Fun Local Lot Buy - 1955 Bowman

[JollyElm]

Truly awesome, and we're all jealous. Are any of the big stars free from the penwork?

[egri]

Nice find John! The longer I collect, the more I've become partial to old cards that show their age, whether that's creases, writing, dinged corners, etc. I like thinking that the card was handled and played with; it didn't go straight into a shoebox.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by egri

Nice find John! The longer I collect, the more I've become partial to old cards that show their age, whether that's creases, writing, dinged corners, etc. I like thinking that the card was handled and played with; it didn't go straight into a shoebox.

Nice pickup....adds a nice but unwanted touch to the set!

[olecow]

I know what you mean about the ink on the cards. I have a 56 Topps Eddie Mathews PSA 7 with an MK qualifier. The MK is that someone wrote his uniform number 41 in ink at the top of the card back. It doesn't bother me at all. Like you, I imagine a kid back in the 50's writing the uniform numbers of players on his cards. I love that.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by olecow

I know what you mean about the ink on the cards. I have a 56 Topps Eddie Mathews PSA 7 with an MK qualifier. The MK is that someone wrote his uniform number 41 in ink at the top of the card back. It doesn't bother me at all. Like you, I imagine a kid back in the 50's writing the uniform numbers of players on his cards. I love that.

I love it too...I got to imagine it wasn't easy for some of the uni numbers...no internet back then! A little work was involved...especially when you see Irv Noren or someone like that, not exactly household names in the 50s out here in Washington state.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I love it too...I got to imagine it wasn't easy for some of the uni numbers...no internet back then! A little work was involved...especially when you see Irn Noren or someone like that, not exactly household names in the 50s out here in Washington state.

Yes, no interweb, and very little baseball coverage on TV, either. My brother and I decided in - I believe it was 1953 - to try to buy a complete set of official team yearbooks, so that we could have bios (and uni numbers of course) for all MLB players. I think we bought the books from a second hand dealer advertising in the back of a S&S annual because I recall that we paid 50 cents for most of the books, but the NY-based teams were more expensive, maybe a buck or two. Even at those prices, we viewed the purchase as a major investment - man, $12 or so - for books!

[nat]

So when you pick up the remaining 114 cards, I assume you'll write the players' uniform numbers on the front?

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by Volod

Yes, no interweb, and very little baseball coverage on TV, either. My brother and I decided in - I believe it was 1953 - to try to buy a complete set of official team yearbooks, so that we could have bios (and uni numbers of course) for all MLB players. I think we bought the books from a second hand dealer advertising in the back of a S&S annual because I recall that we paid 50 cents for most of the books, but the NY-based teams were more expensive, maybe a buck or two. Even at those prices, we viewed the purchase as a major investment - man, $12 or so - for books!

That's awesome Steve...do you still have those yearbooks? When I was a kid in the late 70s I would get the Who's Who booklets...I LOVED those and read them like bibles. I had a neighbor who even gave me a couple from the 60s...I'd have those memorized...

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Nice pickup....adds a nice but unwanted touch to the set!

You nailed it...haha. "nice but unwanted" perfectly sums it up...but happy to have em!

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by egri

Nice find John! The longer I collect, the more I've become partial to old cards that show their age, whether that's creases, writing, dinged corners, etc. I like thinking that the card was handled and played with; it didn't go straight into a shoebox.

Agreed. Another cool thing about this lot was they were in number order and no duplicates, and all in almost the exact same condition. This was how they came from the original collector...so to me that means he was intent on putting the set together and put some organization into it, and got rid of the rest. He either lost interest by the end of the year or couldn't find many packs from the last series....or just started buying Topps...lol.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

He either lost interest by the end of the year or couldn't find many packs from the last series....or just started buying Topps...lol.

A while ago, we had a thread on here asking if you were a kid in 1955, would you collect Bowman or Topps (It's 1955 and you have a nickel). It was interesting to see some of the responses and the rationale behind them.

