1952 Bowman Baseball Picture Cards

[G1911]

The 1952 Bowman’s have become my favorite of the Bowman Baseball issues. With artwork not shared in other sets (unlike 1950 and 1951), I think this was the peak of the 1950-1952 art-based design path. I’m a sucker for art cards and facsimile autos, so this one is near perfection in my book. Talking about this issue with vintagebaseballcardguy last night made me take my box out and go through them for the umpteenth time.

The lower cost of the set has been a huge help in collecting it. Without any major rookies (Minoso is the best, one of my favorite players of the era but not costly), and a pretty simple high number run that is noticeably scarcer than the earlier series but not very difficult, it’s mostly paying up for the names. Mantle, Mays and Musial. I found that Slaughter in the high series tends to go for more than one might expect, but maybe I was just browsing for that one at the wrong time.

I know these were printed in 36 card sheets, but I’m not sure this corresponds exactly to series in the actual pack out. Whether the first 72 cards constitute 2 series or 1, I’m not sure of. Anyone opened a pack of these? The first 72 have 2 distinct variations, a print run on a tannish toned stock with a muddied and darker appearance, or a white-bordered and clearer image variation. Both seem about equally difficult, the muddier cards are certainly less attractive and don’t such a good job exhibiting the colorful artwork.

After picking up Musial on the BST last year, I am down to just Mantle to complete my set, which will definitely be a thoroughly worn beater and will probably cost more than 50% of the total of my set. I got my first one about 20 years ago, Billy Goodman (not bad for a common, .300 lifetime average), and lately have been filling in the Master Se. Besides the 1-72 variations I’m not aware of any others, which would make a master set 324 cards (thankfully, none of the bigger names are in the first series or two, though plenty of Hall of Famers). Perhaps Bowman used two printers to get the cards out in time, or perhaps they corrected an issue with using the lower quality stock and print part way through the run; as far as I can tell there is no real evidence for why they were done in a much lower-quality run .

My set is between poor and vg/ex, with little regard for condition paid while pursuing completion. Round corners and a crease are a card that has been loved to me. It would feel out of place to have 4 sharp corners! The only condition I’ve cared about is avoiding out of focus/misaligned cards, as the art is the great appeal to me in this issue.

Attached are my favorites among the Hall of Famers (I know Minnie isn’t in, but he feels like one to me). Snider clobbering one out of the park and Irvin in the batting care are particularly great poses. As a Bay Area native that grew up on stories of Willie Mays being the God of Baseball, it does bother me that his autograph is depicted as “Willie May”. Michaels and Hutchinson show the difference between the two printing variations in cards 1-72. Most cards are pretty easy to tell which version they are in photos, in hand the difference is pretty big.

The commons in this set shine, tough to pick only a few of the highlight poses, but these are some of mine. The background of the Coan card always stands out to my eyes, and Stanky is probably my favorite if I have to pick one.

Any one else love this issue? Have a favorite pose or image or player? Any oddities, errors or notes? Or do you passionately dislike the art style and those fake signatures that don't even look like the player's writing half the time?

[ALR-bishop]

G-- I have the set and like it but also have the 52 Topps set and prefer it. Not sure if bigger is better, but I think that is one reason I lean that way, and maybe why the market then did as well.

Good luck on finishing with the Mantle. Your passion for collecting the set is great to see. Good post

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Great post, Greg! '52 B is a really pretty set, and I am enjoying putting it together as well. I just happen to have further to go than only Mantle at this point, but there's no rush. The fun is in the journey. Like you, I am building mine in lower grade...avoiding writing, paper loss, miscuts, etc. You are correct, the cards hold up pretty well. I am finding that some condition issues are harder to see once the cards are in my binder. They are relatively affordable as well.

The era from roughly 1950 to about 1956 or 1957 is my very favorite era of baseball history, and this set (for me at least) really helps to tell the story of this era. I read about this era extensively, and it is fun for me to obtain many of the commons almost as much as some of the stars because I have read about those common players. It is rewarding being able to put a face with the name from the book.

