Oldest commercially produced baseball card?

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

What is the oldest commercially produced baseball card? I am looking for something more than a local cabinet. I am sure that this topic is debated so I welcome all opinions.

[Leon]

There are other cards produced earlier but you will quickly get into semantics. This one had all paid players though I know there is debate every which way, on what a first card is. This is usually considered one of them, though there is a type of this one that might be months? earlier with a different address, though I am not sure that is definitive or not.

http://luckeycards.com/phunc1869peckandsnyderfinal2.JPG

[barrysloate]

The Peck & Snyders can certainly be considered the first baseball cards, but we are not certain how they were distributed. We know they were available at their stores on Ann Street and Nassau Street in NYC, but may not have been found anywhere else. They very well may have been unknown to baseball fans living outside the city.

The first baseball cards with more of a national distribution would have been the Old Judges, which first appeared in 1886.

[drcy]

Peck & Snyder team CDVs were also available via mail order I believe through their catalog.

There are always unanswered questions and debatable details, but I'd pick the Peck & Snyders. There are earlier cards, but there are questions about them, whether game passes count or whether it's a cricket or baseball image. Some people say trade cards don't count as baseball cards-- however, kids collected trade cards back then. Kid's scrapbooks are filled with trade cards, along with scraps, die cuts and trading cards.

No can know for sure and people have different definitions, but Peck & Snyders are a good pick.

I don't think national distribution is a definer. Regional baseball cards are still baseball cards. Though Old Judges were clearly distributed to the general public + have product advertising on them.

It's notable that commercially sold and collected CDVs of celebrities (politicians, generals, actors, writers, inventors) were made during the Civil War. Someday a baseball version may be discovered. There is a civil war era Mathew Brady CDV of Sam ad Harry Wright, but it's debated if it counts as a baseball or cricket image. Sam was a cricketer and his son Harry played both.

There are early baseball CDVs, but we don't know how they were distributed. They could have been sold to the general public, but we don't know. I'm not one for taking leaps of faith.

Lastly, there are Civil War and earlier stereoview cards showing baseball games and they were commercially sold to the public. Though some won't consider these baseball cards. Even I would consider them something else.

Early baseball cards can be called baseball card theory.

Also realize that terms like baseball card, rookie card and pre-rookie card are later coined and defined terms that we apply retroactively. There's nothing organic and eternal about the term rookie card. The hobby made it up in modern times then applied it backwards.

[benjulmag]

If one takes the position that P&S would distribute ice skate verso cards at the time of the year when customers would be looking to purchase winter equipment, I've never understood why the Red Stocking ice skate verso would predate the baseball verso. The Red Stockings achieved national prominence as the 1869 season progressed. So unless the first P&S Red Stockings card appeared at the end of the 1869 season (when an ice skate ad might make sense), why would that be the first issuance of the card? Because of the Ann Street address? Do we know for certain that P&S didn't operate two stores simultaneously for a while? Unless we know for certain they did not, it seems logical that the black baseball verso was the first printing, appearing during the 1869 season, the ice skate verso the second, appearing winter 1869-70, and the red verso the third, appearing during the 1870 season when P&S introduced colored inks. Other than speculation, are there any facts that conclusively establish the ice skate verso as the first printing?

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

So we are looking at late 1860s to early 1870s for the first cards?

[Baseball Rarities]

The 1869 Cincinnati CDV and trade cards has always been one of my favorite "cards" in the hobby. I have images of a few ads from contemporary magazines that show the following addresses for Peck & Snyder:

1865-1868: 105 Nassau St.
1869: 22 Ann St.
1870 on: 126 Nassau St.

Here are my thoughts:

CDV's that have either Peck and Snyder (22 Ann St.) or Chadwick's Base Ball Book of Reference ads on the back come from the season of 1869.

The Peck and Snyder trade cards with the ice skating on back (22 Ann St.) come from winter of 1869.

The Peck and Snyder trade cards with all other advertising and 126 Nassau St. on the back come from 1870-71.

