The holy grail of boxing cards? 1965 Swedish Candy Clay/Ali RC

ClockworkAngel

I've been watching this one with interest. I know there are some boxing collectors on here that know much more but I always though this card had a crazy demand and following, it's considered by most to be Ali's rookie card, is ridiculously rare, and actually quite an attractive card. Looking at the population report looks like you're looking at the pop report for the T-206 Wagner. One 8 and then some 6's and less

The one that sold tonight was the highest graded and only 8 that exists. I am surprised at how low it went. What are everyone else's thoughts?

ReggieCleveland

I thought it was laughably high. There will never be a consensus on an Ali "rookie card" and I've yet to be convinced the set is from 1965. In my opinion, it's nowhere near the holy grail of boxing cards.

miklia

I agree with Reggie on the high price on this one, this auction will probably end up as the price outlier over time due to the current low pop. Although there's still debate on Ali RC, I see a slow consensus emerging towards the 1960 Hemmets (full disclosure - it's my choice too). That said, always good to see a lot of interest in rare boxing no matter the card.

The closest thing to a boxing holy grail is probably the 48 Leaf Rocky Graziano. That's a much bigger money card.

KNAPP

Finally, the 1965 gets some respect, but it is not the Holy Grail of boxing cards.

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/Clay4_zps16743f33.jpg.html][/URL]

KNAPP

In my opinion, the Holy Grail of boxing cards, series, or set, however you want to label them, are the Sillivan/Kilrain stereoviews from 1889.

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/SullivanKilrain6_zpsc4ee05d1.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/SullivanKilrain1_zpsd70f76a9.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/SullivanKilrain2_zps266090fa.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/SullivanKilrain3_zps73edc7c2.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/SullivanKilrain4_zps83f38765.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/SullivanKilrain5_zps684e1495.jpg.html][/URL]

KNAPP

Holy Grail???

[URL=http://s1341.photobucket.com/user/boxingandwrestling/media/PeterJackson-site_zps70362973.jpg.html][/URL]

eagles33

The seller did very well here. You can get this card for less than 100 bucks raw usually in pretty good condition. Prob not an 8 but better than a 5. It's hard to find but not impossible. It's his best looking early card IMO but the fact nobody can definitively say what year it's it's from or even what the name of the set is... Makes it less desirable to me. I would concede his true rookie is the 1964 Simons chocolates. (First factory cut numbered trading card) But I hate the card so using his lampo since his first pack issued card. Either way its good to see prices like this in boxing cards... And I'm glad attention is moving away his 71 Barratt card.

miwlvrn

miwlvrn

Quite a nice hoard of the stereoviews you've got there! The VG 3 looks overgraded when comparing it to the 1's & 2 though.

I have to agree that the 1948 Leaf Graziano is an amazingly super-tough card, but most of that is due to scarcity rather than interest in the item if it had actually been printed with as many as each of the other cards in the set. The fact that it wouldn't stand up w/o the SP factor makes me consider some of the older ones instead to be the "grail".

ReggieCleveland

This thread is a pretty good example of exactly why there will never be a consensus on Ali (or just about any pre-1965) fighter's "rookie card." There's too much variance out there and collector's are left to choose the one that best suits their personal style and then those collectors are left to hype and push whichever example they've chosen. There's probably at least a half dozen contenders from 1965 or prior and all have them have something about them that many collectors don't like or view as a disqualification. There's an Ali in the 1962 Po-Po Boxing Discs set (which is almost certainly not from 1962, like PSA identifies it. Likely 1963 and possibly 1964) that is factory cut, part of a set, and issued in packs, but it is not rectangular so it will never be widely accepted. The Hemmets is hand-cut, the Rekord is hand-cut, the MacRobertson is a game card, the Slanias are stamps, on and on and on. The Simon Chocolate is probably the best example but I've also yet to see definitive proof that it's from 1964.

This problem isn't anything new. Almost all of the boxing card collectors I know pay little mind to determining a fighter's "rookie card" because it's almost never the most interesting or most desirable card for the fighter, by a long shot. No matter what card you choose for Jack Dempsey, there's AT LEAST a dozen cards released later (sometimes decades) that are more rare, more valuable, and more sought after.

As for the Holy Grail, it's the Graziano and nothing else even comes close, in my opinion. It has the mystery of the Wagner, is much rarer than the Wagner, is part of one of the most popular boxing sets of all-time, and it's a Hall of Fame fighter too. Not like Graziano was some palooka.

But hey, collect what you like and enjoy your collection. I hope the buyer of that PSA 8 is happy with the price and is going to enjoy having that card in their collection for a long time.

vols1

1964 was his first 'card', but different people have different definitions of the word rookie.

ReggieCleveland

Different people have different definitions of the word "card," too.

miwlvrn

<< <i>The Simon Chocolate is probably the best example but I've also yet to see definitive proof that it's from 1964. >>



The Simon Chocolate card has the year printed on the back. There were other years of Simon Chocolate had their respective years on the back too. The '64's all have '64 on them. I have a complete album of 1964 Simon Chocolates and the album has the year and discusses how each card represents a big world news item from the prior year. So, I'm pretty convinced that 1964 is the accurate year for those. Since I provided all this information with tons of scans to the PSA research dept., this is why they started to grade all items from the set instead of just the Clay card.

I've got a 1961 Simon Chocolates Joe Louis card that is fun to own but I can't get PSA to slab it since it is not from the 1964 set and I don't have the entire 1961 album to provide as data to support inclusion of the set in their graded items yet. Same story for the items I own from the 1962 Simon Chocolates set too.

ReggieCleveland

<< <i>

<< <i>The Simon Chocolate is probably the best example but I've also yet to see definitive proof that it's from 1964. >>



The Simon Chocolate card has the year printed on the back. There were other years of Simon Chocolate had their respective years on the back too. The '64's all have '64 on them. I have a complete album of 1964 Simon Chocolates and the album has the year and discusses how each card represents a big world news item from the prior year. So, I'm pretty convinced that 1964 is the accurate year for those. Since I provided all this information with tons of scans to the PSA research dept., this is why they started to grade all items from the set instead of just the Clay card.

I've got a 1961 Simon Chocolates Joe Louis card that is fun to own but I can't get PSA to slab it since it is not from the 1964 set and I don't have the entire 1961 album to provide as data to support inclusion of the set in their graded items yet. Same story for the items I own from the 1962 Simon Chocolates set too. >>



That definitely qualifies as definitive proof, thanks.

eagles33

Nice post reggie. Good view of boxing card collecting