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

[BeanTown]

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

[GasHouseGang]

Those are truly awesome.

[Jobu]

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?

[robertsmithnocure]

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

[bcbgcbrcb]

No doubt everything is as it seems here, right?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

No doubt everything is as it seems here, right?

Not sure where you your are going

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

No doubt everything is as it seems here, right?

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

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Jobu

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?

Exactly!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Exactly!

If you had one it would be his rookie card.

.

[oldjudge]

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.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

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.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Leon

If you had one it would be his rookie card.

.

Exactly!

[Exhibitman]

Beautiful images. The Pifer & Becker is especially striking.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Jobu

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?

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.