Earliest baseball card?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens&nbsp; </b><p>Someone just posted this to the SABr 19th century mailing list<BR><BR><img src="http://world.std.com/~pgw/19c/Card.ceresi.jpg"><BR><BR>Anyone have ony thoughts or ideas as to age and what is actually depicted?<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>RBCraik</b><p>dried grass is called..."HAY". Looks like a a very early form of pictionary card to me...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>You are correct, this comes from a set of educational cards.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>I'd have to see it in person, but the graphics suggest it to be from many years before any Peck & Snyder. Perhaps from as early as the 18th century.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>On a somewhat related note, many of the earliest American trade cards were made by a full-time engraver named Paul Revere.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>to be similar to the school merit cards that you see around. As I recall, I think most of those were believed to be from the 1830's to 1840's.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>not the merit card itself, just the depiction of the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Consencious from the 19c group seems to be early 1800s, but no later than 1845.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian H.</b><p>It looks like a LaCross stick to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>You need to remember that in the early 19c what was used for a bat in town ball and other early versions of basbeall didn't resemble bats of today, but more like cricket bats and many written account mention usuing anything resembling a cricket bat.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Actually, doesn't look like a cricket bat either. My guess is the kids literally cut off a suitable limb from a nearby tree ... Naturally, there will be arguments as to whether this fits the definition of a 'trading card'-- but it certainly looks like a game of baseball (or as close as they had back then), and can reasonably be argued to be one of the earliest baseball cards .... Quick, get it graded! ('Returned as ungradable due to funny looking bat')

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>like it is possibly a broom. Brooms looked very similar to that back then. Along the lines of what Jay mentioned, you didn't have a Louisville Slugger laying around back then...you'd pick up the straightest and lightest item you could find. Thus, the birth of "broom" ball or "stick" ball.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>Probably a broom. But when I first took a look, I could have sworn it was one of those funny looking sticks they use for Lacrosse (the Canadian national game <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>if this a baseball card....which I am inclined to believe since baseball and card are sort of relative terms.....where does this put the 1863 Hoboken ticket ...uh....er ....card.......uh....ticket.....uh ....card.....well for 80k I hope it's a card <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ( I still think it's a ticket though)....albeit a very cool one....later

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>This looks like and is being held like a lacross stick. This was a native american game and has the look of lacross although the pitcher is like slow pitch softball. I can see the broom likeness also and agree that this is very old sporting image.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>But since it's very doubtful that it's baseball, it can't be considered a baseball card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>On the SABR 19c list, thoughts are leaning towards a ball game called "stool ball", which is one of many variants of stick and ball games from that era. Lots of leaning towards Town ball since they are playing in front of a building with a flag flying in front and Town Ball games were usually played near the courthouse or town hall.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>The practical is that if it's labelled a stool ball card, I might be able to afford it. If it's called a baseball card, I could no longer afford it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Here's the likely keyword spamming title when it's offered on eBay<BR><BR>'Town Ball Baseball Rookie Card 1/1 + PSA SGC Gay Interest Clothes'

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>the way the bat is held is also typical of 19th century baseball batters. Many, if not most, separated their hands. They also would typically have the front foot pointed towards the pitcher (as this batter does) as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>Looks to me like the card depicts "hurling."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>it's either a ticket OR a card; it's either a program OR a card; it's either a schedule OR a card--why can't it be both?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Here are some more links to early 19c bat and ball games.<BR><BR><img src="http://world.std.com/~pgw/19c/Cricket1833.jpg"><BR><img src="http://world.std.com/~pgw/19c/Baseball1813.jpg"><BR><img src="http://world.std.com/~pgw/19c/Baseball1833.jpg"><BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>No wonder the life expectancy was so short back then. The catcher stood 2 inches behind the batter (2nd picture) and they allowed wolves onto the field during play.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>These actually all do look very much like a lacross stick, however, they are obviously striking the ball with it, not catching it. It's obviously not a solid paddle at the end since you can see through it. Why use a stick of this sort????

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I think the wolf is Hanks great, great, great, great grandfather.......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>Okay, here's your answer. My great-great-grandfather used to tell us about this game his great-great-grandfather played as a child. The "swatter" used what was basically a "small head" tennis racket to swat a loosely-wound ball as far as possible. My ancestor and the other kids, being rather poor, only had one of these "rackets", so when the netting busted one day, they were forced to come up with an alternative. My G-g-g-g-grandpa Abner, being quite a show-off, simply turned the racket around and started driving the ball right back at the pitcher at lightning speed, with the handle. This resulted in a few broken fingers and noses before everyone went crying home.<BR><BR>Most of the other kids playing that day were a bunch of pussies, so even though Abner and a few others really liked the rougher version of the game, his comrades said it was too "base", and refused to take part. When the other kids saw him and some local tuffs playing the new version of the game the following weekend, wielding axe handles as "bats" rather than the wimpy rackets formerly used, one of them yelled "Abner's playing that base ball game again!" Abner and the local tuffs beat the hell out of the other kids, destroying their racket. In a related event, they also stole the stools the other kids were using to mark their diamond, but decided to use them as weapons instead, and marked the corners with their hats.<BR><BR>The new game caught on and a likeness of Abner appeared in the town paper several weeks later, with the caption "Abner hits DoubleToday", along with "founder of base ball", which led to later misunderstandings.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>-Cheers-

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>I discussed this with him last July and he had had it for a while, so it is nothing new - certainly not a recent discovery as the article stated.<br /><br />It will be interesting to hear what David Block has to say about it. I second Hal's opinion of the Block book - if you have ever wondered how the various bat and ball games are intertwined, you have to read this book. Block's research is amazing, and his theories make absolute sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>as opposed to some generic depiction of a sport, I for one don't care about the item.