February 2026

My funny valentines – Ribticklers from Topps

Collecting both complete sets of Topps Funny Valentines meant chewing an awful lot of big sticks of gum. In 1959, 66 were released; another 66 followed in 1960. Fortunately, the cards were numbered, making life easier for card traders then and collectors today (the letter “A” by the 1960 numbers distinguishes them from the 1959 ones). Davis also designed a series of “Giant” Funny Valentine cards in 1961, but their size made them less handy for trading (and more trouble to sneak into the classroom). Most Funny Valentines, even those in mint condition, sell online for $2-$3. While a jump from their original nickel price, the cards remain a sweetheart of a deal.

In the early years of “vinegar valentines,” an outraged New York Times editorial referred to their senders as “hydra-headed monsters who gloat over distorted effigies of human nature and cruel cutting things in rhyme.” By the time of their mid-20-century moment in the sun, Topps Funny Valentines had drained away all that Victorian vitriol, leaving in its wake cards that were silly enough to chuckle over, wild enough to whisper about, and just the thing for would-be young “rebels:” sweet (well, maybe not so sweet), comic valentines.
Now, does anyone have a #3 they’d like to trade for a #64-A? Meet you at the playground!

Topps card humor was much tamer. Sort of what you’d find in MAD magazine, which was especially fitting, since they were the work of a longtime MAD illustrator. Jack Davis first achieved acclaim in the early ‘50s for his depictions of the “Crypt-Keeper” in the lurid EC Comics favorite, Tales From The Crypt (“They looked at my work,” said Davis in a Wall Street Journal interview, “and it was horrible, and they gave me a job right away!”). His ability to bring zany characters to life—and to do so quickly—caught the attention of Harvey Kurtzmann. When Kurtzmann’s first issue of MAD hit the newsstands in 1952, so did Davis’ illustrations. In a Davis drawing, heads were oversized, facial features were exaggerated, and clothing was rumpled. His detailing was careful, but appeared off-the-cuff, and his scratched-in, somewhat unfinished backgrounds added dimensionality.