I Don't Tout Too Many Auction Items But..1890-92 Ryder Studio Cabinet Cy Young
 

1890-92 John H. Ryder Studio Cabinet Cy Young Rookie

WOW... Sorry, if I am outing it. Good luck to those with pockets.

Rookie Cy Young ...They have other items that will go for me but, what a clear and focused photo this is! And if you count cabinets as cards (they are cabinet "cards" after all) then it's his rookie. But I am sure other folks have their opinions too.

Guesses on where it lands?

https://goldin.co/item/1890-john-h-r...giOjEwfQ%3D%3D

ps..not my consignment, I wish.

.

It's nearly 300K with 22 days left. I think it easily tops 750K but I'm far from an expert.

Great Cabinet of Cy Young. The other contenders for Cy Young Rookie are 2 Cabinet cards that depict Cy Young in his Clevland uniform both are estimated to be from the early 1890's. The Third is the Just So Tobacco card of Cy Young. Issued in 1893. My personal opinion is that the just so is Cy Young's rookie card. All 3 are incredibly scarce and deserve the attention they command. Just in case you think these images just cannot get any better in 2018 Heritage auctioned off a P&B Cy Young cabinet that was signed on the Front!!!. To be fair the image on the JH Ryder cabinets look to be a younger Cy than the 1893. But both JH Ryder Cabinets with him in uniform and the one in this auction look to me like they were from the same sitting.

Certainly does

The same image is on his Cameo Pepsin pin.

Likely for a fraction of the price :D

You know better than I do, it's all about demand.
The Cameo Pepsin pin is awesome in it's own right.

My guess- 750k
.

Rhett, you taunt me with your profile picture. :)

Another cabinet which originated from Lew’s collection long ago. Unfortunately it has been lost for a long time and I hope one day it appears, as it grew legs and walked out of my house.

My guess is North of 750 on Young Cabinet up in auction.

Keep the eye candy rolling with all the early 1890s Youngs. This is the Cabinet in auction.

That is a sweet cabinet. Maybe it will turn up someday...

Thought I’d post both these together. Jay posted the 1891 (in another thread) and I own the 1892 one.

Those are truly awesome.

Why is this called a rookie? It is just a very nice cabinet photo of Cy Young. He isn't in uniform and it isn't part of a set. And even if he were in uniform, wouldn't it still just be a nice early photo of Cy Young in uniform given that it isn't part of a set or an item issued as anything other than a photo?

Looks like it sold for a hair over $500K.

Such a cool item. Is that a record for a cabinet card?

“Old” Cy Young did not even look young as a rookie.

https://goldin.co/item/1890-john-h-r...JkSW5kZXgiOjR9

No doubt everything is as it seems here, right?

Not sure where you your are going

What does this mean? It looks like a board member purchased the card.

Exactly!

If you had one it would be his rookie card.

.

The other interesting thing about the Young photograph is the date written on the front. Young made his debut with Cleveland on August 6, 1890. If the photo is in fact from 1890 (no idea if it is) then could it be from a date prior to August 6 making it prior to Young being a major leaguer?

Leon--If I owned it it would not be because I thought it was a rookie card. It would be because I liked the photograph. However, you are right in observing that owning something often turns what you want something to be into what you think it is.

When this kind of money is at stake, they can write the hobby rules.

To paraphrase Ted from the Memory Lane thread, only someone who has actually sniffed this Cy Young cabinet can decide whether it's a rookie.

Exactly!

Beautiful images. The Pifer & Becker is especially striking.

I keep hearing this but it seems highly unlikely it would be from him not playing for Cleveland, only debate could be date. The other known Young Ryder Cabinet is from a team set done in 1891. How do we know the date? Because the photo was used in the rare 1891 Spiders composite schedule.

With the photo used in team used items, it seems fairly safe to state the team contracted Ryder for photo work establishing a connection. During his previous minor play he would have had closer studios and he grew up a distance from Cleveland. It would be illogical in the difficulty of 1800s travel to travel hours to a studio vs the closest town.

I would think that on his call up from Canton, it would be quite possible the team would have him stop by the currently used studio for a photo of their new young pitcher. As the other cabinet predates the Just So, this likely would as well. For those that like a traditional card, it would be why the Just So will sell for much more if it ever comes to market. However, for those more open, this is more than likely his first team created photo…uni or not.

How do we know that the cabinet of Young in uniform was not produced in 1890? Assuming that the 1891 Cleveland composite/schedule was produced some time prior to the 1891 season, could the image have been taken sometime during their 1890 season?

To me, Young looks a bit older in his suit pose than in his uniform version.

Well you are surpassing my full knowledge of it. As the cabinets in that series comprise I believe the full team, perhaps the checklist has some players that narrow it specifically. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on all the known players can chime in.

Yes, above my pay grade too. I was just thinking out loud.

It seems to me that the latest that the uniform pose was take was early 1891, before the calendar was issued, but does anything preclude it from being from 1890?

