Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
Yeah, 1908 makes no sense. The images alone disprove it.
Jim Jeffries did not look like this in 1908. He looked like the one in the bowler hat:
He didn't get the bald and in shape thing going until early 1910 as he trained for the Johnson fight.
|
Evan Jones' 1993 book has them as 1908 (and he only has 46 confirmed subjects, missing the 4 black 'puglistic' subjects). The 1956 ACC gives no date and a set size of 50, though that may be taken from the back of the cards, listed at a then-high 30 cents a card price. I don't know if Burdick and friends actually had a checklist. Jones' book is all over the place quality wise, but the missing subjects in his checklist might indicate the SP theory.
PSA's checklist only lists the 46 whitey cards (
https://www.psacard.com/psasetregist...position/11395). Bizarre, as their POP report includes a Johnson in a 2.5 to make 47 different they have graded, even if PSA refuses to acknowledge reality outside of their slabs. They still list it as a 1908 set everywhere. POP report has a "Kid Williams" card I suspect is a Kid Willette. I don't think anyone at PSA knows a single thing about T boxing cards. I can't tell where there information comes from - for baseball their system for older stuff relies heavily on the Standard Catalog, which makes sense. I don't know where the origin for their boxing database came from.
SGC's POP report (
https://gosgc.com/pop-report/result/...T226%29/Boxing) is difficult to take seriously. Some sets are totally messed up and the old data is not there no matter what option you elect, like T220 Silver. T226 Red Sun appears to be all inclusive, but their datasets are so horrible that who knows if it's actually accurate. Their date of 1910 is also not tied to any actual primary source, but it's plausible and it's probably 1910 or 1911.