1895 N300 John Clarkson

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Greetings. I was wondering if anyone knows why Clarkson is depicted with ST LOUIS on his 1895 N300 card. I reviewed his bio and no where does it mention any association with ST LOUIS.
Thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: Randy Trierweiler

Hi Richard, I've always thought that they got John confused his his brother Dad Clarkson, who played with St. Louis 1892-1895. Randy

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

So is the card then of John Clarkson or of his brother? How can it be of John if it shows him in a St. Louis jersey and he never played for St. Louis? The fact it might look like him cannot be dispositive until we know what his brother looked like.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bobby Binder

Just thought I would add a visual for the people that don't have one..

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

How do we know that is supposed to be John? It just has his last name on the card...

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

This is the first I've ever heard of this. I don't own a Mayo yet but I think a lot of people are gonna be pretty bummed they paid top dollar for what looks to be a common. Even though all Mayos are expensive anyway, but if you bought that card and paid HOFer price then you're gonna be a little annoyed to find out its just a common.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

although I don't believe any conclusions were reached:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1113680749/Mayo+question

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Can someone post some portrait images of John Clarkson to use as comparison? In particular, I'd like to see his Just So. Are there any known (individual or team) images of his brother?

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

It has to be his brother. John Clarkson was playing for Cleveland in 1894 and Dad Clarkson played for St Louis in 1894, which is the year the photo was probably taken. There is no way that is John Clarkson. I'm really surprised something like this hasn't been discovered or looked into before.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Here ya go Corey....this is borrowed from Pat Preece as he owns the card....(and the Mayo is from Bobby's post above...for reference)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Of course the Mayo looks to be the identical image...

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

Its not the same image. The uniforms are totally different. There is no lacing in the Mayo, plus the uniform clearly says St. Louis and is not a portrait but an actual photo. So there is no way it was some kind of artistic error, that is a Clarkson with a St. Louis uniform on and I don't see how it could be John.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Without seeing whether the brother has a crooked nose, a mole or some other identifiable feature, I don't think the photo comparison can prove anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

Its a photo though. How can it be John Clarkson if he never put on a St. Louis uniform? Whether or not artist renderings look similar, how do you get passed there being a Clarkson wearing a St. Louis uniform and think its John?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

I still think the images are nearly identical - right down to the "dimple" at the top of the hat.

Edited to add:

Haven't we seen other 19th century cards where heads were placed on "stock" uniform photos?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

nm

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

They aren't really that identical. If you look, the A&G image has a different tilt on the head and the eyes aren't as narrowed as the Mayo is. Look at the position of the ears, they are at different tilts. Plus, like I said, the Mayo is an actual photo. How do you get passed him wearing a St. Louis uniform when John seems to have never put one on?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Actually, the more I look at the Mayo, I'm not sure they are real uniform photos. For example, check out this:



This is clearly a real headshot placed on a "fake" uniform. My guess is the AG card I showed above was taken from a real photo of John Clarkson, the same photo that was used on the head shot for the Mayo. That is why the AG and the Mayo look, in my opinion, nearly identical. Sure the facial features are a little different but the AG is a drawing from the photo. The Mayo is the real photo. I believe the Mayo set, while possibly trying to depict Dad Clarkson, used the John Clarkson photo, placing John's head on a St. louis uniform.

[Archive]

Posted By: Randy Trierweiler

I believe that the Clarkson they "meant" to portray was John Clarkson. He just finished a HOf career with over 300 wins. Dad Clarkson had a career record of 22-28 at the time,coming off an 8-17 season in 1894. I don't see why Dad would merit getting in a set as small as N300. I believe the photo is John, and the uniform not part of a "real" photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

Would they have been technologically able to do that at the time? Take a photograph and cut and past it above an artificially generated body? There are some cards that feature players in suits and dressed up like the Jimmy Ryan. Why wouldn't they have just super imposed his head like the others? I think this is just an example of a card that has been mis-catalogued this whole time. It can't just be a coincidence that Dad Clarkson played for St. Louis at the exact time the card would have been produced and there is no J before the name to lead one to believe it would be John.

Edited to add:

Also, if there were brothers with the same last name playing at the same exact time, wouldn't they differentiate between them with initials unless it was the team name was supposed to give away who was who?

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

I spoke with Rob Lifson about this question inasmuch as REA will be offering in its upcoming auction an entire Mayo set (each card to be sold individually). Rob emailed the catalog description of the Clarkson card along with another comparison image. When I return to my office later today I'll post them. Rob did say, to explain how Clarkson could be in a St. Louis jersey without having played for them, is that Mayos used artwork to superimpose on jerseys the desired team name. So the fact that Clarkson might never have been photographed in a St. Louis jersey would not have prevented Mayo from depicting him in one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Corey - I agree and that is what I was getting at above. The more I look at the Mayo set, there are a large number of cards that have jersey's which are drawn or superimposed. I do not think this would have been tough to do, even in 1895. Sure, they didn't have photoshop to ease in the process, but my belief is that the Clarkon card depicts John, despite what the jersey reads.

