Years ago didn't a Lampo Cassius Clay go for like $7000? Perhaps ten years ago now?
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>It's not like most of these are beat up either. Seems like one of those issues where the vast majority are in decent shape when found (>PSA 5). But hey, whatever peels your potato. But without an album to examine I don't know how anyone can put any stock in the 1965 designation. Seems like people just submit stuff over and over with their idea of when it was released until PSA finally slabs it. >>
This is why several items just end up getting labeled as 1920's, 1930's, etc. by PSA when graded. SGC takes the route of circa by doing things like "c.1930" on their label for example. It doesn't seem unreasonable to put a decade or specific series of years on the label if a particular year can't be determined with certainty. I do wonder how many graded items had been assigned an incorrect or inaccurate year before finding out that it was actually way off. I have noticed a few items where PSA and SGC might label it with a 6 year spread difference.
<< <i>It's not like most of these are beat up either. Seems like one of those issues where the vast majority are in decent shape when found (>PSA 5). But hey, whatever peels your potato. But without an album to examine I don't know how anyone can put any stock in the 1965 designation. Seems like people just submit stuff over and over with their idea of when it was released until PSA finally slabs it. >>
This is why several items just end up getting labeled as 1920's, 1930's, etc. by PSA when graded. SGC takes the route of circa by doing things like "c.1930" on their label for example. It doesn't seem unreasonable to put a decade or specific series of years on the label if a particular year can't be determined with certainty. I do wonder how many graded items had been assigned an incorrect or inaccurate year before finding out that it was actually way off. I have noticed a few items where PSA and SGC might label it with a 6 year spread difference. >>
Couldn't agree more. If all reasonable research has been exhausted, I'd much rather see a decade on the slab than have someone throw a dart at a board with their eyes closed. Right or wrong, the registries and pop reports play a role in dictating the collecting habits of collectors and it's sad to see the market affected by incorrect slab info, no matter which TPGer is doing it.
It's worth mentioning though that some of the multi-year spans can get a bit to excessive, too, and should be a bit more limited on what constitutes a reasonable quantity of years. Case in point is the 1940's-1970's Boxing News set. Since they were issued with the magazine, it seems someone should be able to come up with which ones were issued which year, regardless of the fact that the numbering was continuous over the life of the set. This would be similar to SI for Kids cards being labeled as 1989-2014 (even if they restarted the numbering on the SI cards a couple times) on the slab in my opinion. When something is issued with a dated magazine, that specific card would be better labeled as that year, such as #1 through whatever were the first year, #whatever+1 through the next amount were the next year, and so on. I think 1940's-1970's is nearly the same thing as just labeling it date-UNC, using the "UNC" like they do with a lot of other cards' manufacturer name (such as 1910 E-UNC candy Jack Johnson for example).
But how would you label the Boxing News cards? If the set, and they were all part of the same set, was issued over the course of many years, it makes no sense to say label each individual card with a different issue date. The registry is a slave to the set, above all others. So the identifying of the set as a whole is given a higher priority than narrowing down each individual card and then having no way to group them all together in set form.
As for the Johnson and Jeffries candy cards, some information is just lost to history. There's nothing anyone can really do if no one knows who manufactured the cards.
I know some of you guys have seen these, but I'm sure others have not. These are some of the cards I picked up in a Boxing Lot from an auction in the later part of last year.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Good points. I definitely agree with the point about Johnson/Jeffries.
I definitely hear what you're saying about the Boxing News cards, but how would you compare it with the Sportscaster sets? Depending on the nation of origin, they were a continuously numbered set issued from 1977 up through 1982 in some cases. These cards each have a copyright year on the back, though that isn't much different than knowing which year's issue a media insert like the boxing news came from. The Sportscasters get labeled with the year of issue of the specific card rather than the total date range of the continuous set, at least nowadays even if they started out with a range when they first started being graded.
What about SI for Kids? They are labeled with the year of issue rather than a range of years; however, Beckett lists them in their price guides with the range of years all together until SI restarted with the number 1 again, and at that point Beckett called it series 1 vs. series 2, and so on, with ranges of years for each set of numbering. Oddly enough, while Beckett indicates multi-year spans for different series of these cards, they do not do in on their BGS labels and instead switch stance and just put the single year on there like PSA does.
Lastly, what about something like the 1908 & 1909 Ogden's Ltd. Pugilists & Wrestlers? They don't get classified as 1908-09 on the labels by PSA. There are specific ones that are called 1908 vs. others as 1909.
So, while I understand your point on the Boxing News cards, I think I'm more with the idea that you put on as accurate information as is available for each item, and also remain consistent throughout the entire PSA grading system. By this I mean that if you are putting single years for the 3 examples above where the card numbers continue to count up for multiple years of issue, I don't see how you could go a different route for the Boxing News cards unless for some reason it was not possible to narrow it down to a specific year, in which case I would at least hope narrowing down a decade or smaller range would be more accurate.
<< <i>I know some of you guys have seen these, but I'm sure others have not. These are some of the cards I picked up in a Boxing Lot from an auction in the later part of last year.