[Harliduck]

Thanks for sharing that Scott, that was a fun read! I missed that one...

I would have bought both if given the chance...more cards the better...so if I only had 1 nickel I would have picked the pack with more cards - Bowman. Funny, I was 11 when Fleer and Donruss came out, and my corner store that had always had Topps, ONLY had the new Donruss. I remember being upset about that, and only got more upset when I opened pack after pack that had doubles IN THE PACK. I made my Mom drive me to the next town and found Topps and Fleer at different stores. She was a good mom, I ended up putting all three sets together through packs...but Topps was king BY FAR in my little mind.


Anyway...thanks again for sharing that.

Really digging these 55 Bowmans...picking up umpire cards all day today while trying to get some work done...haha

[Bigdaddy]

A couple of years ago I ran across a lot of about 2/3 of a 1957 Topps baseball set at a local card show. The dealer was selling the commons individually. As I looked through the pile, I noticed that not only were there no doubles, but they were in order and all had good registration and pretty good centering. I started to pull out a pile of them but then decided to make an offer for the entire lot with the idea that I'd put the set together. I got a really good deal on the bunch, but what I found out as we were discussing the pending deal is that they all had a letter written in ink on the back along with an ink stamp. The fronts were clean, but the backs had been 'marked', sort of a cattle brand if you will. I convinced myself that was OK, as some of the T206 guys actually collect back stamps, and besides, this was the back and not the front. I ended up also buying all the stars he had pulled out to sell individually, including Brooks RC, and made my way home with a bundle of 60 year old cards I had no intention of buying at the beginning of the show. I'll never forget what the dealer told me as we consummated the deal - "I might as well sell the whole lot as the landlord don't take baseball cards for rent".

I finished up the set at Chantilly in July of 2019, with Mick being the last card I needed. And as I look through the binder full of 1957s today, I'll glance at the back of a card to see if it was part of 'the find' or added later.

Enjoy your '55 Bowmans for what they are - a group of cards that have been together since 1955, enjoyed by the owner, and still together after so many seasons.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

A couple of years ago I ran across a lot of about 2/3 of a 1957 Topps baseball set at a local card show. The dealer was selling the commons individually. As I looked through the pile, I noticed that not only were there no doubles, but they were in order and all had good registration and pretty good centering. I started to pull out a pile of them but then decided to make an offer for the entire lot with the idea that I'd put the set together. I got a really good deal on the bunch, but what I found out as we were discussing the pending deal is that they all had a letter written in ink on the back along with an ink stamp. The fronts were clean, but the backs had been 'marked', sort of a cattle brand if you will. I convinced myself that was OK, as some of the T206 guys actually collect back stamps, and besides, this was the back and not the front. I ended up also buying all the stars he had pulled out to sell individually, including Brooks RC, and made my way home with a bundle of 60 year old cards I had no intention of buying at the beginning of the show. I'll never forget what the dealer told me as we consummated the deal - "I might as well sell the whole lot as the landlord don't take baseball cards for rent".

I finished up the set at Chantilly in July of 2019, with Mick being the last card I needed. And as I look through the binder full of 1957s today, I'll glance at the back of a card to see if it was part of 'the find' or added later.

Enjoy your '55 Bowmans for what they are - a group of cards that have been together since 1955, enjoyed by the owner, and still together after so many seasons.

That's an awesome pick up and so cool you get em all. Like you, I will forever think of the history behind my grouping as I look thru them, a whole different perspective. Thanks for sharing that! Wish my "numbers" were on the back!

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Truly awesome, and we're all jealous. Are any of the big stars free from the penwork?

Its funny looking through them...ALL of the Dodgers and all but 1 Yankee has their numbers written out (some just on the back)...then just the stars and minor stars. Most of the commons are clean with a few exceptions. The 1 Yankee that was spared was Whitey Ford...not sure how that happened...a Yankee AND a star. Only two of note that were clean besides Ford are Minoso and Red S. Joe Astroth and many more didn't mean much to the kid...haha...