CDV's pre-dated trade cards and were obviously much easier and cheaper to produce. I think that the success of the initial run of CDV's with advertising on the backs in 1869 led to the production of the trade cards in 1870 and 1871. No doubt additional generic CDV's were printed after 1869 as well.

[barrysloate]

Hi Kevin- the Cincinnati Red Stockings disbanded after the 1870 season. Do you think P & S was still issuing cards of them at that time?

[Baseball Rarities]

Hi Barry - There was an ad in a 1871 Clipper magazine that offered not only the 1869 Red Stockings Peck and Snyder trade card, but the 1868 Atlantics as well. I can post later on this evening or tomorrow it if anyone is interested.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Hi Barry - There was an ad in a 1871 Clipper magazine that offered not only the 1869 Red Stockings Peck and Snyder trade card, but the 1868 Atlantics as well. I can post later on this evening or tomorrow it if anyone is interested.

I am interested in learning more about this. Thanks!

[barrysloate]

Hi Barry - There was an ad in a 1871 Clipper magazine that offered not only the 1869 Red Stockings Peck and Snyder trade card, but the 1868 Atlantics as well. I can post later on this evening or tomorrow it if anyone is interested.

Same here Kevin. I've never heard of that ad, and it sounds like it is really important information. Please post it when you can.

[Baseball Rarities]

OK will do. I stole it from somebody else on the interweb.

[Baseball Rarities]

First is the 1869 NY Clipper Ad advertising the CDV coupled with the St. Ann address and the second is an 1871 NY Clipper Ad with three of the different trade cards (1868 Atlantics, 1869 Red Stockings and 1870 Mutuals) along with the ultra rare 1871 team composite CDV's at the 126 Nassau St. address.

[drcy]

That they were for sale in 1871 doesn't mean they were made in 1871.

[orator1]

First is the 1869 NY Clipper Ad advertising the CDV coupled with the St. Ann address and the second is an 1871 NY Clipper Ad with three of the different trade cards (1868 Atlantics, 1869 Red Stockings and 1870 Mutuals) along with the ultra rare 1871 team composite CDV's at the 126 Nassau St. address.

Interesting thread...Have any of the "1871 team composite CDVs" been offered at action? I'm interested in seeing an image of the 1871 Boston team CDV.

[E93]

The first baseball card set in the traditional sense that needs no further explanation or justification was the 1885 N167 Old Judge set.
JimB

http://photos.imageevent.com/jimblumenthal/n167/websize/N167%20Ewing%20SGC%2040%20frontandback.tiff.jpg

[barrysloate]

Kevin- that's a fascinating ad and the first time I've seen it. I'd like to match those lineups with the year of the team. Boston wasn't formed until 1871 so I assume the other lineups are for their respective 1871 teams.

Of course, as was pointed out, it's not clear re: the 1868 Atlantics and 1869 Red Stockings whether they were still being printed, or if they were merely being offered as leftovers that never sold. My guess is the latter. Since they were in the process of distributing the current teams, they probably were done printing the old ones. Great document that needs some more attention.

[Rich Klein]

How about the 1868 Atlantics? That even pre-dates 1869

[barrysloate]

I want to also add that I'm pretty sure Peck & Snyder produced mammoth plate photographs of some of the key teams, such as the 1869 Red Stockings, but it doesn't appear any of them survived.

[GaryPassamonte]

Kevin's ad mentions "separate" players? Could there have been individual cdvs or trade cards? Interesting that there is no mention of Creighton?

[barrysloate]

I noticed that too Gary, and I'm picturing those composite CdV's that REA had several years back. But I'm not sure.

And I don't believe that Peck & Snyder issued the Jim Creighton. Corey would need to answer, but as I recall there is no store advertising on the reverse.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I am really glad that I asked this question. Lots of great info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1880nonsports]

Part of the problem in analyzing what would constitute a card for this discussion would be which of the following are viable candidates to be considered cards:

distributed contemporaneously alongside product
distributed in a product
available as a premium for buying a product
used in an exchange such as a ticket or currency
sold as novelty or memento

As I collect "insert" cards and the discussion is baseball - I think the N167 OJ's best fit the bill. There are depictions of base ball on the pages of books followed chronologically by steel engravings and CDV's, tintypes, the trade cards, and finally the tobacco/gum inserts. I prefer to keep each distinct. Should we also be discussing the manufacturer's motivation to define a card? Does an items size, construction, or production edify our definition?

