1950s Bowman VS Topps

[sesop]

I had been solely focused on Tobacco and Caramel cards from the early 1900s until I stopped collecting a few years ago. Having had my interested sparked again, I return to the hobby and am dipping my toe back in pre-war vintage, but I'm also interested in the 50s stuff. I've always loved the artwork on the Bowman and Topps cards of the early 1950s. I'm wondering whether there are a lot of collectors of any of those series, and what your thoughts are in terms of popularity and value. Bowman always seems to have lagged far behind Topps in both- but I'm not sure what I'm basing that assumption on other than price differential. It seems like many cards have decreased in value over the past few years- are these also victims? Has Topps gone down more than Bowman? If I were to attack a set, any advice as to which would be relatively easy and inexpensive to complete? What would be an ideal grade (assuming I can't afford 9s and 10s- are there a lot of people out there looking for 8s or is 6 a good number to shoot for?) What's a fair price to expect to pay for an average, common Bowman and Topps card from their first year through, say, 1955? Any recent newcomers to these sets or are they dying in popularity? If you collect any of them, do you collect by set? Team? Type? What are some of the more challenging cards in any given set? Any opinions insight is appreciated. Thanks!

[drew20]

I love 50s bowman, 53 and 54 are beautiful sets but can be on the pricey side, especially the 53 bowman colors. 1954 or 1955 topps may be the cheapest early sets since Mantle was signed with Bowman and not in either topps set. 6 is a great number to shoot for IMO.

[Gr8Beldini]

Originally Posted by drew20

I love 50s bowman, 53 and 54 are beautiful sets but can be on the pricey side, especially the 53 bowman colors. 1954 or 1955 topps may be the cheapest early sets since Mantle was signed with Bowman and not in either topps set. 6 is a great number to shoot for IMO.

I disagree with 54 & 55 being cheaper. While no Mantle to contend with, these 2 sets have some bonkers rookie cards. Aaron, Clemente & Koufax are all more expensive than a 4th year Mantle likely would have been. '56 is the best Topps set of all time. The artwork, player selection (everybody except Stan is there) and the reasonable price. Even a decent Mantle can be found reasonably priced.

[drew20]

Originally Posted by Gr8Beldini

I disagree with 54 & 55 being cheaper. While no Mantle to contend with, these 2 sets have some bonkers rookie cards. Aaron, Clemente & Koufax are all more expensive than a 4th year Mantle likely would have been. '56 is the best Topps set of all time. The artwork, player selection (everybody except Stan is there) and the reasonable price. Even a decent Mantle can be found reasonably priced.

You are probably correct on the price but I respectfully disagree on '56 being the best topps set. I've always had a thing with the 1957 set, it's got everybody you would ever want in a set. Great HOF rookies in Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson, Drysdale, Mazeroski. The '57 set has the famous Yankees power hitters card with Mantle and Berra, the last Campanella playing card, etc.

Long story short, you really can't go wrong with any 50s set in my opinion.

[Matthew80]

Stay away from '51 Bowman. I've been slowly assembling it, and I'm reaching the point where I have to shell out a good 5k for the Ford, Mantle, and Mays.

By my judgment, '53 Topps will always be the most attractive early 50s set.

+1 on the '56 and '57 for their attractiveness & comprehensive player list.

[sesop]

I'll stay away from '51. It's always kind of intimidated me anyway with all those cards, as opposed to '50 and '52 with relatively easier 252 cards. What does anyone think about long term potential for 50s sets? Will vintage (early 1900's) always be heads and shoulders more interest from collectors or will we see more interest in the 50s as time marches on? How about price? Will they ever be a "bargain?"

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by sesop

... What does anyone think about long term potential for 50s sets? Will vintage (early 1900's) always be heads and shoulders more interest from collectors or will we see more interest in the 50s as time marches on? How about price? Will they ever be a "bargain?"

Your comment surprises me in that I would guess there is more interest by collectors in 50's cards than there is in early 1900's cards. Now then, I'm not referring just to Net 54 members, because the focus of this Forum is pre-WWII.
Val

[Volod]

Originally Posted by Matthew80

Stay away from '51 Bowman. I've been slowly assembling it, and I'm reaching the point where I have to shell out a good 5k for the Ford, Mantle, and Mays.

By my judgment, '53 Topps will always be the most attractive early 50s set.

+1 on the '56 and '57 for their attractiveness & comprehensive player list.

Hah, your frustration with the '51's brings back memories of my experience in putting the set together. Assembled 322 cards fairly easily back in the 80's at about two bucks for commons, five to twenty for minor stars and ten for high numbers. Back then, I just could not bring myself to shell out more than a c-note for an old baseball card, so I foolishly refused to spring for a nice Mantle or Mays at a few hundred. After living with the incomplete set for twenty years, finally had to have the two key cards and paid big bucks to get them. It's as if the need for completion gnaws at you until you have to give in to the obsession.

[BradH]

A couple months ago I was trimming down some of my collection and decided to start a '51 Bowman set after realizing that I already had a dozen or so of the stars and about 30 commons.

Now, I will say that I'm doing the set in fairly "beater" condition - none of the cards are better than EX, and most are FR or VG, with some PR. I have since purchased a few more stars in the $15-25 range and another 40 or so commons at $3-4 each.

Last week I purchased the Mantle RC in PSA 2 for $750. The only "major" card I still need is the Mays, but I'm in no rush for it. If a decently centered one comes along similar to the Mantle I just purchased, then great.

Anyway, I've just always liked the size of them and I think the '50-'51-'52 Bowmans are beautiful. And the '53, '54 and '57 Topps sets are tough to beat.

[ALR-bishop]

Putting together all 5 of the 1951 Topps sets is a challenge as well;

[Big Six]

I'd swear Al has every damn baseball card ever printed...the breadth of your collection blows me away every time you post. Great stuff...

[Volod]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Putting together all 5 of the 1951 Topps sets is a challenge as well;

Al, sorry, couldn't resist showing off the last three I needed to complete my '51's..if only...

[ALR-bishop]

Steve--I assume these are on a lot of lists. They were all available in an auction a couple of years back after being on display at a National ( prior Baltimore ?) I went pretty high on all three but to no avail.

Like the 55 Stamps, 60 Proofs/variations- Cimoli/Hanley/Throneberry, 61 Dice, 66 Punch Outs, 70 Cloth and 71 Rookie Artists Proofs, they are elusive. I have one of the Dice, Stamps and Cloths, and would settle for a sample of the others as well....sigh.

For me, the hardest actually issued Topps baseball set has been the 1955 Hocus Focus. I have only 1/2 of that set. I was able to complete the 56s