I think you forgot to attach your scans. I'd love to see them. This could be a fun thread. Most of my set isn't within my reach at the moment, but I will get my hands on it and share some of my favorites as well.

[G1911]

Sorry, it looks like some images uploaded last night are now not appearing in threads anymore, presumably due to the software issues. Trying again

[G1911]

It works now!

And here's an extra of a favorite card for me in the set. Ferris Fain was an excellent player, he did win 2 batting titles in the American League. My grandfather grew up in San Francisco in the time before the Giants had moved to the left coast, and to this day swears that DiMaggio and Ferris Fain are the most important SF ballplayers there ever were, though he does concede that that Mr. Mays fellow was pretty special too. Fain may be a common, but he's a special card in my book for sentimental reasons

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sorry, it looks like some images uploaded last night are now not appearing in threads anymore, presumably due to the software issues. Trying again

Awesome stuff! Thank you for sharing. I love those cards! They look great together. Your story about your grandfather and Fain is cool as well. Personal connections enhance enjoyment of these cards.

I learn something new everyday it seems. Before you mentioned it, I didn't know about the two tones/border colors. Those examples make it obvious. I am curious, are there any differences reflected on the backs? I mean can you tell the two versions apart by looking at the backs at all?

[Volod]

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely. The stores in my area of upstate NY were flush with Bowman product, but I can't recall seeing any Topps cards in 1952 - except perhaps in the collections of kids who had travelled to the big city to get them - and those had mostly been scissored down to match the size of the Bowmans. I preferred the Bowman cards anyway - loved the horizontally oriented action poses, especially the catchers - Del Rice, Eddie Fitzgerald. I did not notice the stock variation issue when I was an eight-year-old, but thirty years later, when restarting my collection, it was quite obvious to me that cards in the first two series were often dark and muddy compared to others. It didn't seem to me to be a "variation" phenomenon, however - I simply upgraded to brighter and more vibrant examples. The registration problem did bother me, however, and I put together about four complete sets in the early '80's by continuously upgrading each card to find a sharper looking example. Thanks for your post, and the opportunity to reminisce.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Awesome stuff! Thank you for sharing. I love those cards! They look great together. Your story about your grandfather and Fain is cool as well. Personal connections enhance enjoyment of these cards.

I learn something new everyday it seems. Before you mentioned it, I didn't know about the two tones/border colors. Those examples make it obvious. I am curious, are there any differences reflected on the backs? I mean can you tell the two versions apart by looking at the backs at all?

The backs appear to me to be indistinguishable, the same scratchy grey stock. Both seem to be about equally common, though my base set had more of the white stock cards because I think they look nicer.

Pretty sure these are something like the 1962 Topps Green Tints, a low budget print run or outsourced to a different than normal print shop to meet a deadline.

I think these are definitely 'true' variations, but a pretty boring one. I'm having fun using it as an excuse to build the first 2 series again! Thank the Lord Mickey isn't in the run affected...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Volod

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely. The stores in my area of upstate NY were flush with Bowman product, but I can't recall seeing any Topps cards in 1952 - except perhaps in the collections of kids who had travelled to the big city to get them - and those had mostly been scissored down to match the size of the Bowmans. I preferred the Bowman cards anyway - loved the horizontally oriented action poses, especially the catchers - Del Rice, Eddie Fitzgerald. I did not notice the stock variation issue when I was an eight-year-old, but thirty years later, when restarting my collection, it was quite obvious to me that cards in the first two series were often dark and muddy compared to others. It didn't seem to me to be a "variation" phenomenon, however - I simply upgraded to brighter and more vibrant examples. The registration problem did bother me, however, and I put together about four complete sets in the early '80's by continuously upgrading each card to find a sharper looking example. Thanks for your post, and the opportunity to reminisce.

