HOF Boxing RC list - the top 100 of all time.

[Exhibitman]

I just obtained an album of boxing cards from Sweden. It shows Braddock as world champ and Louis as a contender. Also has a card of Barney Ross in it as welterweight champ. It has a card of Jackie Brown as a bantam champ; he lost that title to Benny Lynch in September 1935. It also does not mention the 1936 Louis-Schmeling fight though it does mention the Walker-Schmeling fight, which took place in 1932. The cards are about the size of 1952 Topps baseball cards and are paper-thin. They are very firmly glued down so I cannot tell if they have printed backs. The publisher is known for a 1936 Olympics album.

Based on the content I'd say it is a 1935 issue and has 'rookie' cards of Louis and Ross. Here is the cover

[wake.up.the.echoes]

Adam,
Nice find. Tradera? I hate to put a damper on your enthusiasm as you make the transition into foreign cards (and "rookie" cards to boot), but I believe that album was released in 1936, not 1935. Nevertheless, great early "cards" of Louis and Braddock. Now if I could convince you that the 1964 Simon (and also macrobertson) are Ali's true rookie cards, the I would truly be a happy man.
Alan

[Exhibitman]

Sorry, Alan, never gonna win that one.

I think it was a 1935 issue; the fighters in it and the write-ups don't make sense for 1936. Regardless, the Ross is the earliest thus far.

[wake.up.the.echoes]

Adam,
Give me time.

Maybe I am confusing my albums, but is yours the one that has 32 or so paper-thin cards that covers the period of time between 1908 and 1935? If yes, then it's definitely a 1936 release.

It's this one, right? http://www.sportboken.com/artikel.as...2334&catid=932
Not bad for $50US, if only for the Ross rookie.

[oldmanvintagecards]

Sorry Adam, but Alan is right on this. I saw one of these albums on eBay a little while ago and immediately asked my 2 dealer friends in Sweden about it. They both said that it was 100% from 1936, so I stayed away because that means it wouldn't contain any top Heavyweight Champ Rookie cards. They also said that I probably would not consider them cards because they are more like glossy photos on regular paper, glued in to a photo type album. I have no idea if I would consider them cards or not but both dealers have dealt with me long enough to know the things that I would consider cards and to know the things that I would consider plain old photos.

As for what Alan considers Ali/Clay's rookie card I couldn't agree more. The 1960 Hemmets Journal was never meant to be cut out as a card. You can tell this by the fact that:
1. None were ever cut out before card grading came to be. They were meant to be kept in a two ring binder (look at the binder holes on the side).
2. You can not cut all 4 cards out with enough border for grading, which again proves that they were never meant to be cut out in the first place. If this were from 1968 would these have ever been cut out? Doubtful, but because someone found a picture of Clay published before any of his other cards they thought that they could cut it out, with proper borders, and sell it as his true rookie cards. You can also look at the back and realize that if it were meant to be cut out, then they probably would have made things a little more symmetical and clean looking than what is on the back. If this is a "card" than any magazine cut out that could resemble a "card" has to be a card.

With the 1962 Rekord Journal "card" it comes down to whether you consider magazine cut outs to be cards. I do not because I think this is really a stretch to consider these things cards. I go back to my "Faces in the Crowd" argument. If you consider the Rekord Journal picture cut outs, with Bio's, on regualr magazine paper then you would have to call "Faces in the Crowd" picture Bio's cards as well. "FITC" picture Bio's are pictures of the athlete that are a section of every Sports Illustrated magazine, just like the picture card was a part of every Rekord Magazine. By calling the Rekord Magazine picture bio a "card" it sets a horrible precedent for any magazine picture that is part of a regular section of a magazine/newspaper like "Faces in the Crowd" in SI top be called a card. If you have ever dealt with the Rekord Magazine cut outs they clearly are not cards. They are regular paper cut out pictures. I thought they were cards until I handled one and realized that all they were, were picture cut outs from a magazine. Just because there is a picture bio on the cover of every Rekord Journal magazine that does not make it a card.

