If you were a kid back in the day, which cards would you have bought?

[droid714]

I recently read a book about the war between Bowman and Topps for control of the baseball card market back in the 1950's and it got me thinking about how I would have spent my nickles if I had been a kid back then.

For each year, from 1949 through 1955, which brand of card would you have bought? Here are the ground rules: You can only choose to collect one brand, you can't collect both. And, for the sake of this exercise, ignore production quality problems. Assume that every card has perfect centering and registration. I'm more curious about how you feel about the actual design of the card and not the fact that the end product had quality control issues.

I'll start.

1949: Leaf

I currently collect only Indians so I'm basing my comparisons on the Indians from the Bowman and Leaf sets and the Leaf set wins hands down! The cards are larger, the colors brighter and the images superior. Eight of the nine Indians in the Leaf set have a counterpart in the Bowman set and the only card I prefer in the Bowman set is the Larry Doby, but only by a small margin. The 1949 Bowman set is mostly a bunch of boring head shots.

1951: Bowman

Seriously? The 1951 Bowman set is quite colorful and attractive while the Red Back/Blue Back set from Topps is possibly the most hideous set of cards ever made.

1952: Topps

Topps blindsided Bowman with what is still arguably the finest looking set of cards ever made. Bowman, on the other hand, kind of just mailed it in. I always felt that the '52 Bowman set was a cheap knockoff of their '51 set with drabber, more subdued colors.

1953: Bowman

Topps produced a truly beautiful set of cards in '53. Unfortunately, Bowman produced what many vintage collectors believe is the most beautiful set of baseball cards ever made.

1954: Bowman

I think that the '54 Bowman set is possibly the most overlooked and underappreciated set of cards ever made. Overshadowed by their '53 set it gets very little love. I love the design and put them in the same class as the '53s. Topps, on the other hand put out the second worst looking cards they ever produced, surpassing only the Red Back/Blue Back sets. I might be prejudiced because most of the Indians players have a sickly, pea-green background. And don't even get me started on the alternating backs!

1955: Bowman

For the record, I'm not partial to horizontally oriented cards. I don't even like the occasional horizontal card placed in a vertically oriented set. Just my luck that both companies chose to issue horizontal sets in '55. To their credit, Bowman used an original design making use of those new-fangled TV sets that all your well-off neighbors had in their living rooms! Topps, on the other hand, used a bland design which was little more than their '54 set turned on it's side. Not Impressed.

So to summarize:

1949 Leaf by a sizable margin
1951 Bowman by a mile
1952 Topps by a mile
1953 Bowman by a slim margin
1954 Bowman by a mile
1955 Bowman by a sizable margin

[ALR-bishop]

Good topic and the Dean book is a good resource ( hope this does not cause rants about his pricing again). There is a prior thread on this. I will try to find it.

I did not start collecting until 57, but did all the Topps sets originally and Bowman later. As I recall in the prior thread folks discussed design, price , number of cards and size as factors.

In 51 Topps had 5 sets. Agree the red and blue backs are not great, but the Team cards and Current and Connie Macks are very nice from my stand point

The 55 TV set was a novel idea but a bust in the market, maybe because of all those umpires or maybe because so few households actually had a color TV in 1955

Here are threads on 1953

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...pack+which+buy

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....+bowman+nickle

[Tripredacus]

I really like the Bowman releases where the cards are smaller than the (now) normal ones, and dislike the Topps releases where the cards are larger. I wonder if I was a kid back then, if I would have felt the same way...

But I think that perhaps my fondness for "smaller" cards is only because I had grown up in the "standard" card size years. And I never liked the larger cards because of that, even 1990 Bowman or Topps Big. I guess I'll never know!

[PolarBear]

Well, 49-51 seems like Bowman would have to be the choice.

I'd go with Bowman for 49-53 and Topps 54-55.

The 50-52 Bowman sets are the best of the era.

[tulsaboy]

As a kid, if I had collected in the late 40's, I would have been excited by the "big" cards of 52 Topps. But I would have been enchanted by the photography of the 53 Bowman compared to the sketches/artistic version on the 53 Topps. I think that, just like I did in the late 80's, I would have bought a little of each brand just for fun, but would have tried to complete at least one set each year.
kevin

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Bowman for 1950 through 1953. The Bowman paintings in 1950, 1951, and 1952 are like fine art to me. Absolutely exquisite. And I disagree with a previous poster, I think the 1952 paintings are the best of the bunch...more detailed.

Then the same can be said for the photography of 1953 bowman. Fine art.

Then starting in 1954 it’s Topps the rest of the way. Big, colorful, mixing action poses and portraits....and I love the cartoons on the back of those 50’s era topps cards.

[ALBB]

As a kid, Id collect the T 205 and T 206 cards...Ive always enjoyed smoking, and as a kid I would have loved to smoke cigarettes while thumbing thru my T cards

[ALR-bishop]

But you would be dead now Albert, either from smoking or old age. What would you have done with your cards at the end ?

[CobbSpikedMe]

I grew up collecting in the 80's and early 90's and always really wanted tobacco cards, specifically T206s. I always assumed they were worth a fortune and I would never be able to afford them. Many years later I learned that had I simply looked for them at shows as a kid I could've found them for cheap and could've afforded them. I would've spent all my card money on those and caramel cards back then. It's my biggest regret from my childhood collecting career.

[rats60]

1949 Bowman. 1949 Leaf cards are ugly. One of the few post war sets that I never collected.

1951-1954 Bowman. These early Topps sets were ugly in my opinion. The only one close is 1954.

1955 Topps. One of the best looking Topps sets ever. The TV design on 1955 Bowman is ugly.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by ALBB

As a kid, Id collect the T 205 and T 206 cards...Ive always enjoyed smoking, and as a kid I would have loved to smoke cigarettes while thumbing thru my T cards

Could this be a troll post from a tobacco company investor?

[egri]

1949: Leaf. The set looks like it was designed by Andy Warhol, and it has Ted Williams, who Bowman missed out on that year.

1950-51: Has to be Bowman, as they were the only game in town, Topps' 1951issue notwithstanding.

1952: That's a tough one, as I really don't like either of them. If I had to pick, probably Bowman.

1953: Topps. I just don't like cards that don't have the player's name on the front, and trying to collect a set of them would've driven me crazy either having to flip them over or play 'Guess Who?' to figure out who I'm looking at.

1954: I keep going back and forth on this one; I like the photography in Topps, and the two Ted Williams's, but lately the Bowman set has grown on me. Still, there's only one Ted Williams, and it was pulled prematurely. Topps for now, but my opinion might change.

1955: Topps. I never liked the wood grain borders; they've always looked very dated to me, regardless of whether they're on 1955 Bowman, 1962 or 1987 Topps.

[pawpawdiv9]

weed & vinyl

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

weed & vinyl

+1 (if we're going there)

[Johnny630]

1933 Goudey Baseball and Indian Chewing Gum
1933 Goudey Sport Kings
1948 Leaf Baseball and Boxing
1951 Bowman Baseball
1953 Topps Baseball
1955 Topps Baseball