This is awesome, I always like hearing from those who remember when the cards were fresh or new. I'm too young to have opened any vintage myself, so I live vicariously through this.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Volod

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely. The stores in my area of upstate NY were flush with Bowman product, but I can't recall seeing any Topps cards in 1952 - except perhaps in the collections of kids who had travelled to the big city to get them - and those had mostly been scissored down to match the size of the Bowmans. I preferred the Bowman cards anyway - loved the horizontally oriented action poses, especially the catchers - Del Rice, Eddie Fitzgerald. I did not notice the stock variation issue when I was an eight-year-old, but thirty years later, when restarting my collection, it was quite obvious to me that cards in the first two series were often dark and muddy compared to others. It didn't seem to me to be a "variation" phenomenon, however - I simply upgraded to brighter and more vibrant examples. The registration problem did bother me, however, and I put together about four complete sets in the early '80's by continuously upgrading each card to find a sharper looking example. Thanks for your post, and the opportunity to reminisce.

Thank you. That is cool to read! I can't imagine opening packs of these. That's just awesome! I love reading first hand accounts like this.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by G1911

The backs appear to me to be indistinguishable, the same scratchy grey stock. Both seem to be about equally common, though my base set had more of the white stock cards because I think they look nicer.

Pretty sure these are something like the 1962 Topps Green Tints, a low budget print run or outsourced to a different than normal print shop to meet a deadline.

I think these are definitely 'true' variations, but a pretty boring one. I'm having fun using it as an excuse to build the first 2 series again! Thank the Lord Mickey isn't in the run affected...

I fully agree on the Mantle..gulp! Thanks for the info on these. I'll admit, if/when I get a complete set, I would be open to picking up those "other" first 72 again.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Received this Mays for my set today. Very happy with it!

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Hey guys, glad to see 1952 Bowman being discussed.

This is also my favorite vintage set. I have been building a mid-grade (mostly EX) set for the last three years. I am 90% of the way done, and just a couple weeks ago, pulled the trigger on a Mantle. So I have all of the high dollar cards already purchased (Mantle, Mays, Musial, Berra, Snider) and most of the other hall of famers.

I'm honestly in no rush, because I really enjoy the pursuit. When I finish the set, I'll be sure to post some pics and some stats along the way. I keep records of when I get the cards, where they come from (i.e. in person, online as well as state shipped from), etc.

As of now, I don't plan on getting both versions of cards 1 - 72. I definitely prefer the whiter versions, but I have a mix of both. I don't think I would necessarily enjoy having duplicates of all those cards.

However, I do have the other major variation...the #248 Bill Werle "missing part of signature" card (as you can see in the picture below, the variation has part of the "W" missing in his signature). This one can be fairly hard to track down (in a reasonable price). You can usually find some very over priced ones on Ebay at any given time....but if you are patient, I've found that the variations comes up a couple times a year in a straight auction format...and that's how I acquired mine.

Another interesting bit of information I found online was this old blogpost that discusses the series release dates based on trades. I can't vouch for who wrote this, or the accuracy, but I think it gives a valid estimation of WHEN the different series were released.

https://pjdenterprises.com/baseball_...52_bowman.html


At any rate, keep posting your updates and thoughts on the 1952 Bowman set...because I could read about it all day.

Here are a couple pics from my set for now...both versions of the Werle, as well as my newly acquired Mantle.

E18861C3-EE16-411E-99ED-686047E808C7.jpg

Mantle.JPG

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Received this Mays for my set today. Very happy with it!

Oh, and I forgot to mention vintagebaseballcardguy, that Mays is sweet. Crease free and a good image. Thanks for sharing.

Mine is centered pretty much like yours (which is to say, pretty off centered). But those high numbers are almost IMPOSSIBLE to find perfectly centered...and when they are, they typically sell for a premium.

So I'm perfectly fine with off centered high numbers...because that's how the kids were pulling them out of the packs back in 1952

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

The backs appear to me to be indistinguishable, the same scratchy grey stock. Both seem to be about equally common, though my base set had more of the white stock cards because I think they look nicer.

Pretty sure these are something like the 1962 Topps Green Tints, a low budget print run or outsourced to a different than normal print shop to meet a deadline.

I think these are definitely 'true' variations, but a pretty boring one. I'm having fun using it as an excuse to build the first 2 series again! Thank the Lord Mickey isn't in the run affected...

