Albumen photographs were quite thin and fragile and needed to be glued to a rigid backing for protection. A family photo during this period might very well be on a cabinet card. The Young photograph is a wonderful early photograph of Young, but I would guess that the Young family had other cabinet cards with family pictures in their home. To me it is no different than any of those. Was it part of a set of other images of Cleveland players that was distributed in the area? Is there any indication that it was intended to be baseball related? Rob Lifson used to add the caveat that it was issued with the intent of advertising a product—I’m not sure how I feel on this criteria but some people add it in.
As to the cabinet card that Leon is alluding to it does depict a baseball subject and was part of a “set” of photographs that were prepared for Goodwin and Company to be used to produce baseball cards. However, it was not generally available for distribution, it was made solely for Goodwin. The last factor for me tips it to photograph and not baseball card.
Does calling something a photograph rather than a baseball card make it any more or less desireable—that’s for the owner to decide. I love the Brooklyn photograph regardless what you call it and I’m sure Ryan loves the Young cabinet, regardless of what you call it.
Finally, I agree with Ryan that everyone has their own opinion and the fact that some are different is certainly not surprising.
|