>>
Here we go on the topic of accuracy with years on labels again, but I believe your 1927 Greiling is a mech error and should be a 1926. All the others I have like that are labeled as 1926 by PSA, and the PSA 1927 Greilings I have look different (and in color).
<< <i>But how would you label the Boxing News cards? If the set, and they were all part of the same set, was issued over the course of many years, it makes no sense to say label each individual card with a different issue date. The registry is a slave to the set, above all others. So the identifying of the set as a whole is given a higher priority than narrowing down each individual card and then having no way to group them all together in set form.
As for the Johnson and Jeffries candy cards, some information is just lost to history. There's nothing anyone can really do if no one knows who manufactured the cards. >>
Separate of my post with examples of Sportscaster, SIFK & Ogden's to compare to the Boxing News ones, I wanted to also say that for the sake of including these cards on the master registries, it is fortunate that master sets for boxing cards include post-retirement unlike the big 4 sports, since some of these boxing news items were issued long after retirement and some while the guy was still at it. It does look a little funny sometimes to include a card that says 1940's-1970's on a list of cards from someone in the later half of that range though, because you might have a rookie issued in the 1950's, 1960's, or 1970's that was actually printed and issued before the Boxing News one, but for those not in the know, the Boxing News one comes up earlier on the pop report list due to the inclusion of the entire range such that it looks like that boxer had a 1940's issue rookie that predates his real one.
<< <i>Good points. I definitely agree with the point about Johnson/Jeffries.
I definitely hear what you're saying about the Boxing News cards, but how would you compare it with the Sportscaster sets? Depending on the nation of origin, they were a continuously numbered set issued from 1977 up through 1982 in some cases. These cards each have a copyright year on the back, though that isn't much different than knowing which year's issue a media insert like the boxing news came from. The Sportscasters get labeled with the year of issue of the specific card rather than the total date range of the continuous set, at least nowadays even if they started out with a range when they first started being graded. >>
I think you answered your own question. The Sportscaster cards have copyright information on the reverse. The Boxing News do not. I don't believe the exact individual issue dates are known for each BN card. To the best of my knowledge, there's no way to tell whcih BN card was issued in any year.
<< <i>What about SI for Kids? They are labeled with the year of issue rather than a range of years; however, Beckett lists them in their price guides with the range of years all together until SI restarted with the number 1 again, and at that point Beckett called it series 1 vs. series 2, and so on, with ranges of years for each set of numbering. Oddly enough, while Beckett indicates multi-year spans for different series of these cards, they do not do in on their BGS labels and instead switch stance and just put the single year on there like PSA does. >>
My memory is hazy on SI for Kids but didn't they have different designs for each year? Also, if they restarted the numbering then I have no problem calling it series 1, series 2, etc. Available information is much easier to come by for SI cards than BN cards, as well. Do you know which cards from the BN set were issued in which years?
<< <i>Lastly, what about something like the 1908 & 1909 Ogden's Ltd. Pugilists & Wrestlers? They don't get classified as 1908-09 on the labels by PSA. There are specific ones that are called 1908 vs. others as 1909. >>
Again, my memory is hazy as it's been years since I paid attention to those sets, but I believe those are actually two different issues. Numbers 1-50 were released in 1908 and 51-75 in 1909. So, in my opinion, you could either do the whole set as a 1908-1909 date or do 1-50 as 1908 and 51-75 as 1909, both would be correct.
<< <i>So, while I understand your point on the Boxing News cards, I think I'm more with the idea that you put on as accurate information as is available for each item, and also remain consistent throughout the entire PSA grading system. By this I mean that if you are putting single years for the 3 examples above where the card numbers continue to count up for multiple years of issue, I don't see how you could go a different route for the Boxing News cards unless for some reason it was not possible to narrow it down to a specific year, in which case I would at least hope narrowing down a decade or smaller range would be more accurate.
Thoughts? >>
I don't disagree with your sentiment, just don't think the examples above are representative to the argument of the BN cards. They can only do what they can given the information known to exist and I'm not aware of anyone that knows (let alone could prove) which cards were released in which years. Perhaps I'm wrong on that though and the information is widely available and I've just never seen it.
You're probably right in that the most info PSA has on hand at this time is that the BN's were issued sometime over that long range of years. I'm just surprised someone who owns old copies of the Boxing News publications that included distribution of the cards hasn't been able to shed a little more light on this. Since I don't own the publications and just some of the "cards" (or photos or whatever you want to call them), I wonder if the Boxing News issue promoted the inclusion of the card insert the same way that the much larger 1975 Boxing News - Gallery of the Greats set of 8 (red backgrounds) were promoted on the publication and therefore have a definitive date even though the actual inserts themselves aren't dated.
That's a good question, I don't know the answer to it. It also could be a case that the cards weren't physically attached to the publication and were just tossed inside loosely. In which case, the odds of any publications surviving with the card inside them is slim to none, let alone an entire run of publications, all with cards intact, so that a checklist could be created.