Just different stock, probably from a separate press run at the same printing plant. Topps did the same in certain years and series. The stock that stays white I call brilliant white.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Oh, and I forgot to mention vintagebaseballcardguy, that Mays is sweet. Crease free and a good image. Thanks for sharing.

Mine is centered pretty much like yours (which is to say, pretty off centered). But those high numbers are almost IMPOSSIBLE to find perfectly centered...and when they are, they typically sell for a premium.

So I'm perfectly fine with off centered high numbers...because that's how the kids were pulling them out of the packs back in 1952

Thanks! I am trying to keep my spending in check on this set, so I was satisfied with this particular Mays, especially considering the centering difficulties that plague those highs. Like you said, I was happy to find one minus creases and with a decent image. Your Mantle is killer! I look forward to giving that link you provided a read. Thanks.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Just different stock, probably from a separate press run at the same printing plant. Topps did the same in certain years and series. The stock that stays white I call brilliant white.

Reminds me a little of '57 Topps, with some of the photography being a little brighter and some a little muddier.

[G1911]

Very nice Willie "May"!

I'm looking for a Werle still, I'd classify this as a recurring print defect, but it's tough to acquire. There are plenty of them out there, but those selling think they are worth like 10x the ones that have actually transacted.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm looking for a Werle still, I'd classify this as a recurring print defect, but it's tough to acquire. There are plenty of them out there, but those selling think they are worth like 10x the ones that have actually transacted.

I think one thing that helps keep the actual price down for the Werle in a straight auction is that the 1952 Bowman is so much less popular than 1952 Topps. And as a collector, that is fine with me...as it feels like this set is a relative bargain, even though I personally greatly prefer them to Topps due to the artwork. I think a similar scarce variation/error/defect in 1952 Topps would sell for MUCH higher. If you look at the pop report on PSA and SGC, they are really low (but granted, I feel like some of them were graded PRIOR to it being identified as a variation).

Not much info here, but here is a short thread from 2007 with a couple Net54 members discussing the rarity:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ighlight=werle

With patience, it feels like a mid-grade Werle variation should be valued in the $50 to $80 range. But you're right, they are often listed with it Buy It Now price of about 10x that.

I feel like quite often, sellers don't really know what they have...so they aren't listed as "missing signature". Only those of us that are actively looking at the scans are identifying them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

I think one thing that helps keep the actual price down for the Werle in a straight auction is that the 1952 Bowman is so much less popular than 1952 Topps. And as a collector, that is fine with me...as it feels like this set is a relative bargain, even though I personally greatly prefer them to Topps due to the artwork. I think a similar scarce variation/error/defect in 1952 Topps would sell for MUCH higher. If you look at the pop report on PSA and SGC, they are really low (but granted, I feel like some of them were graded PRIOR to it being identified as a variation).

Not much info here, but here is a short thread from 2007 with a couple Net54 members discussing the rarity:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...ighlight=werle

With patience, it feels like a mid-grade Werle variation should be valued in the $50 to $80 range. But you're right, they are often listed with it Buy It Now price of about 10x that.

I feel like quite often, sellers don't really know what they have...so they aren't listed as "missing signature". Only those of us that are actively looking at the scans are identifying them.

I can only imagine what the rate would be if it was a Topps instead! I love the 1952 Topps issue as well, definitely prefer the larger size and the backs, but I like the artwork on the Bowmans better and the 'fun per $' equation makes me favor the Bowmans. Helps that the high numbers are not so nearly in demand with the Bowmans. If this issue had been done in the size of the 53-55 sets or had a Bowman Large version like the 1952 Footballs, I think it would be a lot more popular.

I don't think PSA recognized Werle until fairly recently; I've seen a fair number of them but usually not for sale or at museum BIN's. Definitely less than 10% of all Werle's though, I'll be patient and hopefully get one at a decent figure.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Reminds me a little of '57 Topps, with some of the photography being a little brighter and some a little muddier.

