Quick question about 1950's issues

[tonyo]

I assume topps and bowman released the most popular sets of the decade. After topps and bowman, what card company would rank highest on the list of "most popular issues of the decade 1950-1959" ?

[HRBAKER]

I think it would tough to call any other sets "popular" in the same sense as Topps and Bowman. I personally like the Red Man sets and the regionally issued Kahn's Weiner sets. Wilson Weiners are widely collected to the extent they can be. In my mind many of these sets are limited in popularity by their original distribution and the fact that many collectors never collected them as a kid.

[David W]

Red Man's and Exhibits are certainly available, affordable, and collectible from the 50's

[Cardboard Junkie]

Fleer did the 59 teddy ballgame set, also can't forget one of my favorites 59 Bazooka. aloha, dave.

[tonyo]

I also like the Red Man cards. Hadn't seen the 59 Bazooka but I searched a few and like their look as well.



By my original question, what I meant is: back in the 50's, what were the kids collecting? After topps and bowman issues, what were the most popular sets for kids to collect in the 50's ?

Tony

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by tonyo

I also like the Red Man cards. Hadn't seen the 59 Bazooka but I searched a few and like their look as well.



By my original question, what I meant is: back in the 50's, what were the kids collecting? After topps and bowman issues, what were the most popular sets for kids to collect in the 50's ?

Tony

Probably the hot Topps and Bowman Non Sports sets such as World On Wheels, Wings, Red Menace. There weren't any real R card national baseball sets until Fleer came along in '59 and that was just one player in the set. Maybe those little strip cards that were sold in gumball machines had some popularity?

[HRBAKER]

By far my favorite post war set..............but a bear to finish. Been working on it over ten years. A slow burn.

[tonyo]

That's two votes for 59 Bazooka. Those are 59 Bazooka's right?



What about Berk Ross ? What's their story?

[mintacular]

Red Hearts are cool, as are Dan Dee

[bradmar48]

The 1953 Red Man set were the 1st cards I collected. They were given to me by a neighbor who chewed Red Man. I loved the 1959 Fleer Ted Williams cards because he was one of my favorite players and a whole set with nothing
but Ted Williams's cards was a dream come true. Actually by far the hottest
set of cards during the 50's was the 1956 Davy Crockett cards. Kids actually ate, slept and breathed anything Davy Crockett that year. I've haven't seen anything like it since.

[sycks22]

I've always loved the Wilson Franks set / Dan Dee's.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by tonyo

I also like the Red Man cards. Hadn't seen the 59 Bazooka but I searched a few and like their look as well.



By my original question, what I meant is: back in the 50's, what were the kids collecting? After topps and bowman issues, what were the most popular sets for kids to collect in the 50's ?

Tony

So excluding all Topps and Bowman issues, and limiting it to sets kids were actually collecting in the 50's makes the question a little more dicey. Since my family apparently didn't much go for pre-packaged meat, the only regional issue I ever saw in the I-like-Ike years was Johnston Cookie cards, which is strange in itself because they are supposed to be regional to Wisconsin, but I was in upstate NY. So, I guess my vote goes to the cards from Redman Tobacco that my old man used to chew to annoy the stuff out of my mom.

[Exhibitman]

I'd go with exhibits; nationally available, not associated with a product that wasn't supposed to be sold to minors, hundreds of cards issued, readily available on the current market.

[ValKehl]

I'm partial to the "meat" cards, especially Briggs. Growing up in the Wash., DC, area, we ate hot dogs frequently when I was a kid in the 1950s. But, I didn't care to save the Briggs cards - they were sorta greasy, but worse, they didn't have any player bios/stats on them like the Bowman & Topps cards did! Oh, how I have regretted not saving a few Briggs panels!
Val

[alanu]

I've always liked the 1952 Berk Ross issue, but I don't think they were all that readily available to everyone.... I always wonder how popular the Fleer 3 Stooges cards were back in the day too.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by alanu

I've always liked the 1952 Berk Ross issue, but I don't think they were all that readily available to everyone.... I always wonder how popular the Fleer 3 Stooges cards were back in the day too.

Where were Berk Ross distributed?


I'm surprised it took so long for Berk Ross to be mentioned in this thread. My uneducated guess would have put them third after topps and bowman on the list of "most collected cards by kids in the 50's". Seems that I have seen them alot in my sporadic foray into post-war ebay searches.



I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there is not a clear cut #3 - since Topps spent about 25 years being the only company distributing cards nationwide.

Topps spent about 25 years being the only company distributing cards nationwide. Is that a true statement?

[dougscats]

From 1956 into the '80's, Topps had close to a monopoly, though there were often years that other manufacturers broke in [Fleer, early '60's, Sport, Ted Williams, Deckle [?], O-Pee-Chee [?], etc.].

Bowman fizzled out after 1955. The '55 tv border format was a flop, and the Bowman card dimensions with their flimsier cardboard led to a chronic crease in the middle of their cards. The big, heavier duty Topps cards were also better for playing with, so the Bowmans died out. Even so, I love the Bowmans of '51-52 [there is something ideal about that dimension card, and the artwork is great] and I do like the spectacular photography/color of the '53 set.

