E97 Young question

[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?

[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.

[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