Discussion Topic & Your Opinions: What is the first baseball card

[drcy]

I write a column and was asked that question. I thought I'd ask for the valuable opinion of you folks on the murky subject.

[ullmandds]

it seems the hobby recognizes the 1869 red stocking team card as the 1st baseball card.

[drcy]

What about the other Peck & Snyder cards?

[rainier2004]

it seems the hobby recognizes the 1869 red stocking team card as the 1st baseball card.

This is where I am at.

I think anything anyone wants to call can be a card, I mean are PCs "cards"? There are all sorts of definitions and things that we personally abide to with this and is highly debatable of course. To me, the Cinci team was the first pro team and that is definitely a "card" in my book so its the first card, none were of them or that team prior. So what exactly does that make the other P/S's, some of which we know were made earlier...I don't know that, but I still go w/ the Cinci p/s for what its worth.

[GaryPassamonte]

Not to rekindle a controversy, but do we know that any other P & S cards predate the P & S Red Stockings card?

[bgar3]

I have no real opinion on defining the first baseball card, but I think I can supply some information on the Peck and Snyder image, and other photos of the 1869 team.
As noted as part of a prior thread, the image used on the Peck and Snyder card is likely the first image of a professional baseball team, taken between June 16 and 18, (most likely the 18th), by Huff, a Newark NJ photographer. The team image was used and identified as by Huff in the July3, 1869 Harper's (woodcut), and the player heads from the image were used as woodcuts in the July 17, Leslie's. The next team photos were most likely Brady, Washington DC taken between June 25 and 28, and the Hoag composite in suits taken on July 1. (Rhodes and Eradi, The First Boys of Summer is especially helpful in making this timeline.)
Of possibly greater interest is the existence of at least 2 cdv's of players in Cincinnati uniforms. Barry Sloate's article inThe July/August 1996 issue of Vintage classic Baseball Collector has an illus
tration of Harry Wright taken by Broadhurst of Philadelphia and I have seen one of Allison by the same photographer. These could be the first "cards" of professional players in uniform.(this could be from 1869 or 1870)
I am not sure what Red Stocking photo Gary is referring to, sorry.

[oldjudge]

I think the circa 1860 Brooklyn Atlantics team CdV from the Heritage summer live auction is the first baseball card.

[drcy]

Does the 1860 CDV fit the commercial or 'given out as memento/collectible' aspect of baseball cards?

[Baseball Rarities]

Does the 1860 CDV fit the commercial or 'given out as memento/collectible' aspect of baseball cards?

The example in Heritage came straight from the family of a player. Awesome piece.

[Baseball Rarities]

So what exactly does that make the other P/S's, some of which we know were made earlier...

Which do we know were made earlier? The 1868 Atlantics Trade card has a advertisement on the reverse that seems to date it to 1870. There is also an 1870 newspaper advertisement that offers all of the trade cards, including the 1868 Atlantics. The Atlantics card has never been seen offered earlier than 1870.

There is an 1869 ad that offers the Cincinnati team, but only in CDV form. This ad has Peck and Snyder listed on Ann St. IMHO, all of the Peck and Snyder trade cards were issued after the Cincinnati CDVs that were issued in 1869 when Peck and Snyder was on Ann St. I have posted these ads before, but I can dig them up if anyone cares.

[drcy]

Thank you for the info, Kevin.

What about the 1863 Harry & George Wright cricket/baseball ticket? (I'm awaiting the response "It's a ticket." I'm also expecting "What part of '1863 comes after 1860' don't you understand?")

There's also a circa 1865 Mathew Brady CDV of the Harry and George Wright. It could have been a personal CDV for the Wrights, but Mathew did make and commercially sell to the public CDVs of celebrities . . . Obviously, one of the issues with this subject is there are unanswered questions and another is the earliest card known (even if there is consensus on what it is) is only the earliest card known. A third is that many of our hobby terms and rules for old cards, including 'rookie card' and its definition, are modern terms and rules applied retroactively.

As I've often said, the earlier you get, the more it becomes baseball card theory. There are even regular debates on what constitutes a baseball card. Which is why I appreciate everyone's points of view and opinions.

[oldjudge]

Does the 1860 CDV fit the commercial or 'given out as memento/collectible' aspect of baseball cards?

I guess I would respond in two ways. First, I am not aware of any universally accepted definition of a baseball card. For me, it is a card picturing a baseball player, or players. Under that definition, the Atlantics CdV certainly fits. Second, we do not know how the Atlantics CdV was acquired. Perhaps it was sold by the photographer, or sold at the game. Perhaps it was given away as a premium if you used his services. Perhaps it was inserted into boxes of laundry detergent. Just kidding, but you get the idea. It is the earliest baseball photographic image that I know of on a card. Hence, for me it is the earliest baseball card.

