Posted By:
boxingcardmanFirst, between me and Dave B., you've got a pretty good knowledge base of all vintage issues and if we haven't seen them before, odds are they are not from a series of 44 cards that were actually issued at any time in the corresponding era.
Second, some of the cards pirate other sets' images. The Peter Jackson was a Newsboy, the Jack Dempsey was an Old Judge.
Third, the cards oddly feature a mix of boxers all way to the 1920s (Carpentier) but emphasize Jack Johnson and the Jack Johnson v. Jim Jeffries fight. By the 1920s Johnson was persona non grata, a convicted felon (under the Mann Act) and reviled personality among white Americans. Most sets of the era (1920s) that cover historical champions give JJ one card at most if they are doing a run of heavyweight champs (e.g., 1921 Exhibit, W580, W-Unc playing cards, etc.); many omit him entirely. You would especially not expect to see multiple cards of Johnson v. Jeffries. That fight was not a popular subject in the 1920s; quite the opposite. It led to racist pogroms against black folks across the country and is not depicted in any of the mainstream sets of the era. It is unthinkable that a marketing set from that era would have multiple cards of a fight that was considered to be a humiliation for the white race. You've also got a ton of Abe Attell, relatively speaking. Again, in the supposed era of these cards, Attell was not popular. He was a retired champ, basically disgraced. Yet, here he is in multiple cards. Why? Because of the Black Sox scandal, which is a modern phenomenon from a collecting standpoint. A modern maker looking to cash in would do a lot of JJ and JJ v. JJ because Johnson's popularity picked up with the civil rights movement and especially over the last decade with the Ken Burns film, and lots of Attell to get the crossover from baseball. Finally, there is a Joe Choynski. Chrysanthemum Joe was another forgotten fighter by then, with one card in the 1920s that I can think of (the W580) yet he is exactly who you'd expect to see in a modern-made set because he was Jewish and is considered by most afficionados to be finest Jewish boxer in the heavyweights.
Fourth, the Wyatt Earp card. Again, not to be expected in a card from the 1920s. Earp was not a referee at that point; his known refereeing gig was Fitzsimmons v. Sharkey in 1897. By the 1920s he was more or less a hanger-on in the motion picture industry in Los Angeles and definitely not a popular culture figure. However, if I was trying to generate interest in the card set now, I might well include his image. BTW, the image is a ripoff from his Wikipedia page.
My suggestion, since it is small dollar purchase, is that you close the deal and ask David Rudd (Cycleback) to have a look at the printing. He should be able to tell you whether the cards' print could have been made back in the day or whether it reflects modern techniques.
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc