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

[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.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

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.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

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.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

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.

[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.