What set sealed Bowman's fate?

[darkhorse9]

When the baseball card wars heated up it all came down to sales. Which card set did the kids prefer. Certainly Topps hit a home run with the 1952 set, but Bowman had time to fight back. They never could. I doubt kids really were brand loyal back then, so it was all a matter of who delivered the best product.

All things considered which set was the beginning of the end of Bowman's life? Here are my thoughts on each set. What do others think

1952...the set was too similar (almost identical) to the 1951 set. With Topps changing the game, Bowman's fate could have been sealed by the ultimate in standing still. Could that have been simply too much of a lead to make up?

1953...Bowman gave a valiant effort with the Kodachrome photos, but the cost got away from them. This could have been a game changer answer to 1952 but it was just too expensive. Dropping to a black and white series killed any chance at momentum.

1954...a plain ugly set. Bowman went back to colorized pictures while Topps had actual photos. Numerous errors and the loss of Ted Williams hurt as well

1955...a decent idea for a set, capitalizing on a new fad while Topps set was into their (in some cases) third year of using the same photos for players. The inclusion of umpires was a dog of an idea. No kid wanted pictures of umps.

Which set was the biggest dagger to Bowman's efforts in the war?

[t206blogcom]

I disagree with you on the 54 Bowmans. They're one of my favorite post-war sets.

[ALR-bishop]

Did not the Bowman owners make a home run in selling out to Topps when they did at their top market value. They "sealed" it themselves with a kiss

[the 'stache]

I agree with Al. Bowman's owners made out well, and now Bowman is Topps' best brand.

[nolemmings]

I too think Bowman ended up just fine on the deal. And as for '54, I think the Topps design is a winner, but have always thought the kids that year could have considered the set a real dog. There were 3 managers and 23 coaches in a 250 card set!!!! A better than 1 out of 10 chance you'd get some old coot in your pack. And sure, now we know Kaline, Banks and Aaron, but at the time these guys were mere prospects that Topps was just lucky to have signed. I wonder how many of the kids saw these guys as phenoms at the time.

[Brianruns10]

I thought Bowman was doing an admirable job of competing with Topps, and it rather mystifies me some times that they sold out to the latter. They scored some great players in 54 and 55, and while their sets grew in size, Topps sets shrank every year after 52...the 55 set is downright anemic.

And Bowman kept trying to respond with greater artistry. I think their 55 set was really an outstanding effort, and my dad fondly remembers these cards being the first ones he bought (though sadly they were not saved for whatever reason, unlike his later Topps which he kept).

Meanwhile, I think Topps was a little complacent...re-using the same images year after year...and the 56 set too closely mirrors the 55 for my liking. If I were a kid buying them at the time, I'd have been kinda miffed.

And then they buy out Bowman, and what does Topps do but shrink its card size! From 57 on, I think the each year is diminishing in returns, and none top the artistry of the 52-56 years, when they were in direct competition with Bowman. Goes to show what a competitor will do in terms of impacting the quality of your product.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I too think Bowman ended up just fine on the deal. And as for '54, I think the Topps design is a winner, but have always thought the kids that year could have considered the set a real dog. There were 3 managers and 23 coaches in a 250 card set!!!! A better than 1 out of 10 chance you'd get some old coot in your pack. And sure, now we know Kaline, Banks and Aaron, but at the time these guys were mere prospects that Topps was just lucky to have signed. I wonder how many of the kids saw these guys as phenoms at the time.

That's an interesting question, Todd. Back then, people didn't have the internet, or cable TV. Baseball fans then didn't have the exposure to up-and-coming prospects the way we do now. They didn't have access to scouting reports, nor did they know what the hell a 20 to 80 scale was. Ted Williams surely wasn't on the "radar" two years before he stepped onto the field at Fenway for the first time. Kids around America weren't watching him as a San Diego Padre, and they sure weren't watching him blast 500 foot home runs on Youtube.

I returned to the hobby two years ago. Since pretty much day one, I've known about Bryce Harper, and Mike Trout. Their baseball acumen, and raw physical tools, has been written about, and analyzed ad nauseam in Baseball America, Sports Illustrated, etc. I've been watching video of these guys doing their workouts, and taking batting practice, since they were 16 or 17 years old. So before they won the Rookie of the Year Award, I pretty much expected that they'd do it. Their performances at 19 (Harper) and Trout (20) didn't come as a surprise. If I open up a pack of cards now, I not only know who the prospects are, I know where they went to college (or what high school they went to). I know what position they play, I know their floor and ceiling, their relative risk, their injury history, etc. So, I know who the phenoms are going to be a lot of the time. Back then, the only people who really saw greatness early on were the scouts.