And even then, would that be enough? Because, to be honest, I don't want a TPGer identifying an entire set because Joe Schmow from East Wherever, USA sends them an email and says "trust me, this is a list of which card was inserted into which issue." It's just one of those things and there's not much anyone can do about it. The Kid Herman set form the 60s/70s is much more interesting to me anyway.
Ironically, the BN cards are probably more accurately labeled as premiums, just like the larger red ones. It's of little consequence to me, but if the set got popular enough there would probably be a large contingent of collectors not recognizing them as "cards."
I figure there's two ways to look at this whole issue -- we can decry the entire process and spin our tires in the mud, or we can embrace it and enjoy the aspects of the hobby that this set-up affords us. To me, having a set's (or card's) importance be determined by factors like rarity and aesthetic appeal as opposed to issue date is a much more enjoyable form of collecting. Don't get me wrong, I collect a little bit of many other sports, but with those you're a slave to whichever card was printed first. We could start a thread about Dempsey's rookie card and no matter how many different responses we got, there's probably 20+ cards of his I'd rather own than any of the supposed "rookie cards."
<< <i>That's a good question, I don't know the answer to it. It also could be a case that the cards weren't physically attached to the publication and were just tossed inside loosely. In which case, the odds of any publications surviving with the card inside them is slim to none, let alone an entire run of publications, all with cards intact, so that a checklist could be created.
And even then, would that be enough? Because, to be honest, I don't want a TPGer identifying an entire set because Joe Schmow from East Wherever, USA sends them an email and says "trust me, this is a list of which card was inserted into which issue." It's just one of those things and there's not much anyone can do about it. The Kid Herman set form the 60s/70s is much more interesting to me anyway.
Ironically, the BN cards are probably more accurately labeled as premiums, just like the larger red ones. It's of little consequence to me, but if the set got popular enough there would probably be a large contingent of collectors not recognizing them as "cards."
I figure there's two ways to look at this whole issue -- we can decry the entire process and spin our tires in the mud, or we can embrace it and enjoy the aspects of the hobby that this set-up affords us. To me, having a set's (or card's) importance be determined by factors like rarity and aesthetic appeal as opposed to issue date is a much more enjoyable form of collecting. Don't get me wrong, I collect a little bit of many other sports, but with those you're a slave to whichever card was printed first. We could start a thread about Dempsey's rookie card and no matter how many different responses we got, there's probably 20+ cards of his I'd rather own than any of the supposed "rookie cards." >>
<< <i>Here we go on the topic of accuracy with years on labels again, but I believe your 1927 Greiling is a mech error and should be a 1926. All the others I have like that are labeled as 1926 by PSA, and the PSA 1927 Greilings I have look different (and in color). >>
Greg ... I will take your word for it. As I have stated to you previously, I do not collect much boxing and know very little about the cards. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
It's a rotogravure by D.H. Murnik from 1937. He worked out of Oakland and was the president of the American Photoengravers Association. Did a lot of work with photogrpaher William Mortensen.
Later on I found this piece. It's smaller than the rotogravure, measuring 3.5"x5" and seems to possibly have been (somewhat) mass produced as mine has a wet transfer on the back identical to the card front. Not sure if this is also a Murnik piece. The image is a popular one and has been used many times in different premiums, including some Brown & Bigelow pieces.
Arthur, those are some pretty neat photos. What era were they produced. That Sugar Ray Robinson brongs back sone childhood memories when i looked at the phone number at the bottom. Growing up on Long Island, I remember when my phone number began with two letters followed by five numbers.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Arthur, those are some pretty neat photos. What era were they produced. That Sugar Ray Robinson brongs back sone childhood memories when i looked at the phone number at the bottom. Growing up on Long Island, I remember when my phone number began with two letters followed by five numbers.
STAY HEALTHY!
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>Not that there's anything wrong with premiums.
>>
Hi Doug, the Kid Chocolate is part of a set of EVERLAST premiums from the 1930s. The Marciano is from 1975 (I believe, definitely the 70s). Not sure on the Sugar Ray. The Sunnyhurst Marciano is from the 1960s (Marciano was a whore and would sell his likeness to anyone that would pay). The Dempsey is a Rippled Wheat premium from 1936 that would accompany the "Train With Me..." book that kids could send away for (there's a sig variation too, with a fine pen sig as opposed to this wide pen sig). The first Louis is a 1935 Detroit Free Press premium issued with the newspaper. The second Louis (one of my favorite pieces in my collection) is a 1937 Lucky Heart premium. I was actually able to date it when I found an advertisement in an issue of The Afro American newspaper. And the last is the Murnik that I talked about previously.
<< <i>The Marciano is from 1975 (I believe, definitely the 70s). Not sure on the Sugar Ray. The Sunnyhurst Marciano is from the 1960s (Marciano was a whore and would sell his likeness to anyone that would pay). >>
The Marciano is definitely from 1975. I have the 1975 issue of Boxing News that came out with an ad that talked about how they would include one different one from that set (Boxing News - Gallery of the Greats) in each of the next 8 issues. I'll try to find it and scan it for you; not sure where I've got it tucked away at the moment. If memory serves, it was sometime during fall of 1975. The 8 from that set are: Muhammad Ali, Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Archie Moore, Jose Napoles, Willie Pep, and Sugar Ray Robinson. I don't remember off hand in what order they were released, but definitely all from 1975. They are too big to fit in a PSA holder though.