It looks like whoever produced the calendars reused many of the pictures from their 1891 version for their 1892 one.

Well, I completely understand your line of thought. That’s why I had added in the prior post that that the only true question in my mind could be date. As for it being prior to his time on Cleveland or completely unaffiliated with the team with the other strong connective links, well I think those doubts are a stretch.

Other than the date scrawled on the mount, how do we know the suit pose is from 1890? That date could have been written by anyone at any time and could easily be wrong. I have see plenty of cabinets where the player pictured is misidentified by a written in name. If people can get the subject wrong they can surely get the date wrong.
Based on the 1891 schedule piece I agree that the uniform cabinet is certainly from early-1891 or late-1890.

Could probably use the cabinet mount to date it as the print styles/formats for the uniform and street versions are different. Would need other examples to compare etc.

Yes, or dates photographer that address.

I agree that the item is not likely from 1890 and I also agree that the photo was taken at the same sitting as the 1891 Cy in uniform photo. It’s possible but improbable that the studio had plans for releasing photos in 1891 and wanted to get an early start. The Players League was falling apart by the time Cy got to Cleveland in August, 1890, and it was clear to everyone that dozens of players from that league would be looking for new homes in 1891. The Cleveland team roster of 1891 would be uncertain at best in late 1890, and several starters in fact were replaced the following year. Even if Cy was sure to return, it seems that the studio would want to know and have available all the current team members when shooting for 1891 commercial purposes. It’s doubtful to me that Ryder would make a special sitting appointment for Cy, who although a budding star was only 9-7 and playing on a seventh place team.
Off topic a little, but here's the box score from Cy's first start, the opener of a doubleheader:
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...g_7__1890_.jpg

Here are some more clues to digest…

Photo one was produced circa 1902 and references 1890 on reverse

Photo two reproduced in 1920 and makes a reference to 1890 on reverse.

Photo three is a magazine page out of a 1967 “Cy Young Centennial” program as he was born in 1867.

References 1890 underneath photo.

So, my guess is sometime after August 1890 and maybe pre season 1891.

They do not look like they are from the same sitting to me. They both seem to have very characteristics to me. It is hard for me to describe, but the uniform pose has a “softer” look to me.

Also, Young’s hair looks different, especially his sideburns which look to extend further down his ear in his uniform pose compared to the street clothes image.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the whether they are from the same sitting, and I use that term somewhat loosely in that I mean they were taken the same day or within a day or so. The sideburns seem the same to me insofar as they extend and the hair could be somewhat "tussled" but looks ot be the same haircut. to my eyes anyway.

I will defer to the experts on the dating, but I do not think that they were taken at the same time. Hisis sideburn looks much longer in the image on the left, which is from his uniform pose.

Hi Todd! I rarely ever disagree with you but I will to some extent on this. In 1890 all leagues were suffering, but the Players League was actually doing better than the NL. In fact, after the 1890 season the PL was preparing for an 1891 season. To strengthen the league Buffalo, the weakest team, was being dropped and a group of PL executives, including John Ward, in early-October, 1890 purchased the Cincinnati NL team, with the thought of adding it to the PL to replace Buffalo. It was only later that Al Spaulding hoodwinked some PL magnates into believing the NL was doing fine and they caved and the league collapsed. Also, if the street clothes pose and the pose in uniform were from the same photo shoot they would probably have the same mount, and they don't.

That’s OK Jay– you put more time than me in studying the 19th Century leagues. My recollection though is that the league was not doing well–none were but the established leagues could take the financial hit better. The new league could not withstand another down year is what I always believed but admittedly I have not researched the subject. My point however was that there was uncertainty in the next year’s team roster such that it would not make sense to take the photos in late 1890 for use the following year if players were going to be gone. I note that your 1891 composite schedule features at least three players who came from the PL the prior year, along with Childs and Doyle who joined from the American Association. That’s more than a third of the team shown. That composite was not printed before mid-March 1891 when McAleer signed, so there was ample time in 1891 for the photographer to let the dust settle in configuring who to include on the composite and get them in for a photo shoot. Why they might feel the need to do this in late 1890 escapes me.
I am the furthest thing from a 19th century photo guy but I do not see the different mounts as being overly significant. Ebay shows a whole slew of different mounts used by Ryder during the relevant period. It could be that the photo subject got to choose among multiple mounts, or that multiples were available and little attention paid as to what was used. I can see how they might use the same mount for all players in uniform for purposes of, well, uniformity, but that different mounts might be used for the street clothes photos. What I meant by the "same sitting" could have extended over a couple of days when the team was in town. It would not surprise me if each player was first photographed in uniform and when the last was done they went back in for a personal photo to be given to family and friends that had them dressed in their best clothes. In this regard it would similarly not surprise me if they got a fresh shave and combed their hair for the occasion. Just my two cents.

Todd--what you say is certainly possible. We'll probably never know for sure.