The 1964 Simon Chocolates on the other hand meets every definition of a card and predates his Lampo and Panini, which makes it his True Rookie. It was distributed randomly, from a set, with a product (chocolates), just like tobacco cards at the turn of the 20th century. They are also factory cut and are on real card stock. This is the first card that is by all definitions a true undisputed card. It predates all of his other cards, besided the MacRobertson, except the "cards" that are really just magazine cut outs being passed off as cards for money reasons. As for the MacRobertson this can also be considered a rookie of his but if up against the Simon Chocolates I think the Simon wins for a couple reasons:
1. The eyes test- the Simon Chocolates looks like your typical card while the MacRobertson looks like a quiz game card, which it is.
2. Distribution_ The Simon card was distributed randomly from a set while the MacRobertson was distributed in the Quiz Game it went with, therefore it was not random (I think haha)
I have no problem with people considering the MacRobertson his true rookie but have no idea how anyone could consider his 1965 Lampo, which is not from a major card company, like Panini, a rookie card when at least 2 cards predate the Lampo. Some people will still consider the 1966 Panini his rookie because they only collect major manufacturers as rookies, which is all preference.

Those are my thoughts and I am sticking to them hahaha! Except, of course, the Swedish Album being from 1936. That is not a thought but a fact. Sorry Adam.

[Exhibitman]

OK, so it is a 1936; still the earliest Ross item I've found, until I get conclusive proof that the Exhibit card predates all of it. I really like the album, so unless one shows up with the picures unmounted I guess I won't know what's on the back, since I won't be destroying this album.

As for the Clay rookie, I have no stake in this; I don't even own a Rekord Clay. My interest is purely academic, but I cannot see declaring them not to be cards on the basis of any of the arguments made here. What's on the back of the Rekord cards? A biography.



What's around the Rekord cards? An individual border.



The Rekord cards even have stand-alone copyrights on them, which is about as clear a hallmark of intent to have them separated from the magazine as you can get. They were as intended to be cut out and collected as any Bazooka or Post or strip issue. I don't see how you can not classify them as cards. The SI column you reference is a page in a magazine with printing of something else on its back. It was never intended to be cut out or collected; it is not even close to the same thing. A better analogy is this Al Rosen from the back of a Dell comic book:



It actually has a border but has unrelated matter at the bottom. However, it was printed with the phrase "Cut this photo out. Look for different champion pictures in other Dell Comics." I would treat the cut item as a card because the manufacturing shows the intent to have it cut out and collected. Or how about these:



1949 Philadelphia Bulletin. These were part of the Sunday "Fun Book" and were intended to be cut out and collected.

IMO the Rekord cover cards show the same intent.

There are tons of other examples throughout the ACC and Standard Catalog. Not to mention stuff that is even more out there. How about these? 1955 Big League, Inc., classifed as UM8 in the ACC:



Again, collect whatever you want, but you have to admit that your classification is more or less arbitrary given the history of what has been accepted as a card.

[oldmanvintagecards]

So according to your logic any picture that is meant to be cut out is automatically a card? Do you believe that the picture on the full page comic is a card because they wanted you to cut it out and it featured an athlete? With the "Faces in the Crowd" each picture had a little bio next to it rather than on the back, so where the bio is located decides whether it is a card or not? Your 1949 Philadelphia Bulletin "cards" are almost identical to the "Faces in the Crowd" pictures? Also each "FITC" picture and bio is boxed off and separated with borders for each one individually, doesn't that make them "cards."

Just from looking at them quickly I wouldn't consider anything you have listed there as being cards. There are plenty of bordered newspaper pictures with Bio's or statistics attached to it but if you cut them out it does not make them cards. I tend to try to use my eyes and common sense to determine what is and what isn't a card. But a magazine or newspaper cut out is not a card to me, it is a cut out photo. What is the difference between these and any other regular bordered off photos in any newspaper or magazine? Is it the Bio or the fact that the Bio is located on the back? With Strip cards they are almost all on CARD stock, not regular paper. If it is on regular paper and has to be cut out by the owner than it isn't a card in my book, it is a photo cut out just like your Dell comic states "Cut this PHOTO out. Look for different champion PICTURES in other Dell Comics." It doesn't say cut this card out. It says cut this photo out. Your example just helped prove my argument.

I don't use the ACC or any other catalog to determine that pictures cut out of a magazine or newspaper are not cards. I just use common sense. I have never actually seen the ACC. Hell, I had never even heard of it before but if it is stating that these things that you have pictured are cards, then I probably don't want to read it.

[Exhibitman]

No, that is incorrect. What I said is clear and I will leave it at that.

I am happy you do not consider the things I've referenced cards; I can look forward to no competition from you when I bid on them.

[oldmanvintagecards]

What did you say that was clear? What makes any of those cut outs cards? The fact that some were intended to be cut out?