*edit to specify the red background Marciano since you have 2 diff. of him posted
Great pick-ups. I love the 1920s-1950s cards. It seems like Rocky Graziano must have really protected the use of his image. I can hardly find any good examples of his cards, while I see so many great examples of Marciano, Robinson, etc.
<< <i>Great pick-ups. I love the 1920s-1950s cards. It seems like Rocky Graziano must have really protected the use of his image. I can hardly find any good examples of his cards, while I see so many great examples of Marciano, Robinson, etc. >>
I know I've posted it here on this thread several months ago and buried many pages back, but since you asked (sort of), here's an unusual Graziano I've got, 1952 Quiz Calendario w/ Tab:
Nice 1911 Boys' Friend. A while back I managed to pickup a 1911 Boys' Friend uncut panel with Jack Johnson (#1 from the Famous Boxers Series) and James Edwin "Jimmy" (J.E.) Windridge (#1 from the Famous Footballers Series). So far it's been getting N9'd. I think it is in Newport Beach at the moment for yet another try, but when it comes back I'll try to remember to scan it for you before it goes to SGC.
<< <i>Nice 1911 Boys' Friend. A while back I managed to pickup a 1911 Boys' Friend uncut panel with Jack Johnson (#1 from the Famous Boxers Series) and James Edwin "Jimmy" (J.E.) Windridge (#1 from the Famous Footballers Series). So far it's been getting N9'd. I think it is in Newport Beach at the moment for yet another try, but when it comes back I'll try to remember to scan it for you before it goes to SGC. >>
<< <i>Nice 1911 Boys' Friend. A while back I managed to pickup a 1911 Boys' Friend uncut panel with Jack Johnson (#1 from the Famous Boxers Series) and James Edwin "Jimmy" (J.E.) Windridge (#1 from the Famous Footballers Series). So far it's been getting N9'd. I think it is in Newport Beach at the moment for yet another try, but when it comes back I'll try to remember to scan it for you before it goes to SGC. >>
Obviously data from Cuba in the 1940's is tough to come by, but has anyone ever heard if the yellow border version or orange version of the 1946 Montiel cards were printed with the same production run or if one type is more rare than the other? I've been working on getting PSA to distinguish varieties on the labels but no luck on that so far.
Won this in Legendary - it's a PSA2 but very crisp. The reverse stainng (much more prominate on the scan) is what I assume downgraded the card. Doesn't matter - the card looks much better than my others.
Great Susini, John - I think I was the underbidder on that. I was hoping to pick it up to replace the one I had sold you before, but now you've got another great-looking example of a tough, tough card!
Really interesting cards you have there, thanks for posting. Not sure of the years. If you had posted the photos and said guess the year, I would have guessed 1930 for the top one (similar look to Cloetta, Rose Marie, plus some of the more obscure Italian & Spanish chocolate issues as well) and 1931 (similar look to Orami, Jasmatzi, Ramses, etc. for that year) for the bottom one purely based on the overall style as compared with other European issues from that era even if I'm referencing cards from other countries, but 1932 does not sound unreasonable at all and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that that was the correct year. Good luck with the ID.
Actually, I think it might be 1933 or later. I just went through Dempsey's IMdB and none of his serials were with MGM (which is mentioned on the back of the Clovis, while the Kemmel mentions the set is of artists). However, he was in MGM's 1933 film The Prizefighter and the Lady, which he was involved in a lot of promotional material for. Images from that film were used on cards from Cuba as well as the R308 Tattoo Orbit. So my guess is 1933 or 1934.
<< <i>Great pick-ups. I love the 1920s-1950s cards. It seems like Rocky Graziano must have really protected the use of his image. I can hardly find any good examples of his cards, while I see so many great examples of Marciano, Robinson, etc. >>
I know I've posted it here on this thread several months ago and buried many pages back, but since you asked (sort of), here's an unusual Graziano I've got, 1952 Quiz Calendario w/ Tab:
<< <i>
I missed this post. Very cool card! Thanks for posting the photos. I have never seen it before.
I haven't seen one graded by PSA before finding this one. Sure is confusing since they typically give this card the 1965 Swedish Candy label anyway.
I have tried subbing other different player cards to PSA that are from the same set that is labeled as 1965 Lampo by SGC, and PSA always N9's them. OK, so we can call this a mech error in this case, but it would be nice if they would actually establish what to properly label it and start grading items from that set.
I haven't seen one graded by PSA before finding this one. Sure is confusing since they typically give this card the 1965 Swedish Candy label anyway.