Addie, I hear what you are saying, too, but I just don't think this card depicts Dad. Just as you ask to look past the facial similarities between the AG and the Mayo and focus on the St. Louis on the jersey. . . forget for a second that the jersey says St. Louis and look at the shoulders up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Without seeing what his brother looks like, all that can be said is the head looks similar to John, but also may look similar to his brother and is, therefore, entirely inconclusive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

I see what you're saying, and maybe it is John, but I don't think so. The cards that do feature John, at least the ones I'm familiar with, always seem to either have a John or a J on the front before his last name. I do not know if there are any other cards of Dad Clarkson, but if John Clarkson was as big a star as he conceivably was, how could they make such a mistake as to put him on the wrong team? There is the chance that they confused him with his brother, no doubt, I just don't think thats the case.

Here is the kicker and what I think the clincher:



There are some players featured on 2 teams in the set, such as Dan Brouthers who is featured playing for Baltimore and Louisville, which leads me to believe that these cards were produced during the 1895 season because Brouthers played for both teams in 1895 and not 1894. If that is the case, then there is no way it could be John Clarkson because his career ended in 1894. I believe that to be Dad Clarkson and a card that has been mis-catalogued all this time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

The Mayo Clarkson definately depicts John, although it was probably supposed to be Dad. Unless they were identical brothers (which is unlikely) the card has an image of John.

The Nichols earlier is not a photo-shop job. They used a picture of Nichols when he was still with Omaha and superimposed Boston on his chest. My brother sold the studio photo of Nichols with Omaha a few auctions ago.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

Why wouldn't they have corrected the mistake though? With the other amended cards in the sets, such as the Brouthers and Glasscock variations, why leave the Clarkson unless it wasn't a mistake?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

The picture of Nichols is proof that they were using old photos (In Nichols's case the photo was about 5 years old). They probably just used a photo of "Clarkson" to depict the "Clarkson" playing for St. Louis. Thus, I am sure they were making a card of Dad but used John's picture.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Rhett - how are you so certain that it isn't a photo of Dad? Do you know what he looked like?

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

Let's say that is the case, that this is a photo of John but meant to depict Dad Clarkson, who then do you think is represented in the card? Do you consider it a John Clarkson card or a Dad Clarkson card? I forget specifics, but aren't there plenty of other examples of HOFer cards with HOFer names but contain images of a different player? They are still catalogued as the HOFer because of the name and not the image. Is this then a Dad Clarkson card or a John Clarkson card, assuming it is an image of John but meant to depict Dad?


Also, I still think these cards were produced during the 1895 season and therefore any need to differentiate between the two brothers would be unnecessary because John was no longer playing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

They are not twins. John born in 1861, Dad in 1866.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Addie, along similar thinking, however, Dad Clarkson was traded to the Orioles during the 1895 season (June 6th) and his card was not updated to reflect his team change.

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

I think the intention is clear that the card is meant to depict Dad Clarkson due to the team featured. So I would also then say that this is a Dad Clarkson card and not a John Clarkson card, even if John Clarkson is pictured, which I don't think is the case.

Is this the general concensus amongst the board? That this thread may have paved the way for a re-cataloguing of the card? I don't see how anyone can say that this is still a John Clarkson card when it seems to me that the card is clearly meant to depict Dad Clarkson and is therefore a Dad Clarkson card regardless of whether or not the image MAY be John.

right?

Edited to add: That's true that he was traded but the set may have been fully run at the time. I'm curious as to when Brouthers was traded in relation to the date Dad Clarkson was.

Edited to add: Also, I still think the Brouthers cards make it evident that the cards were indeed produced during the 1895 season which would mean that there is no way possible that the card is meant to depict John Clarkson.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I don't know why I don't just go to the source first. Lew Lipset said this what, 25 years ago:

"Included in this group is an interesting card of John Clarkson, designated as 'Clarkson, P' with St. Louis on his uniform. John Clarkson never pitched for St. Louis, retiring after 2 mediocre years with Cleveland in 1893-4. However, John had a brother Arthur, who pitched for St. Louis in 1893-5. Clearly there was some confusion, but the picture on the Mayo is definitely John Clarkson,, despite the improperly labeled uniform. Evidence of this is the portrait of Clarkson is the identical one used in the Series of Champions produced by Allen & Ginters."

