 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
03-24-2012, 01:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
nah, the reg is only a part of it - I'm collecting them for myself, not merely to have an arbitrary number assigned to my collection by a grading company. Just coming from the bb/fb collecting arena where RCs are pretty well established, I found it tough to figure out which were the actual rookies of many on this list. As noted, the debate is part of the fun!
|
|
#2
03-24-2012, 01:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Then why not say eff the registry? Just because they've got some crappy one set up already doesn't mean we can't do the real definitive list. I say do all IBHOF inductees and make it the real thing. If the goal is to strike up some discourse and possibly learn something then that's the thing to do.
Of course, I'm not the one doing the list editing so take my input with a grain of salt.
|
|
#3
03-24-2012, 01:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I started out just a Dempsey collector but what I found was that the more I learned about certain issues and certain fighters the more I became a fan of them. Why cap this thread's ceiling just because the TPGers have screwed up their own list?
Just my $0.02
|
|
#4
03-24-2012, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Valuable points. I think that there's easily room for the existence of both - with this as a subset of the larger. However, a complete IBHOF list is at least 4x the size of this one, and to be honest quite daunting (and expensive). While that list would be for the true completeist, I'm hoping to make something a bit more accessible and attuned to interested novices like me that still improves upon what currently exists.
|
|
#5
03-24-2012, 10:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't pay attention to 'rookie' at all. I collect:
--certain fighters: Benny Leonard, Joe Louis, Jim Jeffries, Ray Miller --various sets: well, about 40 or so of them. --an IBHOF set but my 'rule' there is that the item has to be career-issued. So, I definitely have 1991 Kayo and AW and Ringlords in my collection but only for guys who were active while those sets were issued, like Lennox Lewis. Lots of Brown's too--assuming certain guys in those sets are eventually elected, which I think will be the case. To make it more fun for the cheap as dirt modern issues I also try to collect the cards signed whenever I can. Obviously, I will never finish an IBHOF set because I won't collect tribute cards or post-career cards, though I am sure I have some. A Les Darcy comes to mind most readily. --type cards: I sort of do this too, especially where obscure sets are concerned. I just love having those 'never seen that before' issues. I also don't really place as much stock in which card is first if there are several from the same year. I try for the one that looks the nicest. This is my favorite Jack Johnson card from the T and E card era, so all things being equal I'd rather own it than any other card from that year:  Now, as far as what constitutes a card, everyone has their own perspective. I include as much as possible in there as long as it is paper or cardboard and designed to be a stand-alone item [even if cut out from something else], I'm good with it. Once you start making too fine of distinctions you run into difficulty. Like I know some guys who collect only ACC-designated cards. But H815 is ACC-designated and it is a series of real photo pieces about 8 x 10 in size that were meant as displays in Adam Hats stores:  I sure as heck treat them as cards, as I do many other premiums. BTW, my next book will devote extensive space to coverage of premiums. On exhibits, which are my collecting passion, it is very difficult to pin down specific cards to specific years. You have to know the issue very well and catalog minute printing variations. Advertising pieces can be very useful as well, but they can also demonstrate that more than one style of card was issued together:  That said, I don't even try to break down the post-1929 issues into specific sets; the exercise just bogs down. I actually prefer collecting the whole shebang as a single group understanding that certain fighters in certain formats may be very, very difficult to locate. It is also very, very tough to pin down foreign issues. There are language barriers, lack of data and so on. This Swedish issue is the earliest Jersey Joe Walcott card I've seen, but I am dating the card based on the other fighters in the group who were active in Sweden in 1946-49.  Does that mean it is a 1940s issue of Walcott and Robinson? Not definitely, but likely given the activity of the lesser fighters. Then there is the issue of RPPCs. What do you do with a "rookie" designation on a card when the guy has had several or even many cards issued before that time? It has always seemed rather stupid to me to call a card a rookie when there are a bunch of earlier cards out there.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 03-24-2012 at 10:56 AM.
|
|
#7
03-26-2012, 06:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Never really thought of the term "Rookie" as it applies to boxing cards, but I'll throw a few out there. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Abe Attell - 1908 Red Sun & 1908 Ogdens Stanley Ketchel - 1908 Red Sun Joe Gans - 1908 Ogdens Sam McVey - 1909 Ogdens Sam Langford - 1909 Ogdens Joe Jeanette - 1912 Cohen Weenen Georges Carpentier - 1912 Cohen Weenen
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