I have tried subbing other different player cards to PSA that are from the same set that is labeled as 1965 Lampo by SGC, and PSA always N9's them. OK, so we can call this a mech error in this case, but it would be nice if they would actually establish what to properly label it and start grading items from that set. >>
I noticed this too. I actually don't think Sweedish candy is correct for either. The perfetti card was definitely mislabeled I think. I didn't even think psa graded them. I believe it should be labeled as 67 too.
Comments
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>It's not like most of these are beat up either. Seems like one of those issues where the vast majority are in decent shape when found (>PSA 5). But hey, whatever peels your potato. But without an album to examine I don't know how anyone can put any stock in the 1965 designation. Seems like people just submit stuff over and over with their idea of when it was released until PSA finally slabs it. >>
This is why several items just end up getting labeled as 1920's, 1930's, etc. by PSA when graded. SGC takes the route of circa by doing things like "c.1930" on their label for example. It doesn't seem unreasonable to put a decade or specific series of years on the label if a particular year can't be determined with certainty. I do wonder how many graded items had been assigned an incorrect or inaccurate year before finding out that it was actually way off. I have noticed a few items where PSA and SGC might label it with a 6 year spread difference.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's not like most of these are beat up either. Seems like one of those issues where the vast majority are in decent shape when found (>PSA 5). But hey, whatever peels your potato. But without an album to examine I don't know how anyone can put any stock in the 1965 designation. Seems like people just submit stuff over and over with their idea of when it was released until PSA finally slabs it. >>
This is why several items just end up getting labeled as 1920's, 1930's, etc. by PSA when graded. SGC takes the route of circa by doing things like "c.1930" on their label for example. It doesn't seem unreasonable to put a decade or specific series of years on the label if a particular year can't be determined with certainty. I do wonder how many graded items had been assigned an incorrect or inaccurate year before finding out that it was actually way off. I have noticed a few items where PSA and SGC might label it with a 6 year spread difference. >>
Couldn't agree more. If all reasonable research has been exhausted, I'd much rather see a decade on the slab than have someone throw a dart at a board with their eyes closed. Right or wrong, the registries and pop reports play a role in dictating the collecting habits of collectors and it's sad to see the market affected by incorrect slab info, no matter which TPGer is doing it.
It's worth mentioning though that some of the multi-year spans can get a bit to excessive, too, and should be a bit more limited on what constitutes a reasonable quantity of years. Case in point is the 1940's-1970's Boxing News set. Since they were issued with the magazine, it seems someone should be able to come up with which ones were issued which year, regardless of the fact that the numbering was continuous over the life of the set. This would be similar to SI for Kids cards being labeled as 1989-2014 (even if they restarted the numbering on the SI cards a couple times) on the slab in my opinion. When something is issued with a dated magazine, that specific card would be better labeled as that year, such as #1 through whatever were the first year, #whatever+1 through the next amount were the next year, and so on. I think 1940's-1970's is nearly the same thing as just labeling it date-UNC, using the "UNC" like they do with a lot of other cards' manufacturer name (such as 1910 E-UNC candy Jack Johnson for example).
As for the Johnson and Jeffries candy cards, some information is just lost to history. There's nothing anyone can really do if no one knows who manufactured the cards.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Good points. I definitely agree with the point about Johnson/Jeffries.
I definitely hear what you're saying about the Boxing News cards, but how would you compare it with the Sportscaster sets? Depending on the nation of origin, they were a continuously numbered set issued from 1977 up through 1982 in some cases. These cards each have a copyright year on the back, though that isn't much different than knowing which year's issue a media insert like the boxing news came from. The Sportscasters get labeled with the year of issue of the specific card rather than the total date range of the continuous set, at least nowadays even if they started out with a range when they first started being graded.
What about SI for Kids? They are labeled with the year of issue rather than a range of years; however, Beckett lists them in their price guides with the range of years all together until SI restarted with the number 1 again, and at that point Beckett called it series 1 vs. series 2, and so on, with ranges of years for each set of numbering. Oddly enough, while Beckett indicates multi-year spans for different series of these cards, they do not do in on their BGS labels and instead switch stance and just put the single year on there like PSA does.
Lastly, what about something like the 1908 & 1909 Ogden's Ltd. Pugilists & Wrestlers? They don't get classified as 1908-09 on the labels by PSA. There are specific ones that are called 1908 vs. others as 1909.
So, while I understand your point on the Boxing News cards, I think I'm more with the idea that you put on as accurate information as is available for each item, and also remain consistent throughout the entire PSA grading system. By this I mean that if you are putting single years for the 3 examples above where the card numbers continue to count up for multiple years of issue, I don't see how you could go a different route for the Boxing News cards unless for some reason it was not possible to narrow it down to a specific year, in which case I would at least hope narrowing down a decade or smaller range would be more accurate.
Thoughts?
<< <i>I know some of you guys have seen these, but I'm sure others have not. These are some of the cards I picked up in a Boxing Lot from an auction in the later part of last year.
Here we go on the topic of accuracy with years on labels again, but I believe your 1927 Greiling is a mech error and should be a 1926. All the others I have like that are labeled as 1926 by PSA, and the PSA 1927 Greilings I have look different (and in color).