I agree that the card was intended to be that of brother Art, with a superimposed or other photo trick used to label the uniform. What you all make of how to catalogue it is up to you-- heck, Irv Young cards still draw thousands of $$$$ just because someone printed Cy on the caption. Would you rather have the right picture/ wrong name or vice versa?

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

I just wish there was some kind of back up besides "So and so says so". I'd be curious how many times Lipsett ran into images of Dad Clarkson and how he determined without a doubt that it is the identical photo used for the A & G set almost 10 years earlier. That just doesn't very likely to me at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Brouthers team change happened in May of 1895.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Todd - this one is categorically different then the Irv/Cy Young because there the card states its intentions. Here, we have no proof of if the card was intended to be that of John or his brother.

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

If the Brouthers trade was completed in May, it could be that was the month of the final amendments to the set and could explain why Dad, traded in June, wasn't amended.

I'm still curious if everyone now considers this a Dad Clarkson card and not a John Clarkson card and if future submissions and grading should reflect such. What do you guys think?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

inasmuch as John never played for St. Louis and his brother did, at the very time the card was issued no less.

Addie, with all due respect, I cannot see how you can view that photo and conclude is it anything other than the litho used in the A&G card. IMHO, this one passes all reasonable doubt. As stated, the dimple in the cap, the way it sits on his head--with the same amount of shadow on his forehead, the hair on his temple, the ear, etc. I think an artist would be hard pressed to take that photo and try to litho/paint/draw it any closer, and remember that the artist may have been given some license to throw in a hue or tone here and there to make it appear as a slight tilt or movement--I mean, who cared? This explains my concern in the thread three years ago that the photo looked too young to be John in 1895--it was an old photo from six or so years prior.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Todd - I was suggesting this was at least somewhat different then the Cy/Irv Young because there the card says 'A' while depicting 'B' whereas here, the card depicts 'B' but does not specify 'A'. I think you are agreeing with me and then some, suggesting the card may not only depict 'B' but it may be specifying 'B' as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

If that is the case then the photo in the Mayo card is nearly a decade old. Why would they choose to do that when a set released just 2 years earlier, the Just So set, used an updated photo of John Clarkson in which he looks much older than a card produced 2 years later?

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

Also, if the Nichols card was superimposed, it could be just because they didn't have a photo of Nichols to use for the set so they used an older one and superimposed the team name. However, Nichols still had played for Boston for 5 years before the card was produced by Mayo. Similarly, both Brouthers card feature the same image with a superimposed team change. The same can't be said for the Clarkson card. It is clearly a Dad Clarkson card and not a John Clarkson card and should be catalogued and viewed as such regardless of whether or not it MAY feature John. For them to use such an old photo of John to represent Dad Clarkson doesn't seem logical to me at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I'm not. I believe the Mayo is specifiying Dad but depicting John. That photo is of John, period. John never played for St. Louis, so the card is not intended to specify John, it is meant to specify Dad, who did play there. Maybe they had no photo of Dad, maybe they just made a mistake and used the wrong one without checking.

Addie, the Just So card is extremely scarce, and it is entirely possible the Mayo folks were unaware of it or the underlying photo.

BTW, check out the 1928 Ice Cream cards of HOFer Bill Terry. They actually use a photo of Zeb Terry taken at least 11 years prior (actually, the Ice Cream sets use a whole bunch of old re-circulated photos, and show little originality).

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Is this set more properly dated to 1894-1895 instead of just 1895?

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

I wonder if the value will go down on this card. Should it be viewed as a common? I think by now we have established it should be viewed as a Dad Clarkson card. Even though Mayo commons are still quite rare and valuable, I don't see why this card should sell for as much of a premium.

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

One final point:

I think it is clear that a lot of care went into producing the set. With the changes to team deliniation I think it shows that the producers of this set cared for its accuracy and totality. For that reason, I find it extremely hard to believe that they would use a decade old photo of his brother to represent Dad Clarkson. You have to realize, it was a conscious decision to include Dad Clarkson in the set. A decision that had to have been made prior to the set's release. Why then would they make a decision to include Dad Clarkson without securing an image of him? I just don't think it adds up regardless of how much it resembles the A & G portrait of his brother from a decade earlier. Remember, they are brothers so the resemblance should be expected.

Edited to add: Furthermore, with the Ewing examples of the set. There is a Cleveland and Cincinatti version of the card. In 1894 Ewing played for Cleveland, in 95 for Cincinatti. With so many careful alterations and amendments made to other cards in the same set I don't see how a mistake such as this, if it were a mistake, would have not been corrected. If there was meant to be a John Clarkson card in the set there would have been a second version.