[barrysloate]

Henry- a thought about the N167: They depict only NY Giants, Goodwin and Co. was based in New York, they clearly were issued in a very small quantity compared to the N172....so is it possible they were only available in the New York metropolitan area and virtually unknown anywhere else? If that is the case, then it cannot be considered the first nationally distributed set. That honor would go to N172.

I do consider N167 to be a very early baseball card set, but perhaps a regional one, and not unlike the Peck and Snyder issue.

[1880nonsports]

but I zeroed in on commercially produced in OP and kind of lost track of where the thread had morphed. I'm not really a base ball guy too much anymore - and my OJ book not at hand. What is the earliest attributed date for a card of a base ball player from the N172 set? Did the first series of cards pre-date the N173 cabinets initial production?

[wonkaticket]

I would lean towards N167 myself as the first true insert baseball card.

[Baseball Rarities]

Interesting thread...Have any of the "1871 team composite CDVs" been offered at action? I'm interested in seeing an image of the 1871 Boston team CDV.

Here are the CDVs that I am aware of. Stole these images from the web as well.

[Leon]

Those are cool. Thanks for showing them and also thanks for all of the information. Great stuff.

[oldjudge]

I agree with Barry. The first widely available baseball card set was almost surely the N172 set. As for the first baseball cards, I think Rob made a good argument with the 1863 Grand Match souvenir tickets.
I think with the Peck & Snyders we will never know when each of the trade cards were issued. We know the CdVs with the Chadwick book advertising were issued in 1869. With the trade cards, and this includes the Creighton, we have no idea. Corey has an interesting theory that the black printing Cincinnati trade cards predate the red ones. I don't know if this is true or not. I don't know if the 1868 Atlantics trade card was issued in 1868 or 1871. The one in REA last year had the address trimmed off so it is difficult to assign a date to it. Corey, you have one, what is the address on the back of yours?
At the end of the day, the first card discussion will likely end up at the same place as the rookie card discussion. Everyone has their own definition, most likely the definition that benefits them personally the most. Personally, as was true with the rookie cards, I don't care.

[barrysloate]

Kevin- those are the CdV's I referred to, and I assume that is what they meant by individual players, since those images are just a composite of those players laid out and reshot by the photographer. But I don't believe there is any advertising directly linking them to P & S.

Edited to add they probably hired J.A. Pierce to produce them, and sold them in their store or through their catalog.

[triwak]

Guys, I purchased this Red Stockings "photo disc" in the 2011 REA auction (see link, below). It's made of thick paper/thin cardboard, surrounded by a metallic ring. A little larger than a Colgan's card. It looks like a pin, but there is really no evidence of any kind of pin attachment on the back. I've never seen another example, but it clearly was a manufactured item, and not homemade. Since we're kind of on the subject, I've always wondered if anyone knows any more about it? ~ Ken

http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2011/1186.html

[orator1]

Kevin- those are the CdV's I referred to, and I assume that is what they meant by individual players, since those images are just a composite of those players laid out and reshot by the photographer. But I don't believe there is any advertising directly linking them to P & S.

Edited to add they probably hired J.A. Pierce to produce them, and sold them in their store or through their catalog.

So the CDVs now known as "J.A. Pierce" could actually be the "Peck & Snyder Life Photographs" from the ad? That would be a significant discovery. If proof can be found that these are P&S, potentially 7 new team CDVs could be added to the "Peck & Snyder" checklist.
Peck & Snyder teams from the ad:
BOSTON
CHICAGO
OLYMPIC
ATHLETIC
CLEVELAND
ROCKFORD
KEKIONGA

Have any of the above 1871 teams been documented with Peck & Snyder advertising?

[barrysloate]

Paul- most of those CdV's are one or two known. And I still wouldn't call them Peck and Snyders. From what I see, Pierce made them and the sporting goods store distributed them. But the connection is nevertheless fascinating.

