PDA

View Full Version : Cleveland Browns Photo On CFL Card ???


Archive
01-30-2008, 11:01 PM
Posted By: <b>mightypope</b><p>It was brought to my attention that this 1961 Topps CFL card of the Saskatchewan Roughriders team is really not the Roughriders, but is really a team picture of the Cleveland Browns. Do any of you American collectors out there know anything about this photo. Thanks.<img src="http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg242/zantimisfit/1961Saskatchewan.jpg">

Archive
01-31-2008, 12:46 AM
Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Other than the fact that it is definitely the Browns (Jim Brown #32 is the most recognizable), I have no idea.

Archive
01-31-2008, 07:29 AM
Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Yup, that's Cleveland. I also see Galen Fiss #35 (partially obscured, far right second row from top).<br /><br />Rob M.

Archive
01-31-2008, 08:15 AM
Posted By: <b>mightypope</b><p>What I found strange was that Topps didn't use this team photo of the Browns in any of its early 60's NFL issues. I guess some Cleveland Browns collectors will now want to get their hands on this oddball issued card. Topps also used this same stock photo on the '62, '63 and '64 CFL team photo of the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

Archive
01-31-2008, 09:06 AM
Posted By: <b>Richard</b><p>Can you say "quality control"?<br /><br />It's like I've said many times, early football cards never got the respect or interest as baseball, so Topps probably never felt the need to correct things, since nobody cared.<br /><br />I'm also willing to bet that the annual Beckett price guides mention nothing about it either, but that collectors, and even catalog editors, may have known about things like this for quite some time.<br /><br />It sure seems that previously unknown varieties and uncorrected errors, in vintage football, are starting to pop up more frequently. Maybe the catalog editors will actually start throwing FB collectors a bone and at least mention some of these things in their books.

Archive
02-09-2008, 12:03 PM
Posted By: <b>dan hitt</b><p>Very nice catch. This "error" is one we (Beckett) have never cataloged.