Oldest Baseball Card

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean

yea me to in th ebook Smithsonial Baseball it shows the New York Knickerbockers with Alexander Cartwright and a coupl of other people i think thats the earliest photo theres also another thats shows the red stocking and its from 1859

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The Knickerbockers Daguerreotype is the oldest baseball photo
that I know of. There are only a handful of baseball photos
from before 1860.

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean

okay thanks no wi know what the earliest photo is and the earliest baseball card


so am i right the earliest baseball photo is the knockerbockers one from 1946

and then the earliest baseball card is the 1863 Peck And Snyder James Creighton??


right

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

Sean,

The earliest photo containing any known baseball player (no equipment or uniforms): 1848/9c Knicks Dag

Probably the earliest photo containing a baseball, a bat and a true baseball uniform: 1857/8c Ambrotype of 2 Unknown Players (Possibly from the Mutual BBC).

The earliest baseball card: 1866-7c P&S Jim Creighton (it is most likely later than the often quoted 1862-5 date)

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

Barry - Those darn bugs – sometimes they can really tick you off!! I hope you are not too drained and are making a swift recovery?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Those ticks sure had me ticked off- 103 fever, uncontrollable shakes. But I'm better now and I caught it early. Nice to see the old ambro again (although I did save a picture of it).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Looks like Civil War soldiers with a war club

Jay

Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: jason

Jay – they are firemen's uniforms (also check out the No 2 on the hat signifying a fire-fighters position on the crew - this is one of the reasons I think that this may be of the Mutual BBC who were one of a few early teams comprised of fire-fighters) and the chap on the right is holding a baseball near the guy on the left's shoulder. It is also definitely 1850's.

[Archive]

Posted By: HenryChadwick

Looks like a baseball match was played after all...




Source

Book: Harry Wright: The Father of Professional Base Ball
Author: Christopher Devine
Publisher: Macfarland & Co. (July 2003)
ISBN: 0786415614

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

to whomever is concerned our little comrade Sean....will be back on the board this coming Monday...when I get back from the National. He emailed me wanting to be my best buddy last night and wanted my cell # again. I emailed and told him I am 44 and he is 11...and he needs to find a best buddy closer to his age. My little girl is 9 but not sure about that set up.....regards all...ALSO, thanks for posting this article...very informative....

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Since the article cites that three St. George Dragonslayers played and the three pictured on the "stubs" other than Harry Wright were not baseball players, then that seems to identify their team affiliation. Why weren't any of the Excelsior or other baseball players pictured, and instead just Wright and the three cricketeers? To add, Sam Wright was probably not on the Dragonslayers, but none of the other two- Hammond or Crossley- have any record of ever having played organized baseball. Curious.

[Rhotchkiss]

Bumping this very ancient thread.

REA has an 1869 Peck & Snyder Cincinnati Red stockings Trade Card, which (along with the CDV versions) is undoubtedly the first “card” of a professional baseball team. But what is the first baseball card ever?

I propose it’s this 1859-1860 Brooklyn Athletics CDV. Thoughts?

[GaryPassamonte]

An argument can definitely be made for the Atlantics cdv.

[Seiklis]

I'm always gonna die on my hill that it's the N167s cause it's not a postcard, it's not a team card

It's a Baseball Card

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by Seiklis

I'm always gonna die on my hill that it's the N167s cause it's not a postcard, it's not a team card

It's a Baseball Card

An argument can be made for n167s, also.

From my perspective the choice for earliest baseball card comes down to the circa 1860 Atlantic cdv, the Peck and Snyder trade cards, or the N167s. There is no correct choice. It's all a matter of definitions.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Bumping this very ancient thread.

REA has an 1869 Peck & Snyder Cincinnati Red stockings Trade Card, which (along with the CDV versions) is undoubtedly the first “card” of a professional baseball team. But what is the first baseball card ever?

I propose it’s this 1859-1860 Brooklyn Athletics CDV. Thoughts?

That is not a baseball card, it is a photo. I don't believe that trade cards, CdVs or for that matter cabinets are baseball cards and certainly not newspaper inserts or pins. To me a baseball card is something that looks like a card. If you showed it to someone outside the hobby they would recognize it as a baseball card. I believe the first baseball cards are the N167s put out by Goodwin in 1886.

[The Nasty Nati]

Could also say 1871 Mort Rogers

[oldjudge]

Program, not a baseball card IMO. Please don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with photos or cabinets or pins; I collect them all. They are just not baseball cards.

[oldjudge]

And BTW there is really no argument for the Atlantics CdV being the first baseball card because there are almost surely some team or individual player CdVs that predate it. They may just represent a less well known team.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

Could also say 1871 Mort Rogers

Agree. These are the first cards. They are called Photographic Cards, are numbered, and include numerous individual players.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

Could also say 1871 Mort Rogers

They were available for sale.

