1895 N300 John Clarkson

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

In regards to the Irv (CY) Young cards, you collectors spending big $$$'s on that card should know that Irv Young also went by the nickname of "Young Cy" or "Cy the second" so I don't think it was a mistake that the cards that picture him have the caption "Cy" on them. They were not meant IMO to be Hall of Famer Cy Young.

The Mayo Clarkson card was probably supposed to be Dad, but it clearly pictures John Clarkson. That one was a clear mistake by the Mayo company.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Greetings everyone. I sure started an interesting thread with my question. I wonder if John Clarkson was going to play for ST Louis and then decided to retire and the company had already produced his card. Could the answer be this simple? It is a great thread though. I want to thank everyone here for persuing the discussion. I was thinking of buying the card at some point in the future but will put that on hold until a final outcome is decided.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

It seems clear to me that when there is confusion on who is depicted and a Hall of Famer is involved the card tends to grouped into the "Hall of Famer" group. In this case they obviously depicted John Clarkson and it will likely never suffer from any real decrease in price due to that fact.

This card has much more going for it than the aforementioned Irv Young card or the E254 Kelly
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Randy Trierweiler

I was thinking of buying the card at some point in the future but will put that on hold until a final outcome is decided

Richard, you could be waiting a long, long, time for a final outcome. This debate has been going on for years. Its a classic card regardless. I wouldn't wait for someone else to "classify" it.

You can pretty much call it who you want. Thats what most of us are doing right now. Regards, Randy

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

In my opinion (for whatever that's worth) The Mayo Clarkson should be considered a "John Clarkson" card because it depicts him. Just call it an uncorrected error. Now the Irv Young card is Irv Young - Not Hall of Famer Cy Young and I don't understand anyone paying a premium for that card especially in light of the fact that Irv was nicknamed "Cy".

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Dan, with the Young E97 I believe it is also due to the fact that the team indicated is that of "Cy" and not "Lil' Cy"
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

There is that, but I still think that the picture is the most important aspect of a card. If a card labeled "Albert Pujols" actually pictured David Eckstein would collectors consider that card an Albert Pujols card?

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Maybe the HOF has a photo of his brother you can use to compare.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The image is John Clarkson with 100% certainty. It was pointed out earlier that a player's head was often superimposed onto a hand drawn uniform.

I think somewhere in the process the artist drew the wrong uniform for John, having confused him with his brother. The card got into circulation without ever being corrected.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

IMO its a John Clarkson card. It picture John, the team name added to the jersey is just wrong.

I think Mayo picked up a rumor he was going to St. Louis, but he never did. He might have wanted to play his last year with his brother. ???

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

The card is obviously a JOHN Clarkson card!!! It's the image that counts, not the jersey, or even what is printed. Those might be mistakes, but any HOF collector would still consider the card as being of the person depicted. Especially if the image is a photo! Here is another John:

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard

Greetings everyone. It sounds like the dust is settling in this thread. So what is the consesus of the board at this point? Do most of you consider this a John Clarkson Hall of Famer card?
Thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

is this witch hunt over? It sure looks like John to me...regardless of whether the team name is incorrect. it'd sure be easier to change the team name than to cut and paste bodies and heads.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

IMHO, the image is definitely John Clarkson which originates from teh same that is used for his N28 card.

I would also classify it as a John Clarkson card, which seems to be the consensus here.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

The consensus is that image is definitely John.

The unsettled questions are:
1)Who did Mayo intend to picture on the card?
2)If Dad Clarkson was intended, does that make it a card of Dad and not John?

[Archive]

Posted By: Addie_Joss

I still think the intention is clear that it was supposed to be a Dad Clarkson card because of the year it was printed and the team designation. I don't think it was an accident that they featured Clarkson palying for St. Louis in 1895, which should be a clear indicator that Dad Clarkson was intended to be included in the set.

As I said before, there are plenty of examples of HOFer cards that are only HOFer cards in name because they don't feature an image of the HOF player. Some examples have been discussed, such as the Bill Terry card. The Bill Terry card is only a Bill Terry card because of the name and not the image. Using that same standard, I don't see how you can then say that this is a John Clarkson card even though it seems extremely likely it is supposed to be Dad Clarkson just because of the image on the card. If you go by name designation for every other instance, why change the way you catalogue a card this time? If image is not what makes a card of a particular player, but rather the name on the card and the card's intention to feature that player, why are so many of you veering towards the image determining the player this time?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

The image is correct...the name is correct...the team name is not...could have been a simple mistake...since the bro was on st louis...why is this such a big deal...Addie?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Addie, I hear your argument but the "name" designation is tricky in this instance. If the Mayo card said 'Dad Clarkon", or "D. Clarkson" or A. Clarkson", I think we would have a totally different outcome. However, in this case, the Mayo card simply says "Clarkson" and features a picture of John Clarkson.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

In my opinion the IMAGE should ALWAYS determine the card. the E97 Young is NOT Cy Young. The Mayo Clarkson IS John Clarkson. You can collect any way you like, there are no rules, no committee to make a final determination. It is all opinion. If you think that people are going to start selling the Mayo Clarkson for "common" prices no matter what Mayo's intentions were with the card you're dreaming.

edited spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

i kinda agree with you Dan...I'd be hard pressed to pay thousands of dollars for an e Cy Young depicting Irv.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Here are some Clarkson images that I forgot I had...they came from the Culver archives.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

One of the most egregious vintage card errors, mainly because it is so valuable, is the Yum Yum of Ned Williamson that is captioned Adrian Anson. Although I have only seen it transacted a few times, I've never once seen anyone refer to the player as Williamson. Every seller tries to take advantage since cards of Anson will sell for multiples.

I think the deciding factor in any card should be the image, and not the caption. It's still unclear what the consensus is on the E97 Young, partly because it is an action pose and the face is a bit indistinct anyway. But with any portrait card, such as the N300 Clarkson, the photo supersedes the name (or the uniform).

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Here the "image" is pulling both ways - you could say someone added the wrong head to the right body or the wrong body to the correct head. Perhaps to further refine it, you mean the face pictured dictates whose card it is. Of course, cards like E91s then become interesting...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

In this case they didn't just put his head on a St Louis uniform they just took the picture of Clarkson in his Boston uniform and "painted" a St Louis uniform over it. You can see with the folds in the uniform that it is his Boston uniform.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think we agree that in this case the N300 pictures John Clarkson. There may be reason to look at these cards on a case by case basis, but the portrait takes huge precedence over everything else. In the case of the N300, it appears that the portrait and the uniform were joined by separate steps.

Interesting piece of trivia: the N172 Anson in Uniform, certainly one of the great rarities in the hobby, is actually Cap Anson's head superimposed onto Ned Williamson's body. I haven't a clue why this was done.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Because on the day the photos were taken in Chicago Anson had a dentist appointment. Actually I can kind of see Anson being cranky about having to change into uniform to get his picture taken...he was a rather cranky dude. While a lot of guys posed for many different shots I would bet Anson sat down had his pic taken and was out of there.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - Anson was mistaken for Williamson on two different cards? That's freaky.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It is funny, but they were long time teammates.