The True Rookie Card of Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali???

[miklia]

I'm in the Hemmets camp. it's numbered, part of a set, and 4 years earlier than anything else.

as a related question - does anyone know what the first card of him as 'Muhammad Ali' is? the PSA pop report has a pop 1 1969 Shindana Toys Afro-American History Mystery, but i'd never heard of or seen that before.

edit to note that you indeed can cut out all four cards on the hemmets panels - but they all have small borders then.

[Exhibitman]

I agree with the Hemmets card as the first one I know of, and certainly the 1962 Rekord, which is clearly meant to be cut out as a strip-type card, as the next.

Murr raises a very good point, one that I am going to address at length in an upcoming entry on my web site 'soapbox': owing to the nature of boxing promotions, the first 'card' you are likely to find for many boxers is a self-issued publicity card. They were standard items from the 1920s through the 1950s-1960s and can often be dated based on the fighters' attributes and date stamps from newspaper archives where many of them were saved. Here is my Clay with the letter enclosing it, from before the first Liston fight:



Other examples:

Pre-championship Rocky Graziano:



1953 Floyd Patterson:



Early 'Two-Ton' Tony Galento; looks like he was half a ton short here:



The Cocoa Kid; try finding another card of this HOFer:



A very young Max Schmeling:



Some call these photos, some treat them as cards. Where the line is between items like these and 'photos' like the ACC-listed H815 Adam Hats 'cards'?



There is also Clay's Exhibit card, which is an early 1960s issue:



I could pin down the exact issue date for certain if I had an Exhibit catalog collection from the era, but I don't. Some collectors toss out all Exhibit cards and all postcards too. Fine by me--collect what you want--but don't tell me that Gene Tunney's RC is anything issued after his 1922, nationally-distributed, American-made Exhibit card:



My point being that if you toss out this item and that item and that item and those items you can skew your analysis pretty much to any outcome you wish to justify anything you want to treat as the card as being THE card. I mean, even starting from the OP list of cards, technically, none of them are classic RCs. Beckett--which started the rookie card stuff in the 1980s in its books and mags--listed any foreign-issued card not available as issued in the USA as an XRC, so every one of the cards listed in the OP are not really 'rookie cards' under the classic definition, they are XRCs. If you want to admit foreign cards into the rookie card mix, you are already discarding the classic rookie card definition and substituting one that is not generally accepted. Again, I have no issue with that per se, but stating this card or that card is the definitive first card for a fighter requires rigorous intellectual honesty in the analysis, first to define what a card is then to define what it means to be a rookie card, and lastly to divorce the decision from parochial considerations, like glossing what you own and would like to tout as the key card. Unfortunately, those subjects are not at all clear, especially where issues from everywhere on the planet are considered. I find the 'rookie' designation increasingly problematic the wider the net is cast. I mean, can a local card issued in Spain or Sweden that literally no one collected be considered a 'better' card than one issued in the USA or Great Britain?

See what I'm getting at?

[oldmanvintagecards]

The thing that makes this argument so good is the fact that so many people consider different things to be cards. I don't consider magazine cutouts (Rekord cards in this case) to be cards because it would open up the case for any magazine picture bio's that appear in a magazine on a regular basis to be considered cards ("Faces in the Crowd" from Sports Illustrated would be an example of pictures that would have to be considered cards of Rekord pictures are considered cards). I also don't consider pictures that were never meant to be cut out (Hemmets Journal) and were meant to be put in to a binder as a 4 picture sheet to be cards. I am not just leaving these "cards" out to come to my own conclusion. I am leaving them out because I do not just call something a card because an "expert" says it is. To be a rookie in my book it has to be the first CARD issued, not the first American card (Again this is only my opinion but to say that rookies can only produced in one country is pretty ridiculous. This definition can work, for the most part, with the big 4 American sports but can not work for an international sport or there would be no cricket or rugby rookie cards). If I were to consider the Hemmets Journal a card I would have to think that it was actually MEANT TO BE a card, which I do not ever since I realized that you can not cut any of the "cards" out without damaging the other "cards" on the sheet. The reason I believe the Simon Chocolates is THE CLAY ROOKIE is because I think it is the first card issued of Cassius Clay, not the first picture of Cassius Clay that could be cut out to reasonably look like a card. The definition of a rookie card for boxing is wide open but in no other sport would a Rekord Journal or Hemmets Journal paper picture cut out be considered a card. I think with both of these they really reached in deeming them "cards" (again, my opinion).