[oldjudge]

LOL, and they are scorecards

[Rhotchkiss]

How about CDVs were baseball cards before there were baseball “cards”. The Atlantics piece is a picture pasted on board (they had no better technology), it’s no larger than a modern day baseball card, and it clearly was intended to display players. In other words, they are are effectively prototypes or earliest versions of something later perfected; I am sure that exists with everything ever created and it’s early “stagedness” does not disqualify it from being what it later became

[GaryPassamonte]

The 1871 Pearce team cdvs were also a "set" and were available for sale.

As can be seen from this thread, opinions differ on what a basebal card is, but it is fun to rehash it again.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

How about CDVs were baseball cards before there were baseball “cards”. The Atlantics piece is a picture pasted on board (they had no better technology), it’s no larger than a modern day baseball card, and it clearly was intended to display players. In other words, they are are effectively prototypes or earliest versions of something later perfected; I am sure that exists with everything ever created and it’s early “stagedness” does not disqualify it from being what it later became

I think CdVs evolved into baseball cards but are not baseball cards themselves. Kind of like the evolution of apes to humans. I appreciate that there are different points of view and it is really immaterial since they are all in the broader class of collectibles.

[benjulmag]

My view on this question has evolved over time. I now regard the Jordan & Co. CdV of Harry Wright as the first baseball card. My reasoning is as follows.

The 1863 match featured 2 cricket games and 1 baseball game (between the NY Knickerbockers and the Brooklyn Excelsiors). Except for Harry Wright, every other player has only one known solo image. Harry Wright, in contrast, has two. In one of them he is shown holding a cricket bat with a ball on the floor. In the other, he is holding the ball and there is no bat, and he is also wearing a cap. This suggests to me that the purpose for the two images was to promote the two separate aspects of the Grand Match, cricket and baseball, with the ball-only image representing baseball.

As to the question why this should be regarded as a baseball card more than a ticket, the reason is that patrons could purchase entrance via a non-photographic ticket for half price (25 cents, versus 50 cents for the photographic pass). The fact someone was willing to pay twice the price to purchase the photographic ticket means that what the person was paying extra for was the baseball image, and it is for THAT reason that I regard it as a baseball card, which I define to be a "card-sized" baseball image available to the general public issued for commercial purposes.

In regard to the argument that because the Jordan & Co. CdV also serves a ticketing purpose, it should be regarded as "less" of a card than N167s, which does not have a dual purpose, I point out the following. The primary purpose of N167s was to sell cigarettes. When someone purchased a N167, that person's focus was more likely the cigarettes, the baseball card being the ancillary item to the tobacco product. In contrast, because admittance to the Grand Match games could be obtained more cheaply by purchasing a non-photographic ticket, in that instance the person was buying the baseball image. Accordingly, by that line of reasoning, one could reasonably regard it as more of baseball card than a N167.

[oldjudge]

A lot of assumptions but at the end of the day it’s a ticket. I’ll continue to believe that the first baseball card was issued in 1886 and I think, but an not positive, that the N167 series was the first issued that year.
Now why does it matter what you call the item? The Atlantics CdV or the Grand Match ticket are both great collectibles but to my way of thinking not baseball cards. Certainly, others can have different points of view.

[G1911]

I have a very hard time seeing how a photograph pasted to a small cardboard backing like a cigarette card is a baseball card, but if the cardboard backing is a bit larger like a CDV then it is not a baseball card.

I would say that whatever the first baseball CDV was would thus be the first baseball card. I don't know of one before the Atlantics CDV but that is very unlikely to be the true first one made. It's probably one that doesn't have a surviving copy today.

[Leon]

+1.

And, "Oldest" is relative to what the definition of a baseball card is, so it's subjective. LOL...I am sure I got that screwed up somehow but ya'll know what I mean (I hope).

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a very hard time seeing how a photograph pasted to a small cardboard backing like a cigarette card is a baseball card, but if the cardboard backing is a bit larger like a CDV then it is not a baseball card.

I would say that whatever the first baseball CDV was would thus be the first baseball card. I don't know of one before the Atlantics CDV but that is very unlikely to be the true first one made. It's probably one that doesn't have a surviving copy today.

[packs]

Baseball cards and photographs are two distinctly different things in my opinion. For something to be a photograph, it merely needs to be a photographic reproduction of somebody's image. For something to be a baseball card, it has to identify it's subject and be produced for the express purpose of advertising that baseball exists and this person is a baseball player.

The Atlantics CDV does not identify any of its players and I don't think it can be considered a baseball card. What does it have in common with traditional cards? I would say an image of a baseball player, but that is the same commonality that exists between any photo of a like subject. Photos of me in my Little League uniform are not baseball cards, for example.

The Atlantics CDV is more akin to a wallet photo you might give a friend or relative than a baseball card, in my opinion. I assume players aren’t identified because it wasn’t meant to be given to anyone not associated with someone in the photo.

I would consider the Peck Snyder trade card referenced as the first baseball card. Every player is identified and it was produced for the express purpose of advertising baseball's existence and that these are baseball players.