1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Simple question, do you consider the 1935 Diamond Matches to be cards? They are extremely affordable and wonder why they don't get much hobby respect.<br /><br />James

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Alan</b><p>Excellent question !!! I've wondered that myself. <br /><br />Anyone have information, scarcity, etc,...<br />and/or scans of these:<br /><br />Milt Galatzer – 1934 Diamond Matchbook Silver Border<br />Milt Galatzer – 1935/1936 Diamond Matchbook<br />Isadore “Izzy” Goldstein – 1934 Diamond (Silver Border) Matchbook<br />Al Schacht – 1934 Diamond Matchbook<br />Albert (Dolly) Stark (Umpire) – 1934 Diamond Matchbook<br /><br />Thanks.<br />

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>andy becker</b><p>yes. and shhhhhhh about the prices

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>No. The determination of whether a pre-war baseball collectible is a card depends solely on the rarity of the item. So, baseball players on Wheaties boxes are not cards, while those on candy boxes including products such as Darby's, All Star Baseball, etc. (eventho they are poor representations at best) are cards - solely because they are uncommon. The same applys to matchbooks, notebook covers, postcard imprinted non-rare items such as the exhibit series which are not cards; while flimsy products which do not even have the rigidity to support their own weight like Mello Mints - are definately cards? And Ice cream container covers as well as small round candy tin inserts like JuJu Drums or Colgan products are clearly cards. If you don't believe me, ask Hal.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>It's like the debate over why the T206 Wagner sells for so much more than rarer cards. Who cares, the market has evolved that way. People actively collect them, so they are legitimate vintage cardboard baseball collectibles. <br /><br />BTW, I just picked up my first completely intact Diamond Matches book, of Jim Bottomley.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>Yes. The Diamond Matchbooks have relatively good photos and biographies. They are inexpensive due to the other more mainstream baseball issues of the 1930's. Talk to a vinatge football collector. The 1933 and 1938 football Diamond Matchbooks get very expensive, especially HOFer's. Outside of the 1935 National Chicle football set of 36 players, there are few collectible options for 1930's players. Thus the greater demand and value.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Daniel Bretta</b><p>I recently picked up a whole bunch of the Diamond matchbooks at an estate sale...most of the baseball ones are completely intact with matches...I tried to sell a few on ebay with a starting bid of 9.99 and they didn't sell...All of the football ones I put up sold above my minimum bid...That's okay I'll keep the baseball ones for my collection...the football and hockey paid for the lot twice over. <br /><br />I think a real challenge would be to put one of these sets together with completely intact matchbooks.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Dan do you still have any, and if so, are they for sale?<br /><br />

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I still have them, but I haven't decided if I want to start putting a set together or not. If I decide I want to get rid of them I'll contact you first.<br /><br />Here's a shot of some of the ones I picked up:<br /><a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/7678/dandy007small8ud5us5qv.jpg" border="0" width="640" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Al Crisafulli</b><p>Dan, those are beautiful.<br /><br />I would consider them "cards". Then again, I consider almost everything to be a "card".<br /><br />-Al

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Not that it's dispositve or even relevent but: (i) matchbooks have ACC designations (U1-4 and U6) and (ii) no grading company currently slabs them (one told me they lack the expertise).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/o/u/u.asp?cardsetID=1084" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/o/u/u.asp?cardsetID=1084</a>

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>They are matchbooks, not cards. Like Sweet Caporal pins and 1969 Topps stamps, they are collected by card collectors so are close associates to cards. Card-like would be an acceptable label ('They aren't cards, but they're like cards.')<br /><br />The definition of a trading card or baseball card requires that something be a card in the physical sense (a business card is a card, a YMCA membership card is card). A pin physcally isn't card. Even if priced in the Standard Catalog, a 1969 Sports Illustrated 3x2' poster phyiscally isn't a card. And a matchbook, even if collected by sports card collectors, isn't physically a card.<br /><br />Whether or not I agree with them, I know avid baseball card collectors who don't consider T3s trading cards as they feel them too large to be cards in the physical sense. They might buy and enjoy owning T3s, but don't consider them cards.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>SGC will grade some of the matchbooks. I spoke to a representative two weeks ago.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Yes, they are cards.<br /><br />Stuff can start out as part of a box, end panel, CEREAL box, or a matchbook.<br /><br />After it's original use, it is then a card. Aren't those 1960ish Post and Jello cardboard items CARDS???<br /><br />Maybe I'm wrong. A T206 is not a card, it is merely a package insert to maintain the shape of the pack and protect the cigarettes, happened to be printed with brand advertising on one side, and a base ballist or a fish on the other...

