Lack of appreciation for 1954 Bowman baseball?

mshups · November 29, 2003 12:40AM

Although this is my very first post to this forum, I have monitored for two years the various postings and responses. It struck me that my favorite set from the 1950's has been totally ignored: 1954 Bowman baseball. For me, the card design and colors are simply outstanding. High grade examples are works of art!! So, I wonder why this set is so overlooked and undervalued in comparison to the other sets of the 1950's? I look forward to any and all comments. Thank you. Matt

qualitycards · November 29, 2003 12:48AM

MATT - Welcome to the boards. I too like the '54 Bowman set, it is the most affordable main stream set in the '50's. Its a set that can be worked on pretty easy as there are just 224 cards in the set, and PSA-8 commons usually sell for under $50 and PSA-7's for under $20.
You have the tough Ted Williams, Mantle, Mays, Rizzuto, Campy, Berra, Ford, Snider and other HOF'ers so theres plenty of star power.
It may not be as popular as the 1951 Bowman or the 1955 Bowman set put its a classic in its own right especially approaching its 50th anniversary...jay

gemint · November 29, 2003 1:04AM

I think it suffers from the design not being very popular. It's a similar problem as the 1962 set suffers through.

rustywilly · November 29, 2003 1:07AM

I'm disappointed in PSA's lack of recognizing the many variations in this set. Just take a look at the population report! I noted several on a recent invoice and the graders completely ignored my comments. I submitted approximately twenty variation cards - of which, less than ten were slabbed as such. Why???

Matt - welcome to the boards. I like this set too - a lot of pastel color!

-mark

Griffins · November 29, 2003 1:20AM

I found the Williams a lot easier to find than I thought it would be. It would seem like the scarcity of this card is overrated. Any thoughts?

edited to say Welcome Matt!

Mantlefan · November 29, 2003 3:42AM

It's a very nice set, but it is overshadowed by the beautiful 1953 Bowman Color set before it and the 1955 "TV set" which followed it.

qualitycards · November 29, 2003 4:50AM

GRIFFINS - I agree, I see the Ted Williams quite often in a variety of grades, but unfortunatly they are never offered at bargain rates.
I did notice in the new smr that a PSA-8 was lowered to $6000, as opposed to last months $6500 price. The Mantle PSA-8 stayed at $3500 and Mays PSA-8 at $900....jay

KING KELLOGG · November 29, 2003 4:58AM

mshups...

Hey Matt...

Welcome to the boards!!!

(not all the board members collect just '52 Topps....

) 1954 Bowman's are a great set!!!

Larry

CW · November 29, 2003 5:29AM

Welcome to the boards, Matt! The set has not been totally ignored --
awhile back I posted about the classic write-up on the back of the
'54 Bowman Willie Mays card. Unfortunately, it's the only card I own
from the '54 Bowman set, although I've tried to acquire a Mantle card
in the past (I always get outbid). I personally think it is a fantastic
set, and in my opinion the photos found on the '54 Bowman Mantle card and
the Williams card are among the best in the hobby.

Why does it get overlooked? Like Mantlefan pointed out, it followed what
is now one of the most popular and collected sets in the entire hobby.
The '53 Bowman Color set is a tough act to follow! It also seems that
lower grade copies from the '54 set can have a washed out (or "dull")
look, so that may cause some of the lower grade collectors to shy away
from this set. It also has to share the market with the '54 Topps set,
and if a collector can only afford to collect one set from 1954 they will
most likely lean towards the Topps set (which has the Aaron, Kaline, and
Banks rookies, as well as 2 Ted Williams cards).

Chuck

Vargha · November 29, 2003 9:56AM

No offense, but it's a rather ugly looking set.

NickM · November 29, 2003 10:50AM

So says the man who collected '49 Bowman.

I like '54 Bowman. It actually has more HOFers than '54 Topps, there are no tough series, and the artwork on some of the cards is amazing (especially on Campanella). Plus, common 7s often sell under SMR, and high-pop 8s can be found for under $30. Try doing that on any other mainstream pre-'57 set.

BTW, I have a Alex Kellner in PSA7 and a Harvey Kuenn in PSA6 from this set available FS/FT. Digital pictures available if you're interested.

Nick

Virtualizard · November 29, 2003 10:58AM

<< <i>No offense, but it's a rather ugly looking set. >>

Yeah, so is 1968 Topps, but look at how many people collect that beast.

Before anyone slams me for that comment, remember, my first passion in PSA slabs was 1970 Topps, which is still one of my favorite sets - hey, I like them simple, and ohh those gray borders - tough!

JEB.

qualitycards · November 29, 2003 11:22AM

Is there something wrong with me? I like the '54 Bowman & the '68 Topps design.
Come to think of it, theres no issue of cards from the '50's & '60's that I don't like.
Granted I do like some more then others, but I like 'em all

...jay

Vargha · November 29, 2003 12:04PM

So says the man who collected '49 Bowman.

49 Bowmans are crude (like the Leaf set from the same year). 54 Bowmans are ugly. I like the 68 Topps set, though.

NickM · November 29, 2003 12:47PM

Chris Rock is crude. '49 Bowmans are ugly.

Seriously, it's not up to the caliber of '53 Bowman Color, but '54 Bowman is very good from an artistic perspective.

Nick

Vargha · November 29, 2003 2:45PM

Then it's probably for the best that I got rid of them.

qualitycards · November 30, 2003 2:42AM

<< <i>Then it's probably for the best that I got rid of them >>

VARGHA - Yeah! But those '51 Bowmans were sure sweet! ...jay

Skycap · November 30, 2003 3:54AM

mshups,

The 1954 Bowman set is not too highly regarded primarily because of the design. Personally I think it's rather boring and, to be perfectly blunt, ugly. Those pastel motifs get pretty tiring in my opinion. It's often compared with the 1954 Topps set, which is one of the best-designed cards EVER in many collector's opinions. In addition, the card stock for the 1954 Bowmans seems a bit lacking in comparision to other card stocks -- it's noticeably thinner/flimsier than the Bowman cards of the year before and the year after. Also, the quality of of the player images is pretty poor in many cards. In comparison, look at the great 1954 Topps pictures.

If you like the 1954 Bowmans because they are visually appealing, then good for you. As an investment, I don't think they'll do nearly as well as many other 1950's sets. These cards are poorly designed and won't improve in time!

The 1954 Bowman set has always been a poor second choice to the 1954 Topps set.

Skycap

mshups · November 30, 2003 9:41AM

I enjoyed the range of feedback to my proposition. I even believe that the brutally candid opinions are interesting. As for the quality of the cardboard used to manufacture the 1954 Bowman cards, I wholeheartedly agree. However, that is what is so very challenging about "the hunt" for these cards. You not only have extremely difficult centering issues but also easily "dinged" corners. To find a well centered, sharp cornered, low population, bright example of these cards is thrilling. Because some cards have no PSA 8 or better grade, it is fun to look at "raw cards" for these difficult cards. Some of the pop's on other cards are 2 or 3 PSA 8's and that is it.

While some of the cards have klitchy poses of players, what set doesn't? What continues to draw me to this set are the pastel colors (which never get old) and the relaxed poses of most players. In fact, most players are smiling!!!!

Thank you for the warm welcome to the "new kid on the boards."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm always looking for high grade 1954 Bowman baseball.
mshups@wi.rr.com

Lack of appreciation for 1954 Bowman baseball?

Comments