David - It seems as though my opinion is constantly changing, but I certainly like your explanation that baseball card needs to have been "intended to be commercially issued, as a collectible for the general public."

It's clear that over time the definition of what constitutes a baseball card has expanded. Perhaps a generation ago we would have said the first baseball card was an Old Judge, or an Allen & Ginter, or some other 19th century issue that could be found in cigarette packs.

Today we've added CdV's, cabinet cards, Peck & Snyder trade cards, Mort Rogers scorecards, Grand Match of Hoboken tickets, and an invitation to a baseball ball into the mix. It gets complicated and there is no real agreement about what really counts. Each issue has some characteristics of a traditional baseball card but lacks some of the others.

But whenever we have a debate about the first baseball card, or what is the real rookie card, I think one factor that comes into play is ownership. Many of us do a lot of research, and we put a great deal of time and money into our purchases. So it's natural that when we find something really early we make a case that we've found the holy grail. And I think that may cloud our objectivity somewhat. We take credit for a great find, but rarely give that same credit to somebody else. I think that is human nature, and as a result we may never have an agreement on what actually is the very first baseball card.

Barry, are you trying to explain Corey's claims? 😉

Jay- here is my point: yes, I spoke with Corey yesterday and said the same thing you did. The 1844 Magnolia card is a wonderful piece of baseball memorabilia, but the case that it is a baseball card is questionable.

So if you found the Magnolia instead of Corey, and paid a lot of money for it, is it possible it would then take on a greater significance? I maintain that ownership clouds our objectivity.

I think bgar3 (quoted above) summarizes it best. For me, being more a memorabilia collector than a card collector, the value of the Magnolia card has nothing to do with whether the hobby characterizes it as a card. I value it because it is a depiction of pre-Knickerbocker baseball, as well as support for the notion that the Knickerbockers original rules were more a formal codification of a game that was already being played than the creation of something entirely new.

Jay, BTW, whether you own something or not has no bearing on your assessment of the item, correct? ;)

I agree with the first part. As to the second, I would never (almost never (sometimes)) let ownership affect my opinion,

LOL. Well said!:)

I love this discussion, a busy schedule has prevented me from weighing in earlier. In the vein of being biased towards something I own, I'd like to propose an option that meets the definition many are proposing and predates N167 and the many tobacco sets that would follow. Let's just say I'm proposing an early set for honorable mention.

In the spring of 1886 Tomlinson Studio would issue cards of the Detroit baseball club. These cabinets were offered for public sale starting April 28th, 1886 (Detroit Free Press announced that they could be purchased at Tomlinson Studio). The cabinets featured personalized mounts that included the players name and position. Every player was available in portrait and action pose (most players have more than one action pose). Later Tomlinson cabinets (1887 & 1888), team cabinets in particular, were offered for sale nation wide.

Here is a sample of a few 1886 cabinets I had recently posted to another thread (three players that would remain good friends in retirement - Lady Baldwin, Sam Thompson, and Charlie Bennett).

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=26028

Joe - I love the Tomlinson cabinets and, IMHO, they fit the description of being a baseball card. That being said, I would lean towards some of the cards that Peck and Snyder advertised in 1869, 1870 and 1871 respectively as they were obviously issued earlier - unless you feel that team cards shold be excluded from being considered. Here are ads from 1869, 1870 and 1871 respectively:

Kevin,

That 1871 ad is amazing! I don't recall seeing it before. I also don't recall seeing any of the cards of the individual players it lists. If anybody has one or has seen one, I would love to see an image of its front and verso.

The large size photographs advertised have always intrigued me. The only one I have seen (at the NYPL) is the one of the Atlantics. The condition leaves something to be desired, but it is still breathtaking to see.

If only I had a time machine...….

I just sent a dollar to Peck and Snyder and ordered the whole set. Hope they haven't run out of any of the teams.

I was aware that they also offered a large 12 x 16 imperial sized photo of each image, but to date I haven't heard of or seen a single survivor. Does anybody know if even one of these large images is still around?

