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

JustinD · #1 06-07-2024, 07:31 AM

Quote:

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.

oldjudge · #2 06-07-2024, 08:52 AM

Other than the date scrawled on the mount, how do we know the suit pose is from 1890? That date could have been written by anyone at any time and could easily be wrong. I have see plenty of cabinets where the player pictured is misidentified by a written in name. If people can get the subject wrong they can surely get the date wrong.
Based on the 1891 schedule piece I agree that the uniform cabinet is certainly from early-1891 or late-1890.

boneheadandrube · #3 06-07-2024, 09:29 AM

Could probably use the cabinet mount to date it as the print styles/formats for the uniform and street versions are different. Would need other examples to compare etc.

oldjudge · #4 06-07-2024, 10:47 AM

Yes, or dates photographer that address.

nolemmings · #5 06-07-2024, 11:01 AM

I agree that the item is not likely from 1890 and I also agree that the photo was taken at the same sitting as the 1891 Cy in uniform photo. It’s possible but improbable that the studio had plans for releasing photos in 1891 and wanted to get an early start. The Players League was falling apart by the time Cy got to Cleveland in August, 1890, and it was clear to everyone that dozens of players from that league would be looking for new homes in 1891. The Cleveland team roster of 1891 would be uncertain at best in late 1890, and several starters in fact were replaced the following year. Even if Cy was sure to return, it seems that the studio would want to know and have available all the current team members when shooting for 1891 commercial purposes. It’s doubtful to me that Ryder would make a special sitting appointment for Cy, who although a budding star was only 9-7 and playing on a seventh place team.
Off topic a little, but here's the box score from Cy's first start, the opener of a doubleheader:

BeanTown · #6 06-07-2024, 12:26 PM

Here are some more clues to digest�

Photo one was produced circa 1902 and references 1890 on reverse

BeanTown · #7 06-07-2024, 12:28 PM

Photo two reproduced in 1920 and makes a reference to 1890 on reverse.

robertsmithnocure · #8 06-07-2024, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I agree that the item is not likely from 1890 and I also agree that the photo was taken at the same sitting as the 1891 Cy in uniform photo.

They do not look like they are from the same sitting to me. They both seem to have very characteristics to me. It is hard for me to describe, but the uniform pose has a “softer” look to me.

Also, Young’s hair looks different, especially his sideburns which look to extend further down his ear in his uniform pose compared to the street clothes image.

nolemmings · #9 06-07-2024, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

They do not look like they are from the same sitting to me. They both seem to have very characteristics to me. It is hard for me to describe, but the uniform pose has a �softer� look to me.

Also, Young�s hair looks different, especially his sideburns which look to extend further down his ear in his uniform pose compared to the street clothes image.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the whether they are from the same sitting, and I use that term somewhat loosely in that I mean they were taken the same day or within a day or so. The sideburns seem the same to me insofar as they extend and the hair could be somewhat "tussled" but looks ot be the same haircut. to my eyes anyway.

oldjudge · #10 06-07-2024, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I agree that the item is not likely from 1890 and I also agree that the photo was taken at the same sitting as the 1891 Cy in uniform photo. It’s possible but improbable that the studio had plans for releasing photos in 1891 and wanted to get an early start. The Players League was falling apart by the time Cy got to Cleveland in August, 1890, and it was clear to everyone that dozens of players from that league would be looking for new homes in 1891. The Cleveland team roster of 1891 would be uncertain at best in late 1890, and several starters in fact were replaced the following year. Even if Cy was sure to return, it seems that the studio would want to know and have available all the current team members when shooting for 1891 commercial purposes. It’s doubtful to me that Ryder would make a special sitting appointment for Cy, who although a budding star was only 9-7 and playing on a seventh place team.
Off topic a little, but here's the box score from Cy's first start, the opener of a doubleheader:

Hi Todd! I rarely ever disagree with you but I will to some extent on this. In 1890 all leagues were suffering, but the Players League was actually doing better than the NL. In fact, after the 1890 season the PL was preparing for an 1891 season. To strengthen the league Buffalo, the weakest team, was being dropped and a group of PL executives, including John Ward, in early-October, 1890 purchased the Cincinnati NL team, with the thought of adding it to the PL to replace Buffalo. It was only later that Al Spaulding hoodwinked some PL magnates into believing the NL was doing fine and they caved and the league collapsed. Also, if the street clothes pose and the pose in uniform were from the same photo shoot they would probably have the same mount, and they don't.

nolemmings · #11 06-07-2024, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi Todd! I rarely ever disagree with you but I will to some extent on this. In 1890 all leagues were suffering, but the Players League was actually doing better than the NL. In fact, after the 1890 season the PL was preparing for an 1891 season. To strengthen the league Buffalo, the weakest team, was being dropped and a group of PL executives, including John Ward, in early-October, 1890 purchased the Cincinnati NL team, with the thought of adding it to the PL to replace Buffalo. It was only later that Al Spaulding hoodwinked some PL magnates into believing the NL was doing fine and they caved and the league collapsed. Also, if the street clothes pose and the pose in uniform were from the same photo shoot they would probably have the same mount, and they don't.

That’s OK Jay– you put more time than me in studying the 19th Century leagues. My recollection though is that the league was not doing well–none were but the established leagues could take the financial hit better. The new league could not withstand another down year is what I always believed but admittedly I have not researched the subject. My point however was that there was uncertainty in the next year’s team roster such that it would not make sense to take the photos in late 1890 for use the following year if players were going to be gone. I note that your 1891 composite schedule features at least three players who came from the PL the prior year, along with Childs and Doyle who joined from the American Association. That’s more than a third of the team shown. That composite was not printed before mid-March 1891 when McAleer signed, so there was ample time in 1891 for the photographer to let the dust settle in configuring who to include on the composite and get them in for a photo shoot. Why they might feel the need to do this in late 1890 escapes me.
I am the furthest thing from a 19th century photo guy but I do not see the different mounts as being overly significant. Ebay shows a whole slew of different mounts used by Ryder during the relevant period. It could be that the photo subject got to choose among multiple mounts, or that multiples were available and little attention paid as to what was used. I can see how they might use the same mount for all players in uniform for purposes of, well, uniformity, but that different mounts might be used for the street clothes photos. What I meant by the "same sitting" could have extended over a couple of days when the team was in town. It would not surprise me if each player was first photographed in uniform and when the last was done they went back in for a personal photo to be given to family and friends that had them dressed in their best clothes. In this regard it would similarly not surprise me if they got a fresh shave and combed their hair for the occasion. Just my two cents.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cool Auction Items	sayhey24	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	0	12-09-2015 07:18 PM
Many items on auction. Take a look!	baez578	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	3	08-30-2013 10:45 AM
Items for Charity Auction	jester	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	4	07-02-2012 08:08 AM
I need help -- need to get items OUT of a charity auction	Rich Klein	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	9	04-02-2011 12:27 PM
Auction Items	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	05-05-2005 06:01 PM