[nolemmings]

And one thing more--I may have ranted about this before either here or on another board. Suppose you're a young Cleveland Indians fan in 1954, your team is about to break the Yankee stranglehold of five consecutive World Series appearances in a big way, knocking off the Bombers and winning a record 111 games. Season to remember forever, and the bubblegum cards will help you relive it for all those years.

Your pitching staff includes Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, Mike Garcia (19-8) and Art Houtteman (15-8), and future HOFer Hal Newhouser is in the bullpen with Ray Narleski and Don Mossi. Stud staff--and Topps gives you cards of exactly ZERO of these hurlers. None, nada, zip. The one Cleveland pitcher shown on a '54 Topps card is the world famous Dave Hoskins, who appeared in all of 14 games for the Tribe that magical year. Are you flippin kidding me? If I'm growin up in Cleveland I'd tell Topps to pi$$ on their cards--remember, no checklists, so you keep rippin those packs and coming up with.....Dave Hoskins?

I'm not an Indians fan, but a few years ago I thought about starting a '54 set. There clearly are some iconic rookie cards, two Teddie Ballgames and some cool shots of Berra, Ford, Mathews and Spahn among others. Still, for some reason I just didn't think the set deserved my attention given the lousy player selection and spate of old men, and I spurned it almost as an homage to those kids in '54 who had to endure it.

There, off my soapbox now. I know I'm a bit of a hypocrite, as I chase some prewar sets that don't always have the best player selection and for which maybe some of the same arguments could be made. Still, it seems different for the '54 Topps cards, as the preceding two years had to have built up the young collector's expectations if not hopes and Topps came out and pretty much laid an egg IMHO.

[Harliduck]

Great comments by all, and great thread.

I am three cards away from finishing my 54 Topps set, so knee deep into this at the moment. I agree, they did get lucky with Banks, Kaline, and Aaron and as a kid all the coaches and unheard of players would have been a major bummer. I do believe there was enough stars at the time (Mays, Berra, Spahn, Ford, Ashburn, Rizzuto, Jackie, ect) to keep the interest of the kids and the design by far eclipses Bowman. Advertising Ted Williams in two series was big as well. To me the 54 Topps is one of the most iconic looking sets of the back half of the century.

With that said though, and the reason I will be doing the 54 Bowmans next, is they truly whipped Topps butt with players. No doubt hands down Mantle was the most exciting player of the time so right there enough said. The Indians team players comment was something I hadn't really thought of and have to admit that is spot on for who was hot in 54...if I was an Indians fan I would have felt completely gypped. While i think the Bowmans are truly a beautiful set in their own right, they are smaller and the pictures do not compete. Neither had checklists so that alone was a killer. Does anyone know who Bowman advertised on their wax boxes to entice the kids? I know Topps was all over advertising their rights to Williams. I think that was about the only way a kid could pre determine who had what before they actually spent their money.

As a 54 collector, I am choosing to do both sets to feel like I am completely covering the year. Did the 54 Topps put a nail in Bowmans coffin? I believe history says yes, but as mentioned, they sold at a high to their competition so who really won? I can add this too...as an 11 year old kid when Fleer and Donruss came into the picture in 1981, it was exciting to go into my corner store and have all three on the shelf. I LOVED it. I collected all three and traded off buying packs and hand coalated all three sets in 81, but admit back in then I still would have chose Topps over the others if had to. I have always thought if I was a kid in 54 I would have bought both, and loved trying to get my favorite player in two different cards. I think I would have been dissapointed in 56 to learn I no longer had a choice...that's just my guess coming from my 11 year old experience.

[Paul S]

In an effort not to replicate many of the astute comments above and focusing on the vibrancy of the card sets, unless a person went to a game, they were otherwise relegated to seeing players in black and white -- whether the occasional game on TV or in newpapers. I still can't choose between the '55T or B sets because the T still pops out with color and the television B was such a great idea (who had a color TV back then?). Personally, although I have alot of 54Bs and enjoy them for the player selection, I find it a drab set, especially compared to the 54Ts. Regardless of quality players in the repsective sets, the Topps, being so colorful, must of had an impact on the buyer. I think Bowman dropped the ball that year -- maybe they were still making up the cost of their gorgeous color 53s (the last series B&W being a tell-tale sign).