As for your question about the Grand Match tickets, they are from 1863. However, they fit many definitions of baseball cards. In my mind, they are earlier baseball cards than any of the P&S cards, but still not the first. I use the plural since all of the Grand Match tickets were issued at the same time. Since all of the players on the tickets took part in the baseball game, they all have a right to be called early baseball cards.

[ullmandds]

I guess I would respond in two ways. First, I am not aware of any universally accepted definition of a baseball card. For me, it is a card picturing a baseball player, or players. Under that definition, the Atlantics CdV certainly fits. Second, we do not know how the Atlantics CdV was acquired. Perhaps it was sold by the photographer, or sold at the game. Perhaps it was given away as a premium if you used his services. Perhaps it was inserted into boxes of laundry detergent. Just kidding, but you get the idea. It is the earliest baseball photographic image that I know of on a card. Hence, for me it is the earliest baseball card.

As for your question about the Grand Match tickets, they are from 1863. However, they fit many definitions of baseball cards. In my mind, they are earlier baseball cards than any of the P&S cards, but still not the first. I use the plural since all of the Grand Match tickets were issued at the same time. Since all of the players on the tickets took part in the baseball game, they all have a right to be called early baseball cards.

+1... I have always felt that these grand match tickets should be considered baseball cards .

[Leon]

+1... I have always felt that these grand match tickets should be considered baseball cards .

They can be cards as anything else can. As Jay mentioned, there is no real definition of a baseball card. Tickets (Grand Match), Schedules (Red Stockings) and many other "pseudo-cards" are still cards to many. BTW, the 1860 card is a great baseball card.

[Exhibitman]

I'd say that the winner needs to be created to stand alone as a card rather than being the detritus of another use so I'd DQ the tickets and programs and the like. Great stuff to be sure but not really cards. I'd also DQ cdvs made on commission and for personal uses. It has to be something made for commerce. When I was trying to ID the 1st boxing card those were the two parameters I followed.

[Baseball Rarities]

I'd say that the winner needs to be created to stand alone as a card rather than being the detritus of another use so I'd DQ the tickets and programs and the like. Great stuff to be sure but not really cards. I'd also DQ cdvs made on commission and for personal uses. It has to be something made for commerce. When I was trying to ID the 1st boxing card those were the two parameters I followed.

This pretty much sums up how I define a "card" also. It needs to have been made for commercial distribution. But, at the same time, I can certainly understand other peoples' explanations as well.

[oldjudge]

I'd say that the winner needs to be created to stand alone as a card rather than being the detritus of another use so I'd DQ the tickets and programs and the like. Great stuff to be sure but not really cards. I'd also DQ cdvs made on commission and for personal uses. It has to be something made for commerce. When I was trying to ID the 1st boxing card those were the two parameters I followed.

Certainly a legitimate point of view. An equally legitimate definition is expressed in the rookie card listing which was published on this site. Under that definition, items such as woodcuts cut from newspapers are included. I think you can go one of two ways on this. If you take a strict definition of a card, i.e. what would an average person identify as a baseball card, your answer is an N167. If you expand your definition to mine, any baseball image on cardboard (BTW, I don't think newspaper cutouts are cards) you get the circa 1860 Atlantics CdV. As we enter 2016 I think we should all strive to be more inclusive in all facets of our lives. This is why I choose the CdV.😎

[Leon]

.......As we enter 2016 I think we should all strive to be more inclusive in all facets of our lives. This is why I choose the CdV.😎

And I would be biased too if I owned one of the two known :). You should show it for us Jay. You know the guy sitting next to you at the auction won't be showing his.....

[GaryPassamonte]

As always, this subject creates an interesting debate. I'm on board with both Adam's/Kevin's and Jay's definition. However, if we take the any baseball image is a card definition, we need to include the handful of baseball images that were made before 1860. These would include tintypes, ambrotypes,and salt prints. This would also includes the Knickerbocker daguerreotype, if you consider it to actually depict members of that club.

[oldjudge]

Interesting point Gary. I think a "card" needs to be on cardboard. Maybe I am not that inclusive after all.

[drcy]

I define it as a card (a point of contention of counts a card) of baseball content/subject, available to the general (if local) public, almost always made for commerce/advertising but always intended/designed as a collectible for the public. Something being a physical card is not enough, including a CDV made just for the personal family photo album doesn't count. Something that resembles a card in all ways but was not available to the public is not enough. Something that resembles a trading card but was not intended to be collected doesn't count. Baseball card is short for baseball trading card, there's more to it than just being a physical card.

That's my definition and I don't intend to shove it down the readers' throats in the article.