I missed that Corey claims to have seen the Atlantics at the NYPL. I've seen that collection a dozen times and have no memory of it. Corey, did we ever look at it together?

The last ad also describes the "Nines of 1870", including the Atlantics and Red Stocking Clubs. I presume they were still using the known P&S poses and not images of the 1870 teams?

There is also no mention of the Jim Creighton, which I believe was not issued by P & S. It was likely a memorial card, and not distributed while he was alive. That would be too early for it.

For me it is N167 Old Judge. it meats my personal criteria for a baseball card
1- It was included in a product ( Unlike many of the other issues discussed you purchased old judge tobacco and got whatever card was in your pack. To me that is very differant from being able to choose what card you wanted)
2- it had wide distribution. Again unlike many of the other issues these were packaged and sent out to the public. Again differant from a person going to a particular place or person to pick out what picture they wanted.

So for me this first old Judge issue and those that followed are the first baseball "cards" All of the other issues to me are premiums All significant and collectable. just not cards.

Barry,

I saw it only last month when I visited the Spalding collection. I was surprised too, as I didn't recall it being in the collection.

I agree with this. Unless it was included with a product and distributed nationally, I would not consider the item to be the first baseball card.

That's really interesting. I guess that's the most likely place to find a piece like that.

Looks like most on here are trying to promote their own items as being first card.
Seems to be more subjective than objective. I don't know what is the first card.

I wonder what percentage of the baseball cards we post here would lose their status as baseball cards if we adopted the requirement of national distribution? I'm not really a T206 guy. Would this one still be a baseball card?

That's one heckuva nice looking 2!:eek:

Again, we are talking about the FIRST baseball cards, not everything that came after the first card. In order to be considered the FIRST card or card set, I would say it had to be distributed nationally and not locally. Also your card would not lose it's status as it is part of a set that was distributed nationally.

Thank you. I sold it to Scott L. last month on the BST for well above the usual SGC 2 price.

Corey-I believe the 1871 ad refers to Mort Rogers scorecards which could have been distributed by P&S.

But isn't it just by happenstance of Burdick's taxonomy that OM/SL and PB and Uzit and Piedmont are considered the same set?

And just to make sure I'm not representing your position incorrectly, you would say that regionally distributed baseball cards exist but, by definition, none of them can be considered the first baseball card? So, for example, D310s are in fact baseball cards, but if no other baseball cards had existed prior to 1912, D310s would not be, according to your rule, baseball cards? Or is it just that they would be baseball cards and they would be older than all other baseball cards but that you still wouldn't consider them the first baseball cards?

You are most definitely twisting what I said and trying to apply simple logic for a first to things that came later. All T206's share the same basic design, so even if the designation T206 didn't exist, they are easily identifiable as being from the same overall set.

Regional issues are branches of the same basic card structure: included with a product and distributed to the public as advertisement pieces.

Now I ask you a question: in the realm of the first card and the idea that there must be one universal definition of a card to talk about cards at all, what relationship does a CDV or a cabinet card have with the modern baseball card? If you consider a CDV to be a baseball card, does that make a T206 not a card? Does that make the modern card not a card?

I'll answer your questions if you answer mine. I promise.

I already answered yours. D310's came well after the OJ set, which is what I would consider the "first cards". So by the time they were released, a card had a standard definition and it's not really worth talking about them because they aren't in the contention of being considered the first.

Makes sense, though I have yet to see Mort Rogers of some of the teams described.

I may have missed your answer then. Sorry about that. My question was whether you would consider D310s the first baseball cards if no other baseball cards existed prior to 1912.

Yes, because there would have been no such thing as a baseball card. That's like saying would I consider a computer from 2019 the first version of any computer ever so long as none existed before it.

Let me rephrase your question in a better way: in a time when only CDV's, cabinet cards, scorecards, and stereoviews exist, and the D310 set came out as the first series of baseball cards to feature players in a designated set and be included with a product for promotional sale and offered to the public as a means of advertising said product, I would consider that to be the iteration of the modern card.

Very good then. We're in agreement. Why then should it only be in the hypothetical/counterfactual example that a card that was not nationally issued would be considered the first baseball card but not so in reality?