[Archive]

Posted By: Randy Trierweiler

Maybe Net 54 collectors should vote on this. Or maybe we could have a poll. John or Dad?

As a Cardinal collector, I would love this card to be considered Dad Clarkson. It would represent the "first" Cardinal card to me. Having said that, I would have to cast my vote to John Clarkson.

One question that has not been answered is WHY would Dad Clarkson get a card in the first place? He was 8-17 with a 6.36 ERA in 1894. If they wanted a Cardinal in the set, Ted Breitenstein who won 27 games, Doggie Miller who hit .339, and Roger Connor hitting .321 would be more logical choices.

Even with 1895 thought processes taken into consideration, I don't see why Dad Clarkson should have gotten a card.

Beckett alphabetical does list this card as Dad-his only one. John Clarkson on the other hand, has 21 entries.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I collect m101-4s and m101-5s, and can tell you that the creator of those sets took great care also, making several changes between the two sets, including the correction of wrong photos. Presumably he too would have had his act together beforehand and yet changes were needed. In fact there still remains an uncorrected photo in the m101-4 set. Many post-war sets have them, why can you not believe it could happen to Mayo? As was stated, Dad was traded in the summer of '95, yet Mayo neither noted the change in team nor corrected the photo. Perhaps either the project was finished, they didn't notice or didn't care.

As for that photo, ask yourself how the photographer would have even thought of, much less have had such success in having young Arthur strike the exact same pose, complete with the hat dimple in the same place, and if so, why?. You have a better chance convincing me that John had announced a comeback with St. Louis and that prompted the Mayo card being issued than you do convincing me that that photo is of Arthur.

As for consdering the card a common, to each his own. I find it silly to the extreme to pay Cy Young prices for a card that does not depict him, but on which someone merely printed his name. Same goes for the Bill Terry cards I mentioned. But hey, c'est la vie.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Here is REA's catalog description of the Mayo Clarkson to be offered this Spring:

"Graded EX/NM 80 by SGC. 1895 N300 Mayo's Cut Plug of Hall of Famer John Clarkson. Only one example has ever been graded higher (at NM 84). This is an absolutely outstanding high-grade example of what is considered by many to be legendary John Clarkson's most impressive card. It is also a fascinating card in that even though Clarkson is pictured with St. Louis, he actually retired the previous year, after his final season with Cleveland in 1894, and never played with St. Louis at all. The explanation for this is either that Clarkson was expected to join St. Louis and did not, or that this card was intended to feature Arthur Clarkson, John's brother, who did in fact play for St. Louis from 1893 to 1895, and they got their pictures mixed up. The card is virtually flawless in all respects, with perfect contrast and surface, and just some very light edge and corner wear, as is almost always the case with Mayos due to their condition-sensitive flush-to-the-border design. The reverse of the card is also perfectly clean with no flaws. The Mayo set includes many of the most striking portrait cards of many very significant nineteenth-century players. This is an impressive high-grade example, one of the finest in the world, of one of John Clarkson's most classic and interesting cards from this extremely important and popular nineteenth-century series. Reserve $1,000. Estimate $2,000+."

The comparison image REA sent of John Clarkson was copyrighted 1888. I have sent it to Leon to post inasmuch as the file size I received it in is too large and Leon is much more adept than I in reducing it to postable size. Not knowing how it will appear when Leon posts it, here is my take.

That 1888 image of John Clarkson is almost certainly the same image as appears in the Mayo set. Based on that conclusion, coupled with both the known custom of tobacco companies to use earlier images as well as the dead-on resemblance of the person depicted on the N300 Clarkson card to John Clarkson, my leap of the faith that the N300 card of Clarkson depicts John Clarkson and not his brother is sufficiently small that I would be comfortable purchasing the card believing it depicts John Clarkson. Yes I would like to see an image of his brother too, but in the absence of same am okay believing it depicts John.

I also believe the tobacco company intended the image to depict John. After all, the cards were inserted to sell the tobacco product, and who would be expected to provide more of an inducement to buy the tobacco product, the famous John or his obscure brother?

This instance is distinguishable from the instances of card names not being of the persons depicted on the cards. Here we have an image of John Clarkson with a name of "Clarkson" on the card. So the image does match the name. What it doesn't match is the team name on the jersey. That IMO is not enough to warrant a change in the catalog depiction. In addition, I always thought it stupid to catalog a card based on the name rather than the image. Yes of course you'd like the two to match, but to me as a collector what the image shows is more important than what the card says. Therefore even if the name read A. Clarkson, in the absence of knowing John Clarkson had a brother who looked just like him, for my nickel I would always regard it to be a card of John Clarkson, and would expect it to be cataloged as such.