Yup, card stock and coloring of the card itself can affect the look. Look at 1952 Topps 1-80 Red/Black or the 3rd series grays vs regular print cards. I try to weed the dingy ones out of my late 60's Topps sets, where the crummy stock was prevalent. It's really noticeable on the reverses in 1967 and '68 especially.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Volod

My favorite set as a kid collector. In the winter of '51-52, I had seen a few '51 Bowman cards, but when spring finally sprang, the '52's were the first set that I ever ripped out of waxpacks. I still recall the fragrant aroma of the bubblegum dust that coated the cards, but also the annoyance of finding so many duplicates in the third series - I think I had about a dozen Stanky cards, but not a single Mantle, which puzzles me to this day, since they were numbered so closely.

Reviewing this thread again (because as I said, this is my favorite set too).

Volod, I do have a question: How big was the gum that came with these cards? Where they big "card size" rectangles? Smaller rectangles like 80's era Topps cards? Stick gum like wrigleys? Was the gum wrapped, or did it just sit on top of the card? While the wax stains are very common on the back of these cards, I'm not sure I've ever seen an actual gum stain.

Just wondering what it was like to actually open a pack of these!

[G1911]

If I may add on - whose gum tasted better in the 50’s, Topps or Bowman?

[GasHouseGang]

I always loved the smell of opening any cards that came with gum. I'm not old enough to have tasted the Bowman gum, but I always liked the 1960's non-sports cards. There was always a variety of gum in those. Here's a few of my 1952 Bowmans.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I always loved the smell of opening any cards that came with gum. I'm not old enough to have tasted the Bowman gum, but I always liked the 1960's non-sports cards. There was always a variety of gum in those. Here's a few of my 1952 Bowmans.

Those are some great looking cards! That's definitely one of the nicer 52 Bowman Musials I have seen. That is one of my favorite baseball cards ever...I think it just looks like a masterpiece.

And I'm sure you've noticed how the 52 Bowman Mantle has been surging in price the last few months. I'm wondering if they will come back down to "pre pandemic" prices, or if these prices are the new normal.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Reviewing this thread again (because as I said, this is my favorite set too).

Volod, I do have a question: How big was the gum that came with these cards? Where they big "card size" rectangles? Smaller rectangles like 80's era Topps cards? Stick gum like wrigleys? Was the gum wrapped, or did it just sit on top of the card? While the wax stains are very common on the back of these cards, I'm not sure I've ever seen an actual gum stain.

Just wondering what it was like to actually open a pack of these!

you're really busting my feeble memory cells with that question. As best as I recall, the Bowman gum was a flat pink rectangle the same size as the cards, and since the cards had gum dust on them, I don't think there was any buffering in the waxpack. I have also been puzzled by the high percentage of cards that show stains on the reverse. Since the 5-cent packs had six cards, only one of the cards could have been in contact with a gum slab, and I seem to recall the gum usually being right on top - contacting the front of the card - when my grubby little fingers ripped it open. So, I have to believe that the stains, as common as they are, were perhaps caused by wax from the wrapper - maybe being still warm during the packing process. But, that still would not seem to account for the high percerntage of staining, since even that causal factor would only affect one of the six cards in each pack. So, another mystery of time and space, I guess. And, to your other question - I don't recall noticing any difference in the gum used by Bowman and Topps. If you look at the ingredients listed on the packs, they seem to be the same toxic junk, so maybe some kids just liked one brand a lot more because they happened to find a Mantle or Mays in the pack, instead of another duplicate of Peanuts Lowrey.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Those are some great looking cards! That's definitely one of the nicer 52 Bowman Musials I have seen. That is one of my favorite baseball cards ever...I think it just looks like a masterpiece.

And I'm sure you've noticed how the 52 Bowman Mantle has been surging in price the last few months. I'm wondering if they will come back down to "pre pandemic" prices, or if these prices are the new normal.