Again, this is what makes the argument fun. Some people consider a photo issued by a manager to be his first card. Other people consider the first picture that can be cut out to resemble a card to be his first card. While others consider a factory cut, normally issued card made out of card stock to be his first card. To each their own and everyone should collect what they enjoy.

[eagles33]

Great thread. I think the fact that there isn't a single iconic rookie card for Ali really holds back the value of his cards. I wish smr would do an article on Ali and pele rookie options just to draw some attention to them. I agree with your opinion on the 64 Simon. That is is his true rookie imo too. My personal preference is the 65 lampo though. Especially the version with the text on the back. I think this card has the potential to be THE Ali card even though it isn't his first. Similar to 52 topps mantle over the 51 bowman. If the Simons card was a little smaller and fit in a standard size slab then I might have chosen it.

[steve B]

Certainly a lot to think about.
One of the great things about learning more is being able to essentially abandon the defenitions of Beckett and other catalogs or price guides and decide how to define things for yourself.

That may not work for dealing, but for collecting it's good.

I wasn't familiar with the early issues, so I went looking for pictures.
Here's how I look at it.

The Hemmetts I'd think of as cards, but only the complete pages. They came with a product- a magazine and were in a series. That they were made to be put in a binder isn't a big deal to me. I'm thinking of them like the SI for kids cards or the vintage style cards that came in baseball cards magazine. Although they're closer to the sporting news or LaPresse inserts.

The Rekord are a bit different, they're certainly unusual. I don't think they campare to the SI faces in the crowd because they have a defined sizeand a border. Faces is really variable and never a border plus the bio information is to the side. But they're part of the cover, so a bit borderline. I couldn't really tell, but if the magazine mentions something along the lines of "cut out and save the pictures of athletes on the cover two different each issue" Then I'd lean very far towards calling them cards as well. The card inserts in the first couple issues of SI are similar. (SI again.....hmm) The various cards printed in newspapers over the years are more similar. Series, intended to be cut out and saved, just made on newsprint. There are a number of more mainstream cards printed on very light stock, and the 1960's Topps paper proofs would be considered cards. If they weren't mentioned as something to be cut out and saved then maybe a bit less.

I'd count stuff issued as part of a game myself, but I can see where some people might not.

I'm also surprised there isn't an Italian olympic set from 1960. Hosting the games was a huge deal for them and there being no cards seems odd.

International cards I think should be counted, especially in a sport like Boxing. For sports that are less international counting cards from the main country makes some sense. But a lot of sports are more international than I'd have thought. Maybe the only one it makes sense to count only US cards for would be American Football.

Steve B

[Exhibitman]

This was part of the cover of the 1961 Golden Press baseball booklet



The Rekord cards might have been fugly but they were definitely meant to be cut out and collected. If not, why define borders and create backs that matched?

This Wheaties Al Rosen is part of a series of ballplayers on the backs of comic books and it has instructions to cut out; is it a card?

[oldmanvintagecards]

For me it comes down to common sense on what a card is. If it is made of card stock, but has to be cut by the owner (strip cards) then it is a card the majority of the time. If it is made of regular paper but is cut from the factory (older European sticker cards) then it is a card the majority of them time. If it is made of regular paper and has to be cut by the owner to look like a card (Rekord "cards") then it is a photo cut out. Just because something is a photo and was meant to be collected does not make it a card. If it says to cut the photo out and save it then it is a collectible photo, not a card. To be a card in my book I think it either needs to be made of card stock or factory cut (even if the factory cut is just a perforated cut) but magazine or newspaper cut outs are not cards, even if they were meant to be cut out.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by miklia

1969 Shindana Toys Afro-American History Mystery, but i'd never heard of or seen that before.

[wrestlingcardking]

That is a cool item on Muhammad, thanks for sharing. That would look awesome slabbed.

[Exhibitman]

I think it looks just dandy in its natural state

[wrestlingcardking]

I can appreciate that!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by wrestlingcardking

That is a cool item on Muhammad, thanks for sharing. That would look awesome slabbed.

On second thought, you may be right about that...

[herbc]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

On second thought, you may be right about that...

That looks great slabbed. I enjoyed reading all the opinions on the Rookie cards, it's been very informative. I have a nice 64 Simons that I intend to have slabbed.