E97 Young - T206 Young Question

[Archive]

Posted By: Despres Louis

Is it me or is the image used for the E97 Cy young card the same one used for the T206 Irv Young card?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It is the same pose as Irv Young, and the error has been well documented.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

not only is it the same pose as Irv Young, more accurately, it is Irv Young and not Cy Young. sorry Barry - I know that is what you meant as well

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That is what I meant...whatever

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I know that in football collecting, Topps put the wrong guy on HOFer Jim Taylor's first card and his "rookie" isn't worth as much as the first card with his actual picture on it. Do you see the "Irv" Cy Young cards as being less valuable than the Cy Young cards? Or more accurately, should they be treated as less desirable? If you are doing a T206 HOFer set, do you bother with "Irv" Cy's card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce MacPherson

The two cards I know of with Irv depicted as Cy are the e97 and e98. I have not noticed any discount on these cards. The prices seem to be in proportion to what Cy goes for in other E card sets. I think there are enough set collectors chasing the card(s), especially the e97, to keep the prices inflated.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I have no interest in any of the cards that show Irv with Cy's name on it.

To go even further, I have no interest in the ones that do not definitively look like Cy.

I am not a caption collector.

This is the very reason I do not like many of the cards in the 'drawn' sets - and is why I appreciate the photography-based cards.

I look at some of the players on some very high-priced cards and scratch my head.... for instance if the caption didn't say Christy Mathewson - but rather said some unknown name... would anyone know?

For many cards (not photo based), I put my finger over the name... if it is not a sure depiction of the player - I am not interested.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have seen a few of the E97 Youngs (black and white and color) sell and they have always been at the price of Cy, which is what it says and is catalogued as. I sold a Young black and white a few years ago and it was definitely priced and sold as Cy....For me I like all kinds of cards, color, and black and white. I don't really care if it looks like the player or not....Heck, a lot of the early cards didn't look like who they were supposed to ..Not all black and white cards have the same picture of the player either.....Here's a mislabelled Joe Wood....picturing Heinie....I like it all the same...not sure what price it would go for if it was for sale....nor do I care...(though I guess I would care if the E97 I have sold as a common or Young)

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

One of the theories I came up with about these misidentified cards is there is a different perception between action poses and portraits. In the case of the Irv/Cy Young error, it's a distant view of the player and the facial features wouldn't be clear enough to distinguish anyway, so most collectors generally accept it.

On a potrait card like the N403 Yum Yum Anson/Williamson error, we all agree that because it is actually a photograph of Williamson captioned "Anson", it could only be identified as Williamson. The error is just more obvious.

There are plenty of cards that are labelled correctly that still bear little resemblance to the player, such as the T206 Walter Johnson pitching pose. That's a really poor likeness, and if one weren't familiar with the card I guess it would be difficult to recognize it was him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

should the Irv.Young be considered a rarity ?....the CY Young in both carda looks like him, but...what does Irv.Young really look like?