N566 Newsboy Pugilists and their variations

[G1911]

Next is the third group, which stars numbering over at 1. Most numbers do not actually exist, and make no consistent sense. There are huge gaps and than a random number. There are only 2 over 1000, but the highest number I have found someone mention is 1376.

#966 is Bob Fitzsimmons. These seem to all have the name and number in the photo only, restricting our differences. Fitzsimmons Newsboys are rare, I have not seen many to say the least. Attached is a font 2. In these high numbers, this font seems to be the more common and font 1 tougher, though at least some of the subjects in the 900 range come with font 1 mounts. I expect we are missing 1 of the 2 versions I expect to exist.

Fitzsimmons also comes as a Campbell. Unlike #72 Corbett, I think Campbell is actually more common on Fitzsimmons than Newsboy. Attached are 3 examples I found, without any variation. The cropping, again, is the result of the pictures being cut and glued on to them, pretty much every card will be marginally different in size and thus what is shown.

[G1911]

Next, number 1065 or 1068. I can't tell which, different people checklist it with either number. EDIT - Identified to be 1068 in post #23

As far as I know - this is the only Sullivan that has surfaced, with font 1. I've never seen another.

In theory, there could be a Campbell and there should be the other font. There might be nothing to look for here, if the numbering was in someways sequential this might be the very end of production and the card barely issued. I don't know.

[G1911]

Last, is this 'checklist' card showing many of the photos on a blank mount that appears to be reminiscent of a Newsboy mount. Top row, middle is John L. Sullivan in a portrait pose known on other cabinet cards.

I have never seen a Newsboy with this pose. I'm not at all sure this is a Newsboy card, but it might be. SGC has slabbed it as one, but they often make up things.

[D. Bergin]

Another great project Greg.

Here's two I found in my files, but it looks like you have both styles accounted for already.

Probably had a bunch of other Newsboy images further back in my floppy disc archival days, but those are probably lost forever to time and apathy.

[RCMcKenzie]

Here's the Jackson I have. Are they all not the same photo cropped a little differently by each mount?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Here's the Jackson I have. Are they all not the same photo cropped a little differently by each mount?

They aren't all the same photo cropped a little differently dependent on the mount. For Jackson, there are definitely 2 different actual photographs used - the tougher one also has his arm lower, not crossing over his breast as another notable difference. Looks similar, but definitely a different photograph. The tougher Jackson photo is the same picture used to model his c. 1894-1895 N310 Mayo card and looks to have been taken during the same photoshoot as the more commonly seen image of Jackson.

For Jackson (left foot straight), each copy will be ever so slightly different within the same variation. The photographs show signs of being handcut with some occasional unevenness. Note the Jackson that Dave shared, which also has the name on mount but the other font. Jackson's head is partly cut off at the top on that copy, while your card has his feet slightly shaved instead. The same exact variation of Jackson is photo 2 in post #4 - note the cropping is again ever so slightly different. I would liken it to the centering on a modern card that uses full bleed photographs - on the sheet the cards are slightly larger than the final card is, so that a slight off centering won't show a different image and make Topps look sloppy. Different copies will show an extra quarter mm or whatever of a pitchers hand, but it's not really a different variation, it's just how the item was cut.


Separate from this, I would note the inclusion of only 72 Corbett and 73 Jackson as boxing subjects in this group may be indicative of when group 1 Newsboys ere designed and made. Their fight was May 5, 1891 and was big news at the time, one of the most discussed non-title fights of boxing history.

[G1911]

Also, I found this morning that copy of the composite SGC claimed is a Newsboy that I mentioned earlier. It was sold alongside this "N150" to the right. I am pretty certain this is a hobby myth and not true. Note the same 'checklist' on a different mount is slabbed as N150. N150 is a series of over 1,000 cards, most all actresses, with a handful of men in it including 4 pictures of John L. Sullivan from his stage career. This picture of Sullivan is one of those 4 poses in N150. However, not all of these pictures correspond to N566 Newsboy photographs nor to N150.