<< <i>But how would you label the Boxing News cards? If the set, and they were all part of the same set, was issued over the course of many years, it makes no sense to say label each individual card with a different issue date. The registry is a slave to the set, above all others. So the identifying of the set as a whole is given a higher priority than narrowing down each individual card and then having no way to group them all together in set form.
As for the Johnson and Jeffries candy cards, some information is just lost to history. There's nothing anyone can really do if no one knows who manufactured the cards. >>
Separate of my post with examples of Sportscaster, SIFK & Ogden's to compare to the Boxing News ones, I wanted to also say that for the sake of including these cards on the master registries, it is fortunate that master sets for boxing cards include post-retirement unlike the big 4 sports, since some of these boxing news items were issued long after retirement and some while the guy was still at it. It does look a little funny sometimes to include a card that says 1940's-1970's on a list of cards from someone in the later half of that range though, because you might have a rookie issued in the 1950's, 1960's, or 1970's that was actually printed and issued before the Boxing News one, but for those not in the know, the Boxing News one comes up earlier on the pop report list due to the inclusion of the entire range such that it looks like that boxer had a 1940's issue rookie that predates his real one.
<< <i>Good points. I definitely agree with the point about Johnson/Jeffries.
I definitely hear what you're saying about the Boxing News cards, but how would you compare it with the Sportscaster sets? Depending on the nation of origin, they were a continuously numbered set issued from 1977 up through 1982 in some cases. These cards each have a copyright year on the back, though that isn't much different than knowing which year's issue a media insert like the boxing news came from. The Sportscasters get labeled with the year of issue of the specific card rather than the total date range of the continuous set, at least nowadays even if they started out with a range when they first started being graded. >>
I think you answered your own question. The Sportscaster cards have copyright information on the reverse. The Boxing News do not. I don't believe the exact individual issue dates are known for each BN card. To the best of my knowledge, there's no way to tell whcih BN card was issued in any year.
<< <i>What about SI for Kids? They are labeled with the year of issue rather than a range of years; however, Beckett lists them in their price guides with the range of years all together until SI restarted with the number 1 again, and at that point Beckett called it series 1 vs. series 2, and so on, with ranges of years for each set of numbering. Oddly enough, while Beckett indicates multi-year spans for different series of these cards, they do not do in on their BGS labels and instead switch stance and just put the single year on there like PSA does. >>
My memory is hazy on SI for Kids but didn't they have different designs for each year? Also, if they restarted the numbering then I have no problem calling it series 1, series 2, etc. Available information is much easier to come by for SI cards than BN cards, as well. Do you know which cards from the BN set were issued in which years?
<< <i>Lastly, what about something like the 1908 & 1909 Ogden's Ltd. Pugilists & Wrestlers? They don't get classified as 1908-09 on the labels by PSA. There are specific ones that are called 1908 vs. others as 1909. >>
Again, my memory is hazy as it's been years since I paid attention to those sets, but I believe those are actually two different issues. Numbers 1-50 were released in 1908 and 51-75 in 1909. So, in my opinion, you could either do the whole set as a 1908-1909 date or do 1-50 as 1908 and 51-75 as 1909, both would be correct.
<< <i>So, while I understand your point on the Boxing News cards, I think I'm more with the idea that you put on as accurate information as is available for each item, and also remain consistent throughout the entire PSA grading system. By this I mean that if you are putting single years for the 3 examples above where the card numbers continue to count up for multiple years of issue, I don't see how you could go a different route for the Boxing News cards unless for some reason it was not possible to narrow it down to a specific year, in which case I would at least hope narrowing down a decade or smaller range would be more accurate.
Thoughts? >>
I don't disagree with your sentiment, just don't think the examples above are representative to the argument of the BN cards. They can only do what they can given the information known to exist and I'm not aware of anyone that knows (let alone could prove) which cards were released in which years. Perhaps I'm wrong on that though and the information is widely available and I've just never seen it.
You're probably right in that the most info PSA has on hand at this time is that the BN's were issued sometime over that long range of years. I'm just surprised someone who owns old copies of the Boxing News publications that included distribution of the cards hasn't been able to shed a little more light on this. Since I don't own the publications and just some of the "cards" (or photos or whatever you want to call them), I wonder if the Boxing News issue promoted the inclusion of the card insert the same way that the much larger 1975 Boxing News - Gallery of the Greats set of 8 (red backgrounds) were promoted on the publication and therefore have a definitive date even though the actual inserts themselves aren't dated.
And even then, would that be enough? Because, to be honest, I don't want a TPGer identifying an entire set because Joe Schmow from East Wherever, USA sends them an email and says "trust me, this is a list of which card was inserted into which issue." It's just one of those things and there's not much anyone can do about it. The Kid Herman set form the 60s/70s is much more interesting to me anyway.
Ironically, the BN cards are probably more accurately labeled as premiums, just like the larger red ones. It's of little consequence to me, but if the set got popular enough there would probably be a large contingent of collectors not recognizing them as "cards."
