Why No N300 Cy Young?

[Matt]

Anyone have a theory on why Cy Young didn't get a Mayo card? It seems he was already established as one of the top 3 or 4 pitchers in the league at that point.

[mcap100176]

The reason why I think Cy Young wasn't included is the Mayo set may have New England based and he was in Cleveland at the time. The New England based part is also mentioned in one of the REA auctions right now. It is lot 84, for some reason when I insert a link, it won't work. Here's the language:


Mayos appear to have been targeted primarily for a New England audience as a full 25% of the subjects were with the Boston Nationals while the more glorified Baltimore Orioles, pennant winners in 1894 and 1895, were represented by only two players (Dan Brouthers and Wilbert Robinson). While the issue fails to include such notables as Willie Keeler, John McGraw, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelley, Sam Thompson, and Cy Young, included are many players who do not appear in any other baseball-card issue, and for most players this is the only set they appear in from the 1890s.

[Matt]

Interesting theory, but why would someone like Buck Ewing (Cleveland/Cinci) make it and Young not? The New England theory doesn't hold.

[mcap100176]

Here is a site that lists what team each player in the set is on.

http://www.krispaulw.com/cgi-bin/set...setlist-01.txt

If you breakdown the set by city, you get:
Boston NL 10
Brooklyn NL 6
Philadelphia NL 6
New York NL 5
Louisville NL 4
Washington NL 4
Chicago NL 3
Cincinnati NL 3
Pittsburgh NL 3
Baltimore NL 2
Cleveland NL 1
St. Louis NL 1


I didn't break out the duplicate issues (Ward, etc) but about 20.8% is from Boston.

[spec]

Though I don't really understand why the Richmond, Va., based Mayo Tobacco Co. would have given the N300 set a New England bias, it's clear that player composition had an Boston-New York-Philadelphia megaplex focus. The entire Boston team, which had won 3 straight pennants from 1891-93, is included (10 of the 40 total players) and 7 other players in the set were New Englanders (Clarkson, Haddock, Latham, Murphy, Hamilton, Robinson and Ryan). Add Brouthers and Joyce, who both had recently played for Boston, and you've got nearly half the set. Brooklyn (6), Philadelphia (6) and New York (5) provided the bulk of the remainder. Only 4 of the 40 (Anson, Dahlen, Glasscock and Pfeffer) were primarily connected to Western clubs, Smith and Kinslow being former Brooklyn players and Ewing a longtime Giant.
Bob Richardson

[mcap100176]

Reading this (http://www.kpl.gov/local-history/bio...-brothers.aspx) the name Ed Mayo appears. Could this Mayo be related to P.H. Mayo?

I can't find anything on Ed except he managed:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...gi?id=205c78a2

Going back further, there is definately a connection between players in the midwest.

Ganzel and Brouthers knew each other at least from 1886 on their time on the Detroit Wolverines: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/DTN/1886.shtml

Pfeffer and Ewing knew each other in 1882: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TRO/1882.shtml

The 1890 Philadelphia A's have 4 teammates who appear in the Mayo set:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHQ/1890.shtml

Could there be a relationship between Ed in the midwest and Peter H. Mayo in Virginia and Ed knowing people/teammates (or friends of friend) to put on cards?


Also, I think business/marketing has to be considered. In 1890 with the formulation of the American Tobacco Company (http://www.oldbaseball.com/refs/tcards.html), inserts were no longer included in tobacco. P.H. Mayo wasn't made a part of the American Tobacco Company until approximately 1898. Could have Mayo been looking to expand into the bigger (NY/Philly/Boston) market by targeting player cards to the large cities?

Lastly, keep in mind that Mayo produced the 1894 N302 football set of Harvard, Princeton and Yale players. And the N301 Die-Cut is all NY/Boston:

https://www.deanscards.com/pre-war-b...28n301%29.aspx