[Baseball Rarities]

The CDV's were photographed by O.F. Weaver.

They were produced and distributed J.A. Pierce & Co. I assume that the CDV's that Peck & Snyder offered were those that they purchased for resale from J.A. Pierce & Co.

[Jeffrompa]

Love the CDVs . I think this debate will go on for awhile .

[benjulmag]

I agree with Barry. The first widely available baseball card set was almost surely the N172 set. As for the first baseball cards, I think Rob made a good argument with the 1863 Grand Match souvenir tickets.
I think with the Peck & Snyders we will never know when each of the trade cards were issued. We know the CdVs with the Chadwick book advertising were issued in 1869. With the trade cards, and this includes the Creighton, we have no idea. Corey has an interesting theory that the black printing Cincinnati trade cards predate the red ones. I don't know if this is true or not. I don't know if the 1868 Atlantics trade card was issued in 1868 or 1871. The one in REA last year had the address trimmed off so it is difficult to assign a date to it. Corey, you have one, what is the address on the back of yours?
At the end of the day, the first card discussion will likely end up at the same place as the rookie card discussion. Everyone has their own definition, most likely the definition that benefits them personally the most. Personally, as was true with the rookie cards, I don't care.

Jay,

My P&S Atlantics is currently on loan to the National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia as part of a baseball exhibit that will be opening next month. As such, I do not have it in my possession to check. It is possible that due to the trimming of the mount the address might not be visible.

[oldjudge]

Corey--was someone on the team from the Tribe?

[barrysloate]

Corey--was someone on the team from the Tribe?

Unless Zettlen is a Jewish name, everyone else appears to be Irish.

[benjulmag]

The item is framed with the 1869 P&S Red Stockings and the 1870 scorecard of the June 14, 1870 game when the Atlantics beat the Red Stockings 8-7 to snap Cincinnati's unbeaten streak. Lipman Pike was a member of the 1870 Atlantics and appears on the scorecard. He was the person of interest to the museum.

[GaryPassamonte]

Kevin's ad is interesting regarding the mention of the Boston Red Stockings team. The "Boston" team mentioned in an ad referenced in the 1995 VCBC pg 2, infers that the Boston team was possibly the Lowells team pictured in the blurb. We now have evidence of a Boston Red Stockings card issued by P & S, as well as the Kekiongas, Cleveland, and Rockford. At first glance, I didn't associate the Pierce cards with P & S. Now, I'm not sure, although it does seem odd that none have surfaced with a P & S ad back.

[bbpostcards]

This trade card from 1876 may be in the mix in one narrow category: I believe it marks the first time a baseball scene at a true baseball park (Boston's South End Grounds) was used to promote a product (barb wire). Is there something earlier I'm overlooking?

Some background. The engraver is John A. Lowell. He was involved in Boston baseball from the late 1850's forward and was so influential that the Boston Lowells was named after him. The message on the reverse is from the president of the Boston Base Ball Association. As the National League was founded in 1876, this image shows South End Grounds, the home of the Boston Red Caps, in its first year as a professional stadium. The detail is interesting. People peeking over the fence. Fans buying tickets. Men, women, kids, all at the ballgame. American flags adorning the grandstands. View of Boston in the distance.

[oldjudge]

We now have an Atlantics trade card in the current REA with a 126 Nassau Street address clearly visible on the reverse. This says that the trade card was issued post 1870, not in 1868. It is an image of the 1868 team that was issued later.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Jay - How does the address serve as a reference to the age?

[Exhibitman]

I think they moved, Alex. A new address would give you an "issued no earlier than" data point--they would not know the new address before they had it, so a card with the new address had to have been made after the move.

This is a great topic that is always going to be subject to debate based on definitions and parameters. I personally treat any card made for a commercial purpose, either to promote a product/service or for sale itself, as a 'card'. That would exclude all privately-produced photos and postcards because they weren't commercial products. Doesn't mean they aren't desirable, just outside the realm of what we are discussing. I'd not necessarily treat the ticket/CDVs as cards simply because their primary purpose appears to be to serve as tickets for a game. The Peck and Snyder team cards are definitely 'cards' to me--meant to promote a business and given to the public.