I figure there's two ways to look at this whole issue -- we can decry the entire process and spin our tires in the mud, or we can embrace it and enjoy the aspects of the hobby that this set-up affords us. To me, having a set's (or card's) importance be determined by factors like rarity and aesthetic appeal as opposed to issue date is a much more enjoyable form of collecting. Don't get me wrong, I collect a little bit of many other sports, but with those you're a slave to whichever card was printed first. We could start a thread about Dempsey's rookie card and no matter how many different responses we got, there's probably 20+ cards of his I'd rather own than any of the supposed "rookie cards."
<< <i>That's a good question, I don't know the answer to it. It also could be a case that the cards weren't physically attached to the publication and were just tossed inside loosely. In which case, the odds of any publications surviving with the card inside them is slim to none, let alone an entire run of publications, all with cards intact, so that a checklist could be created.
And even then, would that be enough? Because, to be honest, I don't want a TPGer identifying an entire set because Joe Schmow from East Wherever, USA sends them an email and says "trust me, this is a list of which card was inserted into which issue." It's just one of those things and there's not much anyone can do about it. The Kid Herman set form the 60s/70s is much more interesting to me anyway.
Ironically, the BN cards are probably more accurately labeled as premiums, just like the larger red ones. It's of little consequence to me, but if the set got popular enough there would probably be a large contingent of collectors not recognizing them as "cards."
I figure there's two ways to look at this whole issue -- we can decry the entire process and spin our tires in the mud, or we can embrace it and enjoy the aspects of the hobby that this set-up affords us. To me, having a set's (or card's) importance be determined by factors like rarity and aesthetic appeal as opposed to issue date is a much more enjoyable form of collecting. Don't get me wrong, I collect a little bit of many other sports, but with those you're a slave to whichever card was printed first. We could start a thread about Dempsey's rookie card and no matter how many different responses we got, there's probably 20+ cards of his I'd rather own than any of the supposed "rookie cards." >>
Well said.
<< <i>Here we go on the topic of accuracy with years on labels again, but I believe your 1927 Greiling is a mech error and should be a 1926. All the others I have like that are labeled as 1926 by PSA, and the PSA 1927 Greilings I have look different (and in color). >>
Greg ... I will take your word for it. As I have stated to you previously, I do not collect much boxing and know very little about the cards. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
I haven't seen the last one you scanned there of Joe Louis, with the same photo as the one above it; what is it?
Later on I found this piece. It's smaller than the rotogravure, measuring 3.5"x5" and seems to possibly have been (somewhat) mass produced as mine has a wet transfer on the back identical to the card front. Not sure if this is also a Murnik piece. The image is a popular one and has been used many times in different premiums, including some Brown & Bigelow pieces.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>Not that there's anything wrong with premiums.
Hi Doug, the Kid Chocolate is part of a set of EVERLAST premiums from the 1930s. The Marciano is from 1975 (I believe, definitely the 70s). Not sure on the Sugar Ray. The Sunnyhurst Marciano is from the 1960s (Marciano was a whore and would sell his likeness to anyone that would pay). The Dempsey is a Rippled Wheat premium from 1936 that would accompany the "Train With Me..." book that kids could send away for (there's a sig variation too, with a fine pen sig as opposed to this wide pen sig). The first Louis is a 1935 Detroit Free Press premium issued with the newspaper. The second Louis (one of my favorite pieces in my collection) is a 1937 Lucky Heart premium. I was actually able to date it when I found an advertisement in an issue of The Afro American newspaper. And the last is the Murnik that I talked about previously.
<< <i>The Marciano is from 1975 (I believe, definitely the 70s). Not sure on the Sugar Ray. The Sunnyhurst Marciano is from the 1960s (Marciano was a whore and would sell his likeness to anyone that would pay). >>
The Marciano is definitely from 1975. I have the 1975 issue of Boxing News that came out with an ad that talked about how they would include one different one from that set (Boxing News - Gallery of the Greats) in each of the next 8 issues. I'll try to find it and scan it for you; not sure where I've got it tucked away at the moment. If memory serves, it was sometime during fall of 1975. The 8 from that set are: Muhammad Ali, Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Archie Moore, Jose Napoles, Willie Pep, and Sugar Ray Robinson. I don't remember off hand in what order they were released, but definitely all from 1975. They are too big to fit in a PSA holder though.
*edit to specify the red background Marciano since you have 2 diff. of him posted
[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/Nelson-front-site_zps744ca96d.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/Nelson-back-site_zps9147fb8c.jpg.html]
Always looking to buy or trade for Andre the Giant autographs
psacard.com/psasetregistry/non-sports/famous-personage/andre-giant-master-set/alltimeset/180400
<< <i>Great pick-ups. I love the 1920s-1950s cards. It seems like Rocky Graziano must have really protected the use of his image. I can hardly find any good examples of his cards, while I see so many great examples of Marciano, Robinson, etc. >>
I know I've posted it here on this thread several months ago and buried many pages back, but since you asked (sort of), here's an unusual Graziano I've got, 1952 Quiz Calendario w/ Tab:
Nice 1911 Boys' Friend. A while back I managed to pickup a 1911 Boys' Friend uncut panel with Jack Johnson (#1 from the Famous Boxers Series) and James Edwin "Jimmy" (J.E.) Windridge (#1 from the Famous Footballers Series). So far it's been getting N9'd. I think it is in Newport Beach at the moment for yet another try, but when it comes back I'll try to remember to scan it for you before it goes to SGC.