I agree, the Musial is one of my favorites. It was the first 52 Bowman I bought. The Mantle price has been going crazy lately and I'm not sure why. It very well may drop back to what used to be its "regular" price.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Volod

you're really busting my feeble memory cells with that question. As best as I recall, the Bowman gum was a flat pink rectangle the same size as the cards, and since the cards had gum dust on them, I don't think there was any buffering in the waxpack. I have also been puzzled by the high percentage of cards that show stains on the reverse. Since the 5-cent packs had six cards, only one of the cards could have been in contact with a gum slab, and I seem to recall the gum usually being right on top - contacting the front of the card - when my grubby little fingers ripped it open. So, I have to believe that the stains, as common as they are, were perhaps caused by wax from the wrapper - maybe being still warm during the packing process. But, that still would not seem to account for the high percerntage of staining, since even that causal factor would only affect one of the six cards in each pack. So, another mystery of time and space, I guess. And, to your other question - I don't recall noticing any difference in the gum used by Bowman and Topps. If you look at the ingredients listed on the packs, they seem to be the same toxic junk, so maybe some kids just liked one brand a lot more because they happened to find a Mantle or Mays in the pack, instead of another duplicate of Peanuts Lowrey.

Thanks for the response! So it sounds like the gum WAS a big, card size rectangle (not like the thin, brittle pieces I grew up opening in my 80's Topps packs).

As for the number of wax stains, I guess that might come down to how many 5 cent packs were sold as opposed to the 1 cent packs. I know there were two types of packs (as I've seen both wrappers for sale). Sounds like you were opening 5 cent packs, but I *THINK* I read somewhere that 1 cent packs were more common (1 cent = 1 card). So EVERY card in the 1 cent pakcs would have been touching the back of the wrapper. I feel like at least 50% (if not more) of the 1952 Bowmans have wax staining...so the 1 cent packs being more common would make sense.

I also appreciate you clearing up that Bowman and Topps gum pretty much tasted the same

This did get me thinking about the 5 cent packs with 6 cards. To my knowledge, the 5 cent packs only contained one piece of gum...so by 1952 the cards were DEFINITELY the main draw for buying packs (as opposed to the gum). In the 30's, I don't think Goudey had any 'multi-card' packs...so I wonder if kids in the 1930's still were mostly after the gum (and it was cool that they also got a card), of if they still would have put down a nickle for multiple cards, but only one piece of gum?

[Volod]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Thanks for the response! So it sounds like the gum WAS a big, card size rectangle (not like the thin, brittle pieces I grew up opening in my 80's Topps packs).

As for the number of wax stains, I guess that might come down to how many 5 cent packs were sold as opposed to the 1 cent packs. I know there were two types of packs (as I've seen both wrappers for sale). Sounds like you were opening 5 cent packs, but I *THINK* I read somewhere that 1 cent packs were more common (1 cent = 1 card). So EVERY card in the 1 cent pakcs would have been touching the back of the wrapper. I feel like at least 50% (if not more) of the 1952 Bowmans have wax staining...so the 1 cent packs being more common would make sense.

I also appreciate you clearing up that Bowman and Topps gum pretty much tasted the same

This did get me thinking about the 5 cent packs with 6 cards. To my knowledge, the 5 cent packs only contained one piece of gum...so by 1952 the cards were DEFINITELY the main draw for buying packs (as opposed to the gum). In the 30's, I don't think Goudey had any 'multi-card' packs...so I wonder if kids in the 1930's still were mostly after the gum (and it was cool that they also got a card), of if they still would have put down a nickle for multiple cards, but only one piece of gum?

Agree with most of your points. Since my pack-opening days were as an eight to ten year old kid, I have to think there may be some gaps in my recall, as well as some subjectivity in what I do recall. Agree that by the '50's, the gum was no longer the main attraction in a pack of cards. The advent of television had made the games and the players much more alluring to kids than bubblegum. Personally, I think I only chewed the gum because it was there and quickly discarded it. I am of the opinion that both Topps and Bowman used different marketing strategies based on population density. In my small town, I only saw five-cent packs and was surprised to learn many years later that there were one-centers. Perhaps the one-cents packs were mainly distributed in larger cities, and rarely found in smaller markets. However, I find it difficult to believe that the reason for the stain prevalence is that so many more one-cent packs were produced than five's, with most of the surviving cards having come out of one-cent packs. Seems doubtful that anyone has ever thought of doing an actual analysis of the stains on cards. Perhaps guys working in the production facility back then simply moved quickly from pouring wax to collating cards and gave no thought to washing their hands. Seems as plausible to me as any other theory.