentence with a preposition.
Sam: Haven’t you got customers to be waiting on, Mullet-head?

Grammar aint around no more
 

Good one, Mark. :D Recalls Winston Churchill's response to another grammar nag - “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.”

If I remember correctly the 1956 Elvis Presley set
https://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewSe...resley-(R710-1)

was the first Topps set to use the 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" format