What's the first true baseball card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Don

I'll throw this out for discussion.

I say the T205 set. Cards prior to that were pictures of baseball players, not baseball cards per se. The innovative bio, stats, and facsimile signatures clearly set the T205's apart from all previous issues making them the first true baseball cards in my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As I say all of the time, you can't really disagree with someone's opinion. It's their opinion, right or wrong. That being said I think a case could be made to pick a card earlier than 1911 as the first baseball card. best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

A good 30% of this board is folks disagreeing with someone else's opinion. for something that can't be done, there's a helluva lot of it going on!!! So Leon, I just gotta disagree with your opinion on not being able to disagree with someone else's opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

There's always one in the crowd, huh?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

It's me, It's me!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

If real photographs don't count (which would knock out N172s as well as 1953 Bowmans), I still don't see how you can say N28s and N162s aren't cards. Not to mention N167s. The only thing they lack is stats on the back. If having stats on the back is part of the definition of being a card, then I guess T205s and T201s would probably be the first, though I may have overlooked something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Don

No rules as to what "counts". I was just throwing this out there for discussion.

I do think the T205's are innovative and either the first "true" baseball cards, or definately a new level in the evoloution of baseball cards.

In fact, I think that they are the only prewar cards with both stats and a bio. The bio became pretty much standard, but I don't think stats appeared again until Topps.

Either way, they're the first cards that have all the elements we expect to see on a baseball card. They even have shiney stuff of the edges.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

Red Stocking Cigars and Lorillards, both issued in 1886, have the team schedule on the verso. For the Lorillard's at least, being team cards, I'd say that's pretty relevant information.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The Texas Tommy series 1 cards, from 1914, also had a bio and some stats in that bio. For all practical purposes the 1869 Peck and Snyder, recently discussed, is generally accepted as the first "professional" baseball card. It is the first team, and year, all of the players on a team were paid. BTW, I had a long conversation with the recent winner of the Jay Leno Peck and Snyder, Jeff Rosenberg, (he called me a few nights ago) and he said his will probably be raffled off through his company. Ironically he got married at the same synogogue I got Bar Mitzvahed from in Houston (small world).

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Leon- for argument's sake, why does the first baseball card have to picture a professional team? There is a Peck and Snyder of the 1868 Atlantics, who were not only on a par with the Red Stockings but beat them in 1870 to end their winning streak.

We've always said a player's first card has to picture him with a major league team, but the Red Stockings and Atlantics both played in the same league (NAABP).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Read my description and what I said. I said "professional" vis a vis being paid. It's that simple. There are many good debates about the very first baseball card but not the first "paid professional" one. At least that is my thought at this point, otherwise of course you are correct. I have always considered the 1868 Atlantics one to be the very first card, but that is just my opinion. best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

1911 T201 Mecca Double Folders also had statistics, same era as T205

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

The first baseball card set IMHO is the N167. The Peck and Snyder is more of a trade card than a baseball card in my opinion. It is a great item, just different.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

My understanding is the H812 NY Baseball Club cards are also dated as 1886. I think there are several series that date to 1886, N167 being one of the truly great ones. best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- fair point about the Peck and Snyder being a trade card, but let me suggest the following. There are several characteristics that determine what a baseball card is, and one of them is collectability. If a card pictures a baseball player or team, is part of a set, and people actively collected them to complete that set, then it is fair to call them baseball cards.

Now some characteristics may not apply. An N167 was likely widely distributed, at least around NYC, in packages of Old Judge cigarettes. Peck and Snyders, however, had distribution so limited they could only be obtained at the store itself (or so we assume).

So in terms of distribution, Peck and Snyder falls short. But as an object that was actively collected, I don't see how it is different than an N167. But no question it is debatable.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

Jim,

That's a helluva nice 2. Are there problems with the back?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jerry

I'm of the notion, that any card that was made for the purpose of being a collectible and has a ballplayer or a team on the front is a Baseball card.
Therefore, I would consider studio cabinets made for a ballplayer to hand out to his fans a Baseball card.
JMHO

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken Wirt

I agree with you, Jerry. The 1863 Jordan & Co. CDV's/game tickets are my pick as the first cards. Although, wasn't the team CDV (don't remember the team) that also pictured Henry Chadwick, supposedly dated 1861? That's the earliest that I've ever heard, except for the 1859 Harper's woodcuts, which I don't consider cards because they were not intended to be cut out of the magazine. I know this is a highly opinionated subject!

[Archive]

Posted By: brian p

Many of the 1911 Obaks also have stats, and they all have really funky bio write-ups of the player's ability.

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Ken,



There's a CDV of the Brooklyn Atlantics that has been conclusively dated to be either 1860 or 1861.



The Chadwick CDV you refer to is believed to be c. 1864.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

The cool thing about the 1911 Obak bios is that many of them read like the author first learned English during his coffee break that morning.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken Wirt

Thanks, Corey. Yeah, I now remember about the Chadwick being dated 1864. I think someone had written 1861 on the back, but that proved to be incorrect.

Also, just wanna add that the 1889 Goodwin & Co. Baseball Album circular cards (A35) have some limited player stats on the backs. That's the earliest stats that I've seen.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Corey,
Thanks. Here is a scan of the back.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRSh.anus

Thx Jim,

As I said, a helluva nice 2!!

[Archive]

Posted By: David Goff

I know there has not been a post to this thread in a few days, but I came across this site on www.digg.com tonight. Sorry but I believe you have to copy/paste the link to the url per "What Happened to the Hyerlinks" thread...

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bbhtml/bbcardsSets1.html