In 1957 came the first of the Topps cookie-cutter cards.
There was little competition for the next generation, and they ruled.

That may be oversimplified. I collected from about 1957-1961, and that's what I remember.

Doug

[ALR-bishop]

Topps never really had a monopoly to produce baseball cards. But the contracts they had with players, particularly after they purchased the assets and trademarks of Bowman, was player contracts that gave them the exclusive right to market player likenesses/cards with gum/candy/confections.

Anyone could have marketed player cards by themselves or with cookies ( Fleer) or marbles ( Leaf). And if they could find players who did not have exclusive contracts, they could market those with gum ( 1959 Fleer). As far as I know, the 1963 Fleer set stopped after one series not because of any litigation by Topps, but because of poor sales. Topps had defined the market as cards + gum

The deckle cards, 1969 and 1974 were Topps, as well as OPC

[Volod]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

By far my favorite post war set..............but a bear to finish. Been working on it over ten years. A slow burn.

I've been studying that 1959 Bazooka card of Rocky Colavito - great looking set, by the way, the photography almost rivals the '53 Bowmans. But, it puzzles me that the photo was apparently taken in Yankee Stadium. A piece of the famous facade is visible in the upper right corner. But, Colavito is wearing his home white Indians uni, so it wouldn't have been prior to a road game, right? I thought about an All-Star game photo op, but the only such game played in NY was 1960, after Rocky had been traded to Detroit. I'm certain the background could not be old Cleveland Muni stadium, as there was no such facade there, so why was the Rock posing in his home uni in Yankee Stadium in the 1950's? Maybe I'm missing a simple explanation.

[almostdone]

Steve,
Good observation abaout the home uni of Colovito in NY. I have two possible explainations (niether of which I am certain are correct).

1. There is a possibility that the photo was taken before an exebition game. At the end of spring training sometimes teams would play a game or two in the big parks right before the season started. Is it possible that Cleavland played some other team in Yankee stadium before the season started? Not sure but worth looking into.

3. My second, and more likely possibility, is that it's not Yankee stadium. While I see what you are talking about with the facade it is out of focus and cound just be the corner of a grandstand. I was at old Yankee stadium a few times years ago and I don't remember the upper deck hanging so close over the lower seats as was appears in this photo. I seem to remember it sweeping back much farther than was apears to be in this picture.

Like I said I'm not sure which, if either, of my statements explains it but a good observation none the less on your part.

Drew

[novakjr]

The Colavito photo is the same one they used for the action part of his '60 Topps Card. I'd also suspect that the main photo for that card was from the same shoot. You might be able to get a closer look at the stadium from that card.. The same main photo was also used on the '59 Topps if you want a little larger look..

[Volod]

Originally Posted by novakjr

The Colavito photo is the same one they used for the action part of his '60 Topps Card. I'd also suspect that the main photo for that card was from the same shoot. You might be able to get a closer look at the stadium from that card.. The same main photo was also used on the '59 Topps if you want a little larger look..

Thanks for the info and suggestions, guys, but both of those Topps cards show even less detail than the Bazooka.
I'm certain it can't be Cleveland Muni (old shot attached): no facade, dugout trim paint doesn't match. It still looks like the old facade at Yankee Stadium to me, even if it appears to be hanging low. Wasn't the facade at different positions over the years? I know it hung from the edge of the roof, but seems like I recall it being more prominent back in the 1950's than it was after the renovation in the '70's. And, even if it was some other park, it still would leave the mystery of the home uni.

The only All-Star game appearance for Rocky in an American League park was the 1959 game in the L.A. Colliseum, and of course, that was a huge football stadium with no pillars or facades of any type. So, as near as I can figure, that was the only other place outside of Cleveland where he could have worn the home uni.

[theseeker]

It is the old Yankee Stadium, obviously long before the extensive '76 renovation. It was the only ballpark, at the time, to have three levels. Dodger Stadium came along soon after. Cleveland Municipal had the single drab, over-sized upper level. It had a capacity of over 70,000, which really called attention to all the sparse crowds during the '70's, my childhood era.

[theseeker]

Opppps, there is no mystery. Just looked up the Indian's uniform history and that is indeed a road uniform. It does look grey. The Indians must have departed from tradition long before other teams and dropped the common practice of using the city name on the fronts of their road uniforms in the late '50's.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by theseeker

Opppps, there is no mystery. Just looked up the Indian's uniform history and that is indeed a road uniform. It does look grey. The Indians must have departed from tradition long before other teams and dropped the common practice of using the city name on the fronts of their road uniforms in the late '50's.

Whoa, you're right. I just realized the Indians had always worn Cleveland road uni's until the '58 season. Other teams that went with the same design for home and road before that year were the A's and Senators. That ties in with the general theme of franchise portability, I think. If the name of the city is abruptly of no importance, the team is ready to be moved, as far as ownership is concerned. It's easy to forget how close the Cleveland team was to being relocated, from the late '50's well into the early '80's. Trying to think what teams currently do not have their city name on road uni's...candidates for removal?