And to answer your questions:

"In the realm of the first card and the idea that there must be one universal definition of a card to talk about cards at all, what relationship does a CDV or a cabinet card have with the modern baseball card?"

Mainly that it meets some but not all of the criteria that make up the usual checklist for classifying something as a baseball card.

"If you consider a CDV to be a baseball card, does that make a T206 not a card?"

No.

"Does that make the modern card not a card?"

No.

I think basically we agree on everything except the utility of the regional vs. national distribution concept for designating something as either a baseball card or the first baseball card. To me it makes about as much sense as saying the card has to have the color green on it to be considered a baseball card as to say that it had to have been distributed nationally.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. I interpreted the question as being "what was the first iteration of the modern baseball card" and that to me means distribution. You don't have to buy Topps at one bakery in Buffalo, just like you didn't have to buy your OJ cigarettes at one store in any one city. If the word national bothers you, then look beyond the semantics of the word and see the words widely distributed.

Fair enough. We can just disagree on that.

I would still consider N172s baseball cards if they had all been shelved by Goodwin back in 1887 and entered the hobby only as a find of old uncirculated cards that walked in the door at the National last year. So forget widely distributed. I don't require any distribution.

Agreed, what does distribution (and intent for that matter) have to do with anything? If I print a bunch of 2.5" x 3.5" pieces of cardboard depicting mlb players on front and their stats/bios on back and keep them for myself are those not baseball cards? What are they then? They may be unlicensed and worthless, but they are still baseball cards.

I think we like to overthink this topic.

Jmho but I strongly disagree with the premise that distribution is not a requirement for a baseball card. it is in my opinion a key requirement. A person or person that cut up some baseball pictures of their favorite team created at best a proof set. And Although I might add said proof cards to my collection They would not not meet the criteria for a baseball card.
I did not make up the terms premium and proof early card collectors clearly had this discussion many times over decades. Burdick's catalog and other early sources developed these terms to help frame their and future discussions.
I would say that close to 100% of board members either opened a pack or a box that was distributed to a retail store and found their first baseball card. Goudey, Bowman, Topps Fleer, Dan Dee,Glendale Butter cream etc. Baseball cards.. For me at least opening that box or pack and the joy I got was a key part of getting hooked.
I understand their is a lot to be gained by having an item or items generally accepted as the first baseball card. And I have no skin in that game.

If that is true, then why do you collect cards that were issued and distributed rather than home made cards?

What does it matter what I collect? My argument is not about desirability, just that they are in fact baseball cards. You show my homemade cards to 1000 random people and ask what they are, what % will say baseball cards?

You collect what you collect for a reason, so if distribution means nothing in terms of what is or isn't a card, why don't you collect cards that weren't distributed? It's the same question you'd ask someone who insists having an identical painting of an original master is the same thing as having the original painting.

It's still a painting though!

But is it art?

And is it pornography?

Now that's debatable, but no one would question whether or not it's a painting.

My argument is only that my homemade baseball cards are still baseball cards, and not whether or not they are collectable or desirable.

Well, in that case my argument would be that your homemade card would not be a baseball card unless a baseball card already existed; because unless baseball cards already existed, no one would look at what you made and call it a baseball card.

Yes, but 1860's pornography.

I don't think Jeff's saying that they're baseball cards because people would call them that; he's saying that people would call them that because they're baseball cards.

Likewise if I showed you a boat and you'd never seen or heard of a boat before you wouldn't call it a boat. But guess what?

You win.

No. It's more like if you threw a log into a lake and because it floated you called it a boat.

But if a bear shits in a lake and it floats, but no one sees it, is it still a boat?

Maybe instead of the First Baseball Card, we could list the first card of each catagory. For example: first BB Postcard, first BB tobacco card, first BB trade card, first BB Cabinet, first BB CDV, first BB Candy/Gum card etc.

I think the 1888 G & B Chewing Gum Set (E223) was the first BB Candy/Gum Card Set of Cards. Is this correct ? If so, let's list some others. I think the first BB Postcard was in 1900 or 1901.