[Brianruns10]

Yeah, the 54 Bowman is the weakest Bowman set...it looks like a weak carbon copy of the 52 Topps, and sort of represents a creative hesitation on their part. If they'd stuck with perfecting the full color process they tried in '53, they could've been years ahead of Topps and their '57 set.

Though they made an admirable recovery with the 55 set, and I would've loved to have seen their 56 set, with it's fence-hole concept, come to fruition. It was certainly more intriguing that Topps' 56 carbon copy of their own '55s.

[darkhorse9]

I agree that it would have been fun to see the "knot hole" cards, but all indications that I have heard from the famous Bowman test portfolios was that the design that Bowman would have used in 1956 would be the one that looks like the 1957 Topps football set. I think that would have been another loser for Bowman.

[toppcat]

It was more of a 30 month decline than any one set killing off the cards I think. Bowman started selling a smaller number of non sports sets starting in 1954 and when the 1955 Football set could not compete against Topps, their Chairman, John Connelly, decided to sell out to Topps for $200K. He took the money and sank it into Crown Cork & Seal and became quite wealthy. I don't think Bowman could compete with the Topps distribution network or keep up with their legal fees in the course of two lawsuits and related appeals over baseball player contracts. I am reasonably certain one of the reasons Bowman made black and white cards in 1953 was to stop paying Joe DiMaggio (their hired spokesman for the color set) royalties on the sale of color baseball cards but I can't find the contract to prove it.

There is story out there too (unconfirmed I believe) that Topps had been promised the 1956 NFL license by Bert Bell. If true, that may have been the final straw but I think it's one of those Sy Berger "stories" so who knows?

FYI-John Connelly owned Connelly Containers, which made shipping cartons for Bowman and that company owned Bowman at the time of the sale after Connelly had wrangled control of the board away from the prior directors. Warren Bowman had been gone almost five years by the time Topps bought them out.

[Volod]

Very interesting info, Dave - thanks for providing that. I agree that the 1953 DiMaggio contract was probably a very significant factor in Bowman's financial woes. The production of the final series in black and white seems to me a definite indication that legally the company was only obligated to pay Joe D. for the color cards, and thus weaseled out when they began to realize they had bought a pig in a poke.

[stewbacca]

In reguards to player selection, didnt the players have contracts with each company? If you signed with Bowman, you didnt have a Topps card and vice versa. I thought Bowman had the better players under contract at first.

[Brianruns10]

A few did both sets. Willie Mays and Eddie Matthews had Bowman and Topps issues in 54 and 55.

[the 'stache]

Going back to what Todd said, here's an example of how the game, and the hobby have changed. Here's a screenie of a prospect profile I do every year now before the start of the season. I'm just some guy sitting at home watching the game, buying cards, and I not only have access to, but religiously read scouting reports, forecasts, etc, in addition to doing fantasy baseball like so many other Americans.



If I were to show go back in time, and show this to a kid living in 1947, their head would explode.

[Volod]

[quote=nolemmings;1109367]And one thing more--I may have ranted about this before either here or on another board. Suppose you're a young Cleveland Indians fan in 1954, your team is about to break the Yankee stranglehold of five consecutive World Series appearances in a big way, knocking off the Bombers and winning a record 111 games. Season to remember forever, and the bubblegum cards will help you relive it for all those years.

Your pitching staff includes Bob Feller, Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, Mike Garcia (19-8) and Art Houtteman (15-8), and future HOFer Hal Newhouser is in the bullpen with Ray Narleski and Don Mossi. Stud staff--and Topps gives you cards of exactly ZERO of these hurlers. None, nada, zip. The one Cleveland pitcher shown on a '54 Topps card is the world famous Dave Hoskins, who appeared in all of 14 games for the Tribe that magical year. Are you flippin kidding me? If I'm growin up in Cleveland I'd tell Topps to pi$$ on their cards--remember, no checklists, so you keep rippin those packs and coming up with.....Dave Hoskins?

I'm not an Indians fan, but a few years ago I thought about starting a '54 set. There clearly are some iconic rookie cards, two Teddie Ballgames and some cool shots of Berra, Ford, Mathews and Spahn among others. Still, for some reason I just didn't think the set deserved my attention given the lousy player selection and spate of old men, and I spurned it almost as an homage to those kids in '54 who had to endure it. quote]

Todd - Well, after all, Topps was and is located in NY, so no huge surprise that the good folks in that company did not appreciate the Cleveland Indians trying to stop their heroes from owning every title in sight. Kind of ugly, though, to let childish rooting bias govern their publishing judgement - did they feel that the nickels of kids in the midwest were not as important to their profit picture as their institutional grudge against the infidels? I wish I could say that as a kid, I boycotted Topps for giving short shrift to the Tribe, but at the age of seven or eight, I had no clue why the great Indian hurlers were left out of the 1954 Topps set. Not that I bought much of it - had moved on to building model airplanes after '53.