<< <i>Nice 1911 Boys' Friend. A while back I managed to pickup a 1911 Boys' Friend uncut panel with Jack Johnson (#1 from the Famous Boxers Series) and James Edwin "Jimmy" (J.E.) Windridge (#1 from the Famous Footballers Series). So far it's been getting N9'd. I think it is in Newport Beach at the moment for yet another try, but when it comes back I'll try to remember to scan it for you before it goes to SGC. >>
SWEET!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice 1911 Boys' Friend. A while back I managed to pickup a 1911 Boys' Friend uncut panel with Jack Johnson (#1 from the Famous Boxers Series) and James Edwin "Jimmy" (J.E.) Windridge (#1 from the Famous Footballers Series). So far it's been getting N9'd. I think it is in Newport Beach at the moment for yet another try, but when it comes back I'll try to remember to scan it for you before it goes to SGC. >>
SWEET!! >>
Just got it back again today, so here you go:
Obviously data from Cuba in the 1940's is tough to come by, but has anyone ever heard if the yellow border version or orange version of the 1946 Montiel cards were printed with the same production run or if one type is more rare than the other? I've been working on getting PSA to distinguish varieties on the labels but no luck on that so far.
Wow, nice looking Susini John, thanks for sharing!
Anyone have any info on the Montiel color variation question above?
<< <i>Wow, nice looking Susini John, thanks for sharing!
Anyone have any info on the Montiel color variation question above? >>
Thanks!
I don't have any pertinent info on the Montiel save that the yellow does seem to be much more common than the orange variety.
Really interesting cards you have there, thanks for posting. Not sure of the years. If you had posted the photos and said guess the year, I would have guessed 1930 for the top one (similar look to Cloetta, Rose Marie, plus some of the more obscure Italian & Spanish chocolate issues as well) and 1931 (similar look to Orami, Jasmatzi, Ramses, etc. for that year) for the bottom one purely based on the overall style as compared with other European issues from that era even if I'm referencing cards from other countries, but 1932 does not sound unreasonable at all and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that that was the correct year.
Good luck with the ID.
<< <i>
<< <i>Great pick-ups. I love the 1920s-1950s cards. It seems like Rocky Graziano must have really protected the use of his image. I can hardly find any good examples of his cards, while I see so many great examples of Marciano, Robinson, etc. >>
I know I've posted it here on this thread several months ago and buried many pages back, but since you asked (sort of), here's an unusual Graziano I've got, 1952 Quiz Calendario w/ Tab:
<< <i>
I missed this post. Very cool card! Thanks for posting the photos. I have never seen it before.
Always looking to buy or trade for Andre the Giant autographs
psacard.com/psasetregistry/non-sports/famous-personage/andre-giant-master-set/alltimeset/180400
Always looking to buy or trade for Andre the Giant autographs
psacard.com/psasetregistry/non-sports/famous-personage/andre-giant-master-set/alltimeset/180400
Always looking to buy or trade for Andre the Giant autographs
psacard.com/psasetregistry/non-sports/famous-personage/andre-giant-master-set/alltimeset/180400
Always looking to buy or trade for Andre the Giant autographs
psacard.com/psasetregistry/non-sports/famous-personage/andre-giant-master-set/alltimeset/180400
Wow, a mint 9 for any card in that set is really really hard to find, congrats!
Dave Fanning
dfanredsfan
What the heck is up with this card being labeled as a 1965 Swedish Candy?
I've always seen them labeled by SGC like this instead.
I haven't seen one graded by PSA before finding this one. Sure is confusing since they typically give this card the 1965 Swedish Candy label anyway.
I have tried subbing other different player cards to PSA that are from the same set that is labeled as 1965 Lampo by SGC, and PSA always N9's them. OK, so we can call this a mech error in this case, but it would be nice if they would actually establish what to properly label it and start grading items from that set.
dfanredsfan
<< <i>What the heck is up with this card being labeled as a 1965 Swedish Candy?
I've always seen them labeled by SGC like this instead.
I haven't seen one graded by PSA before finding this one. Sure is confusing since they typically give this card the 1965 Swedish Candy label anyway.
I have tried subbing other different player cards to PSA that are from the same set that is labeled as 1965 Lampo by SGC, and PSA always N9's them. OK, so we can call this a mech error in this case, but it would be nice if they would actually establish what to properly label it and start grading items from that set. >>
I noticed this too. I actually don't think Sweedish candy is correct for either. The perfetti card was definitely mislabeled I think. I didn't even think psa graded them. I believe it should be labeled as 67 too.