E97 Young question

[z28jd]

I tried searching this just now and didn't see a conclusive answer, so do E97 Boston cards that say Cy Young, go for Cy Young prices even though they clearly don't show him? The reason I ask is that the set shows two Boston players who were gone by 1908, Sullivan and Kelley and two others that were in Boston in 1908. Irv Young was a pitcher for the Boston Doves in 1908 and he was often referred to as "Cy" or Cy the Second" which would've been too long to put on a card. I read a lot on him recently, while writing about his acquisition by the Pirates during that 1908 season.

I honestly don't think the card has any caption error. I think it is a 1908 card(set designation says 1909-10 now) and it was meant to be Irv Young. Just wondering what the opinion is on the card

[caramelcard]

The intended subject was Denton Cy Young and not Irv Young. Briggs even did a team change (Boston to Cleveland). Irv never played for cleveland.

The other team/caption changes in the set follow the same player(s).

This Young image is also used on other issues (e98, w555). I don't think Irv Young was popular enough to be the intended subject. I think it was a mistake and the image was already there ready for use.

Rob

[z28jd]

Don't think popularity has any relevance here, look at some of the other players in the set. Even so, the papers at the time of the June 1908 deal, called him one of the best young left-handed pitchers of the day, a player hurt by pitching for a pitiful Boston Doves team so it wasn't like he was a nobody.

The W555 set has two Young cards, one showing Irv, one showing Cy, so it was likely corrected.

The e98 card is an unknown distributor, they may have just pulled the image from an earlier card.

For the e97 to have been meant to be Cy Young, the Boston version would've had to have been printed second and made after August 19,1911 when he went to Boston. What you're saying is that they not only got the picture wrong, they got the team wrong too.

Wouldn't it be easier to match up the same players in Boston from the same era and say that neither is wrong and they called him Cy Young on the card, because that is what he was called at the time. Kelley wasn't there after 1908, neither was Sullivan, so the set obviously has strong 1908 ties to it.

The basic point is that I don't think people realized Irv Young was called Cy Young when he played. He is referred to often as either Young Cy, Cy, or Cy the second. If a card pictures him and has his name on it and his team, worse players from his town in the set and it's from the time he played for that team, it's hard to argue that it isn't him. I think people are thrown off by Cy being on the front.

[caramelcard]

The E98 is "Cleveland Americans."

[caramelcard]

Actually, yes, you could definitely be right now that I look at the captions.

I never really put it together that the caption on the e97 young said "boston natl" and that Irv Young did play for the national team.

I'm with you now.

Rob

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by caramelcard

The E98 is "Cleveland Americans."

I know that, when I said pulled it from an earlier image, I meant the e97 card that said Cy Young on it.

Knowing now how often Irv Young was called Cy Young, I just don't see how the name/time frame/city/image can all match him, yet it isn't him.

Looking at the checklist of the Young,Cleveland version from the e97 set, it still has Kelly with Boston, though he was gone by 1908, it has Durham with New York, gone by May 1909, but also has Nicholls on Cleveland and he didn't go there until after Dec 1909 so the checklist still has guys on the wrong team well after they were gone.

The e97 Young,Cleveland checklist has Sullivan on Chicago, but that is obviously wrong. It's not Billy Sullivan of the White Sox on the card, it's Denny Sullivan, who was out of the majors by that time. It looks like they did the same exact thing with him as I am saying they did with Cy Young. Now there is two examples of the team changing(to fit another player) but the picture staying the same.

[caramelcard]

Yeah, I don't know. The e97 checklist is all over the place.

Keeler didn't play for the giants until 1910.

I was just thinking that since the cleveland caption is there for all four sets (E93-E98) that they were all intended to be the old cy young.

It is interesting that the E94 back actually uses "old cy young" in the checklist instead of cy young. But then, E93 uses "cy young" and has the correct pic.

Rob

[z28jd]

Not being hugely familiar with the set, I guess I should've been clearer on that I meant the black and white versions of the card, where there is no checklist on the back. I didn't even know that there was a Boston version of the color card that said Cleveland on the back. What a mess that set is for keeping track of players!

With Keeler on the Giants, they either produced the black and white cards over different times or they made a mistake with the AL/NL designation. I'm going for the latter, since the color versions seem to have been produced second, especially true if the BW cards are really proofs

[Leon]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Not being hugely familiar with the set, I guess I should've been clearer on that I meant the black and white versions of the card, where there is no checklist on the back. I didn't even know that there was a Boston version of the color card that said Cleveland on the back. What a mess that set is for keeping track of players!

With Keeler on the Giants, they either produced the black and white cards over different times or they made a mistake with the AL/NL designation. I'm going for the latter, since the color versions seem to have been produced second, especially true if the BW cards are really proofs

NO way they black and white cards are proofs. They share almost no characteristics with proofs. IMO they are a different set which I refer to as E97-2......

[ullmandds]

Uh... i don't think anyone said anything about proofs? But let the tirade continue?

[z28jd]

Judging from the reading I've done since last night Leon, I would call them e97-1 since I think they were produced first and I'd lose the Briggs designation for them

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Uh... i don't think anyone said anything about proofs? But let the tirade continue?

Then I guess this was never said in post #8?


"especially true if the BW cards are really proofs"



.
.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Uh... i don't think anyone said anything about proofs? But let the tirade continue?

Not sure if this was for me, or Leon. I did mention "proofs" at the end of my post, right before Leon posted and I got the proofs mention from all of the auctions I was just looking through for more information on the set. They all said proofs, so that is why I put it out there at the end, not that I was agreeing with them totally as you can see by the wording I used

[ullmandds]

Sorry Leon I misspoke and miss read apparently. that makes perfect sense that the black and whites were produced first based on team designations.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Sorry Leon I misspoke and miss read apparently. that makes perfect sense that the black and whites were produced first based on team designations.

No worries Peter. If you just wait an hour or two I am sure I will make a mistake that can be corrected. I make lots of them. And here is a Keeler E97 just because .....

[ullmandds]

Nichols team variations...color phil amer anyone??? Tbob? Anyone have an extra for me?!?!

I took my happy juice, Leon...I'll be ok now!