1953 Topps Fighting Marines

[gonefishin]

I just wanted to ask if anyone else collects this set? I have a partial set and found the cards very interesting. If you're a former Marine, or just enjoy reading about Marine Corps history, this is a pretty cool set.

[G1911]

I do, great set and images. I only wish they had used their larger card size for this issue and really let them shine. These, Freedom's War, Bowmans Power for Peace, Navy Victories and Red Menace, lots of great and colorful military themed sets in the early 50's.

The Non-Sports board will probably be more helpful.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do, great set and images. I only wish they had used their larger card size for this issue and really let them shine. These, Freedom's War, Bowmans Power for Peace, Navy Victories and Red Menace, lots of great and colorful military themed sets in the early 50's.

The Non-Sports board will probably be more helpful.

FM predates the Giant Size Topps cards, although not by much. I feel the same way about Look 'N' See.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

FM predates the Giant Size Topps cards, although not by much. I feel the same way about Look 'N' See.

Is Fighting Marines not from 1953? I thought it was subsequent to Wings and the 52 baseball series.

Look N See is my favorite non sports set of the 1950’s, the wide swaths of history it covers so colorfully is just gorgeous.

[gonefishin]

I also like the Look n See. Just like my Fighting Marines, not high quality but that doesn't matter to me.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

Is Fighting Marines not from 1953? I thought it was subsequent to Wings and the 52 baseball series.

Look N See is my favorite non sports set of the 1950’s, the wide swaths of history it covers so colorfully is just gorgeous.

FM retail box and five cent pack were Copyright 1951 (penny pack is undated) and is included in the 1953 ACC published in Feb. 1953. I think it actually was released very early in 1952 but it may be it came out in late '51. It's not a 1953 set based on that.

[gonefishin]

Thanks Dave. I've never done any research on the series, and I'm definitely ok with it being earlier! I love the pack.

I met General Wilson, featured on card #64, while I was in the Marines and he was then the Commandant. Quite a gentleman and leader.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

FM retail box and five cent pack were Copyright 1951 (penny pack is undated) and is included in the 1953 ACC published in Feb. 1953. I think it actually was released very early in 1952 but it may be it came out in late '51. It's not a 1953 set based on that.

Great information, thank you. Sure makes a lot more sense now why it was done in the size it was.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by G1911

Great information, thank you. Sure makes a lot more sense now why it was done in the size it was.

If penny packs were dated, a lot of issue dates would change a little. Those old nickel packs and wrappers are very hard to find.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I met General Wilson, featured on card #64, while I was in the Marines and he was then the Commandant. Quite a gentleman and leader.

Wow, that's really amazing, kind of brings the set alive.

[egri]

Originally Posted by toppcat

FM retail box and five cent pack were Copyright 1951 (penny pack is undated) and is included in the 1953 ACC published in Feb. 1953. I think it actually was released very early in 1952 but it may be it came out in late '51. It's not a 1953 set based on that.

Looking at the Korean War cards in it, that would support an earlier-than-1953 release date as well. They don't mention anything after Chosin Reservoir, which wrapped up in mid-December 1950. My guess is the cards were in production during the UN offensives (and subsequent Chinese counteroffensive) in 1951, so those didn't make it into the set.

[toppcat]

Originally Posted by egri

Looking at the Korean War cards in it, that would support an earlier-than-1953 release date as well. They don't mention anything after Chosin Reservoir, which wrapped up in mid-December 1950. My guess is the cards were in production during the UN offensives (and subsequent Chinese counteroffensive) in 1951, so those didn't make it into the set.

That could put them back a bit further into 1951 than I thought. Which fits some other patterns. I'd love to find the illo. and image sources for the cards.

[gonefishin]

An update, I just got my 2 cards back from SGC and they are labeled 1953. As stated earlier, the date of issue really doesn't matter in my world. I just like the simple cards and write up on the back.

P.S. I don't care about the grade either!

[toppcat]

I doubt the grading companies will ever come around. Here's an interesting as ad from the 1953 ACC, published in February of that year, which shows some of the Topps offerings from 1952 and earlier. Given the lead times of the day, I have to think the ad was constructed by the end of '52. And they are not on here but the Felt Book/Varsity Football cards were a 1949 issue, not 1950 as pretty much every reference and slab indicates.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by toppcat

I doubt the grading companies will ever come around. Here's an interesting as ad from the 1953 ACC, published in February of that year, which shows some of the Topps offerings from 1952 and earlier. Given the lead times of the day, I have to think the ad was constructed by the end of '52. And they are not on here but the Felt Book/Varsity Football cards were a 1949 issue, not 1950 as pretty much every reference and slab indicates.

Didn’t know about the felt back dating either.

We hobbyists should all compile a list of the dozens of misdated sports and non sports sets somewhere. There are so many of them that have been assigned wrong. Some dates were based on incomplete research or estimates (usually well intended, just incomplete or not having access to evidence found later), but the hobby as a whole doesn’t like critical examination or continuing research and so tends to simply repeat what ever X authority (be it Burdick, the Standard Catalog, or the graders) says is true with little regard for, and occasionally antipathy to, ascertainable fact.