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>For this thread, the defining question about a questioned item is, 'Is it a card in the purely physical sense?' People will have different points of view about about the physical definition of 'card,' but, stating what I would think would be obvious, a card has to be a card. If someone put in front of you a blank white strip of cardboard folded over three times and with little cardboard strips stapled to the inside and asked you if that was a card, would you say yes or no? And, perhaps more important, would you call it art?

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I don't understand why there is any question as to whether these are cards or not. They called matchbook covers for a reason. If they were cards, they would have been called Diamond baseball cards.<br /><br />I will agree that a Darby Chocolates box or panel is not a card. They are exactly that, a box or a panel.<br /><br />To me, a card is an entity unto itself that is not detached from another item.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Gary Bills</b><p>I have 19 of these matchbooks complete with matches and clean strikers. Most of them are in really good shape. These were found in going thru collectibles from an estate and since we are not collectors we will be trying to sell these. Anyone interested can contact me by e-mail, I will list the players on the B/S/T section. I've really enjoyed the forum while trying to learn about some of the baseball stuff we found. Thanks, Gary Bills<br><br>Gary Bills

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Alan</b><p>Adam --<br /><br />I recall one of Maxie Rosenbloom. Did they make any other ones of Jewish boxers ?<br /><br />Thanks.<br />Alan

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Hmmmm----but they ARE in the Standard Guide.....

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>You can put a lobster in your fish tank. Still doesn't make the lobster a fish.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home, I would be arrested. So, I go to baseball games and fit right in.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>Semantics aside....and to re-phrase my original response, I collect the matchcovers like they are cards. They are part of my "card" collection. Trying to define card, especially within a group of collectors with varying interests, is impossible.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>OK, you mavens have somewhat convinced me. <br /><br />Maybe matchbook covers are "collectables", not cards. I'll start thinking of my few T3s as something other than cards. My lone T200 premium isn't a card. I guess I should pitch it out.<br /><br />And I agree a lobster isn't a fish. I applaud that reasoning, even if it udoes what I'd thought.<br /><br />So what are is my 1961 Post Henry Aaron? It is one of the few collectables from my childhood that didn't go to the trash can or neighbor kids. <br /><br />I kinda like the St. Louis Cardinals. And matchbooks (I admittedly don't call them cards, even though I perceive them to be so) are a good way to get some of those Gas House players. Only way to get Rothrock as a Cardinal and by himself is on the matchbook.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>No on on this thread suggested the matchbooks aren't collectable. I've owned 1930s baseball, football and hockey matchbooks and I would buy them again.<br /><br />For future reference a trading card must be all of the the following four: a) Be a card in the purely phyical sense, b) Made to be a trading card**, c) Used for advertising or other commercial purposes and d) Made to be given to or otherwise available to the general public.<br /><br /><i></i> b) Rules out the average SI magazine picture cutout or picture cut from an advertising sign. Rules in Post and Hostess card, as manufacturer intended and advertised it as a trading card, often including dotted line and instructions for the kid to cut out the card. Once cut out as intended by manufacturer, a Hostess and Post card fits the physical definition of card.<br /><br />Pertaining to a), a simple test to help judge whether or not an item is a card in the physical sense is to show it individually to seven people who are not card collectors and ask them if the item is a card. If none of them say that pinback or matchbook or june bug in your hand is a card, that's indication it isn't a card.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>bobbie</b><p>Hi, Just wondering if anyone knows what year these are from. They are from the CUSTOM MATCH COMPANY. <br />Thanks.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1147018508.JPG">

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>The Aaron/Mays one is probably mid to late 70's based on the stats alone. The Ruth is probably also from the 70's.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>jamie</b><p>for alan:<br /><img src="http://i13.ebayimg.com/01/i/07/62/3d/11_1_b.JPG">

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Looks like a baseball card to me.<br /><br />Is cardboard<br />Is baseball player + write up about him<br />Has been collected<br />and ... best of all ..<br />Is not lobster.

1935 Diamond Matches: Considered cards?
 

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Most definitely not cards. I am with David R. on this one. P-2 Sweet cap pins are not cards eithers, nor are Domino Discs. They are baseball collectibles, memorabilia, whatever, but not cards.