If the c. 1865 Mathew Brady CDV was made for the personal use of the Wrights I would say it's not a baseball card. If it was sold through Brady's gallery then I would say it is a baseball card.

[oldjudge]

David-It is my understanding that additional copies of team CdVs and cabinets, even if they were originally made exclusively for players, were always available for purchase from the photographer. In fact, many later cabinets added a note to this effect on the back.

[drcy]

Though those notes are often found on the back of normal nobody family photos, I assume indicating the family could order more.

The little history printed history on the back of the 1860 Brooklyn CDV is interesting. Not like something you'd get on the back of a normal family CDV.

As someone who deals with non-sport photos, I can say that during the civil war era CDVs of popular subjects and famous people were commercially sold to and popularly collected by the public. Lots of people collected CDVs of Lincoln, Queen Victoria, Robert E. Lee, Broadway actors and actresses et al, and it is conceivable a CDV of a big baseball team or star player would be available as a collectible. Charles Dickens and other famous people sent CDVs of themselves to fans who wrote to them.

[oldjudge]

Though those notes are often found on the back of normal nobody family photos, I assume indicating the family could order more.

The little history printed history on the back of the 1860 Brooklyn CDV is interesting. Not like something you'd get on the back of a normal family CDV.

As someone who deals with non-sport photos, I can say that during the civil war CDVs of popular subjects and famous people were commercially sold to and popularly collected by the public.

Note on back of Stevens cabinet of baseball player

[oldjudge]

Similar notes are on the back of some Jos Hall baseball cabinets.

[1880nonsports]

I'm mostly aligned with Adam and Kevin but as there is no actual ANSWER I'm going to go all-in with what I feel is a purest view - mostly defined by exclusion but mindful of the intent in it's distribution - the first base ball CARD was an N167.......

[GaryPassamonte]

Henry- I believe N167s are the issue that all would agree are baseball cards. I don't think you could get a consensus for anything prior to N167s.

[the-illini]

Couldn't the 1886 Hancock Clothing Syracuse Stars cards also be considered the first baseball cards using the definition applied to the N167s?

[1880nonsports]

that were on eBay like 12 or so years ago from a Syracuse area seller? The guy had no idea what they were but he and his wife didn't leave their computer for a week while the auction was going and the bids kept rolling in. If not - ooops.
Now going to look up that set as my baseball life mostly behind me and I'm unfamiliar with the issue or a backstory. Thanks for that.

[Baseball Rarities]

Certainly a legitimate point of view. An equally legitimate definition is expressed in the rookie card listing which was published on this site. Under that definition, items such as woodcuts cut from newspapers are included.

Hi Jay - If you are referring to Phil Garry's lists, I think that he created two distinctly different ones. One he labeled Rookie "Cards" and included everything that he felt constituted being a card - postcards, supplements, etc. His other list was for Rookie "Collectibles" which included more obscure items such as woodcuts, cut outs from magazines and books, photos, etc.

I know that many types of cards (postcards, CDVs, cabinets, tickets, schedules, etc.) fall into a gray are as to whether or not they are cards, but I do not think that many consider woodcuts and cut outs from magazines or books as actually being cards.

[Exhibitman]

during the civil war era CDVs of popular subjects and famous people were commercially sold to and popularly collected by the public. Lots of people collected CDVs of Lincoln, Queen Victoria, Robert E. Lee, Broadway actors and actresses et al, and it is conceivable a CDV of a big baseball team or star player would be available as a collectible. Charles Dickens and other famous people sent CDVs of themselves to fans who wrote to them.

Exactly as I saw it. the Fredricks 'Specialite' CDVs I fastened on as the first boxing cards were part of a line of cards made expressly for sale at the photographer's gallery of images. Many of the photographers of the day paid celebrities to sit for them so they could make cards to sell to the public, as Fredricks did.

The N167 was definitely one of the first, if not the first, product insert card. But I'd not limit the definition of 'card' in a way that requires insertion with a product because there were so many other forms of card, like the Peck & Snyder, that are either cards predating N167 or not cards at all.

It is an interesting conundrum. Way more interesting that the contract I'm avoiding working on by loitering here. :)

[1880nonsports]

pretty sure FeeBay's where the cards came from. Few observations (?) - Wonder how was the date determined. They were regional. Unknown means of distribution. They're trade cards.

[1880nonsports]

in the 1880's a notable figure's cabinet photo could generally be secured from a photographer in the range of fifty cents to a dollar and purloined images for less :-)

[Exhibitman]

And brother, did they purloin them! I think there are more stolen image CDVs than originals out there...

BTW, good use of 'purloin' in a sentence. Yorkville boys write good...