[toppcat]

There were two categories of players established once the Topps and Bowman suits started being decided: exclusive players and non-exclusive. I forget the year without checking my notes (1954 I think) but at one point Bowman had hundred of exclusive players compared to a few dozen for Topps with a handful, mostly stars, having non-exclusive deals. So Topps started signing prospects and using coaches and managers to round out their sets. It was unrelated to where each company was domiciled.

I have a section on all of this in my new book: http://www.scribd.com/doc/126643197/...m-1938-to-1956

It's a free download so no worries!

[Theoldprofessor]

1950 Bowman Williams.jpg1951 Bowman Williams.jpg

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

1952...the set was too similar (almost identical) to the 1951 set. With Topps changing the game, Bowman's fate could have been sealed by the ultimate in standing still. Could that have been simply too much of a lead to make up?

Great thread! But the preceding is, in my opinion, not quite correct. I'm an old guy -- I collected in the early 50s --- and I remember that my friends and I did not care for the set that in many ways replicated the set from the year before. But that was in 1951. Many of those cards were just longer versions of the same picture. See, for example, the Williams entries for 50 and 51.

It's true that the 51 set had more cards, but they were still pretty much ignored, at least in my crowd. We liked the autographed 52s much better, not to mention that set from the new company ... um ... Topps. They were really cool.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by toppcat

There were two categories of players established once the Topps and Bowman suits started being decided: exclusive players and non-exclusive. I forget the year without checking my notes (1954 I think) but at one point Bowman had hundred of exclusive players compared to a few dozen for Topps with a handful, mostly stars, having non-exclusive deals. So Topps started signing prospects and using coaches and managers to round out their sets. It was unrelated to where each company was domiciled.

I have a section on all of this in my new book: http://www.scribd.com/doc/126643197/...m-1938-to-1956

It's a free download so no worries!

Thanks again Dave. According to the year-by-year account provided in your excellent history, 1953 was the year that Topps really struggled to sign players to exclusive deals: just 26 to Bowman's 388. You state that the next year, 1954, things had almost evened out, with Topps holding 124 exclusives to Bowman's 136.
I suppose that the Cleveland pitchers might have had exclusive contracts with Bowman after 1953, as all but Lemon appeared in Topps' '53 set, but none of them in the '54 or '55 sets, and all reappeared in the Topps '56 set. If it were possible, it would certainly be interesting to compare which players the two gum pushers targeted for exclusive deals in those years.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by Volod

Thanks again Dave. According to the year-by-year account provided in your excellent history, 1953 was the year that Topps really struggled to sign players to exclusive deals: just 26 to Bowman's 388. You state that the next year, 1954, things had almost evened out, with Topps holding 124 exclusives to Bowman's 136.

I suppose that the Cleveland pitchers might have had exclusive contracts with Bowman after 1953, as all but Lemon appeared in Topps' '53 set, but none of them in the '54 or '55 sets, and all reappeared in the Topps '56 set. If it were possible, it would certainly be interesting to compare which players the two gum pushers targeted for exclusive deals in those years.

There are some lists in the court cases and there was an old SCD book years ago that collected some articles, one of which has a complete list of which player was signed where but I never managed to get a copy of it. I thought about doing up a full list myself but so far have not been able to enthuse myself enough to do so!

[Il Padrino]

Originally Posted by Theoldprofessor

Attachment 94728Attachment 94727


Great thread! But the preceding is, in my opinion, not quite correct. I'm an old guy -- I collected in the early 50s --- and I remember that my friends and I did not care for the set that in many ways replicated the set from the year before. But that was in 1951. Many of those cards were just longer versions of the same picture. See, for example, the Williams entries for 50 and 51.

It's true that the 51 set had more cards, but they were still pretty much ignored, at least in my crowd. We liked the autographed 52s much better, not to mention that set from the new company ... um ... Topps. They were really cool.

Great post, thank you for sharing your early collecting experience. I can only imagine what it must have been like to pull pack fresh Mantles, Joe D, Willie Mays, etc. sure takes you back in time and I wasn't even there.