Copyright dating can be tricky. The copyright date itself is only going to tell you when the image was created--the date the guy sat for the picture. The item itself could be a later creation. However the style of copyright statement used can help pin down an issue date range. For example, in 1870 Congress radically changed the manner in which copyrights were registered, from a district court-based registry to a central registry in DC. To give an example, the card show below was a commercially produced CDV that a photographer in NYC used to sell to the public from his gallery as part of a series of pictures of famous people. The copyright notice is the pre-1870 style. The image dates to 1862. The card could have been made any time from 1862 onward but very likely was made pre-1870 based on the copyright notice used [and in this case based on the location of the gallery as shown on the card back; the photographer later had multiple locations as shown on the card mounts for later printings].

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/rareboxingcards/websize/1862%20Heenan%20CDV.jpg

[oldjudge]

Alex--if you read the thread from the beginning you will have your answer, and then some. I would not suggest this if I didn't think this was a particularly interesting thread.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Alex--if you read the thread from the beginning you will have your answer, and then some. I would not suggest this if I didn't think this was a particularly interesting thread.


I will give it a reread. A lot of information has been posted in response to my original question.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Having reread the thread the dates make total sense. I think this discussion is a very interesting one but one that we will never really have an answer too.

[E93]

Henry- a thought about the N167: They depict only NY Giants, Goodwin and Co. was based in New York, they clearly were issued in a very small quantity compared to the N172....so is it possible they were only available in the New York metropolitan area and virtually unknown anywhere else? If that is the case, then it cannot be considered the first nationally distributed set. That honor would go to N172..

Yes, but it can be considered the first baseball card set. And New York was really the center of baseball back then too.
JimB

[oldjudge]

Jim--there are several definitions that could be used to denote the first baseball card, and by neither would I consider Peck and Snyder to be it. By the broad definition I think Rob was right and the 1863 Grand Match souvenir tickets are the first. By a more conventional card definition, I think that the 1886 issues are the first. This would include New York Kalamazoo Bats and N167s.

[Leon]

I still consider the 1869 Peck and Snyder as the first major league card. As has been said a lot of times a bias is had towards what we own. For my own edification is there another major league ballplayer card before it, where the player(s) on it were formally paid?

[oldjudge]

First, being a professional is no criteria for a baseball card. However, yes. The 1863 Grand Match souvenir tickets paid the players whose images appeared on the tickets.

[Leon]

First, being a professional is no criteria for a baseball card. However, yes. The 1863 Grand Match souvenir tickets paid the players whose images appeared on the tickets.

ok, another vote for a ticket being a baseball card.....and who makes any of us the ultimate person to say what a pro or a card is? Just as you think the Red Stocking schedule cards are schedules I think the tickets are tickets. But again, I think it's semantics..and it's all ok with me. :)

[bgar3]

Are there individual cdv's of 1869 Cincinnati players in uniform known to exist?

[E93]

Jim--there are several definitions that could be used to denote the first baseball card, and by neither would I consider Peck and Snyder to be it. By the broad definition I think Rob was right and the 1863 Grand Match souvenir tickets are the first. By a more conventional card definition, I think that the 1886 issues are the first. This would include New York Kalamazoo Bats and N167s.

Hi Jay,
I agree with you regarding conventional card definitions. That is why I argued that N167s are the only ones that need no further explanation or defense with regard to actually being a card rather than something else.

I would also argue, as I did in my Old Cardboard article on the set that the most reasonable date of issue for the N167 set is 1885, thus pre-dating even KBats.
JimB

[Runscott]

We now have an Atlantics trade card in the current REA with a 126 Nassau Street address clearly visible on the reverse. This says that the trade card was issued post 1870, not in 1868. It is an image of the 1868 team that was issued later.

The 1871 NY Clipper Ad makes more sense now - rather than advertising current teams and 'leftovers', it was possibly advertising current teams, and some 'great' teams of the past;i.e-possibly issuing them for the first time, or they were issued sporadically over a 2-3 year period.