It would not be surprising if there is a Sullivan card using this common photograph as one of the hundreds of missing numbers. His boxing card is a 1 of 1 as far as I am aware right now, but I don't think this composite has anything to do with whether or not he ever had another pose in the Newsboy cabinets.

I think SGC or somebody else just made this up and we are looking at something unrelated. A red frame does not make a card a Newsboy. It baffles me how the graders will refuse to recognize something that is plainly and clearly true because it isn't 'catalogued' but will then turn around and just completely make stuff up out of thin air. One of many reasons I am loathe to use pop reports rather than pictures to validate and certify certain cards do actually exist.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Another great project Greg.

Here's two I found in my files, but it looks like you have both styles accounted for already.

Probably had a bunch of other Newsboy images further back in my floppy disc archival days, but those are probably lost forever to time and apathy.

You know, I am very grateful that consolidating all of my notes includes only having to pull off old disc drives with a flash drive and translating my chicken scratch into actual English words instead of figuring how a floppy drive can be read by a modern computer .

On the other hand, a lot of pre early 2000's boxing stuff seems to be 'lost knowledge' area. Even some stuff that made into Jones' book then got 'forgot' by the hobby, like that T219 Red Cross is a different physical size than the other T219's. The stuff that didn't is a hodge podge of often vague memories. A stack of floppy's recording late 90's boxing would probably have significant value - a lot of notable cards then won't have actually appeared back in the hobby again. One of the things that makes baseball so much easier is that there are very few 'lost knowledge' cards; someone has a story to tell and does about pretty much every odd T206 that has appeared since the 1970's. We don't seem to have a long oral tradition with boxing and documentation is limited to like 2 or 3 places of very broad focus.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by G1911

You know, I am very grateful that consolidating all of my notes includes only having to pull off old disc drives with a flash drive and translating my chicken scratch into actual English words instead of figuring how a floppy drive can be read by a modern computer .

On the other hand, a lot of pre early 2000's boxing stuff seems to be 'lost knowledge' area. Even some stuff that made into Jones' book then got 'forgot' by the hobby, like that T219 Red Cross is a different physical size than the other T219's. The stuff that didn't is a hodge podge of often vague memories. A stack of floppy's recording late 90's boxing would probably have significant value - a lot of notable cards then won't have actually appeared back in the hobby again. One of the things that makes baseball so much easier is that there are very few 'lost knowledge' cards; someone has a story to tell and does about pretty much every odd T206 that has appeared since the 1970's. We don't seem to have a long oral tradition with boxing and documentation is limited to like 2 or 3 places of very broad focus.

Yeah true,

Maybe someday. I probably don't have a huuuge treasure trove of material on file when it comes down to it, and back then it was much more memorabilia and photos then cards.

I actually bought an adapter to try and transfer my files from my boxes full of floppies a few years ago, and I got about 2 or 3 floppies in and I hit a wall after realizing how time consuming it was...how long it took for my computer to decipher the floppies, even with the adapter...the time it took renaming the files from scratch so they could be searchable...and probably worst of all, how absolutely sh**ty the images from back then were...even when I thought I was using better equipment for that time period.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Yeah true,

Maybe someday. I probably don't have a huuuge treasure trove of material on file when it comes down to it, and back then it was much more memorabilia and photos then cards.

I actually bought an adapter to try and transfer my files from my boxes full of floppies a few years ago, and I got about 2 or 3 floppies in and I hit a wall after realizing how time consuming it was...how long it took for my computer to decipher the floppies, even with the adapter...the time it took renaming the files from scratch so they could be searchable...and probably worst of all, how absolutely sh**ty the images from back then were...even when I thought I was using better equipment for that time period.

Ain't that the truth. My files begin in 2003 and a lot of the saved images I pasted into my word files are... still complete crap. Sometimes it's enough to confirm X exists or that Y is something to dig into. When I really hit a wall is when I have done all I can with known unknowns and I get to the unknown unknowns where I don't really know what it is I am even looking for. But that is also part of the fun of the adventure!