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.

The way CDVs were used in general is fairly close to the way some more modern cards were distributed. When I started years ago, those more modern cards weren't considered to be cards either, but often are now.

CDVs were typically bought by the subject to give away to friends and family as keepsakes and reminders of the subject. The number bought would depend on how well off you were, and how many people you figured on giving a photo to. As I understand it, famous people would sometimes get requests for a photo. I don't think a player would have treated CDVs any differently.

Some studios had permission to sell copies of CDVs of famous people to the general public. Others probably just copied what they could.


So they're almost a direct parallel to the cards created for players to send to fans, which come in a variety of types, from team issued, to stuff like the George Burke postcards and photo stamps, and ones the players had made for themselves.

I think that the 1871 ad refers to the JA Pierce team CDVs that feature composites of the players that are listed in the ad.

There are 7 teams listed on the 1871 ad - Boston, Chicago, Olympic, Athletic, Cleveland, Rockford and Kekionga. At least 5 of these teams are known to exist and the players featured in these CDVs match up perfectly with the players named in the 1871 ad.

That was my original thought when I first read the ad. But its reference to photos of named players made me think it was referring not to team images but instead to individual player images. Inasmuch as to my knowledge there are no known Peck & Snyder's of individual players (exempting Creighton, which technically was not a Peck & Snyder), likely the ad was referencing either the JA Pierce team CdVs or the Mort Rogers. Given the overlap of players with the Pierce's and the lack of known Mort Rogers from some of those teams, you very well might be correct in your assessment Kevin.

Here is the mammoth plate Peck & Snyder 1868 Brooklyn Atlantics at the NYPL. The condition as one can see is rough, but seeing it up close was amazing.

Corey-Was this image rephotographed to make the trade card photograph, or was that from a separate shot?

Great to see that Corey, thanks. Looking at how damaged that piece is may be a clue as to why no others have survived. Some issues don't hold up well.

Jay -- Here is the link to the NYPL website that shows the image (and allows enlargement for closer inspection): https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/...0-e00a18064a99

When comparing the image to the trade card image, they clearly appear to be the identical shot. As such, almost certainly the mammoth plate was reshot to create the trade card. To do the reverse would result in a noticeable degradation in the mammoth plate's resolution.

I am aware of no known CdVs of the 1870 Mutuals or White Stockings, which I find interesting. Other than mammoth plate size (none of which I know to have survived), they exist only in P & S trade card format. I wonder if P & S owned the negative and publication rights to these two images. The only 1970 P & S trade card known in conventional CdV format (i.e., having no advertising other than identification of the studio that took the image) is the 1870 Athletics. That image though is a composite, which is a significant distinction and consistent with this theory as one would expect a studio more than a sporting goods company to be the copyright owner of an image that requires shots of multiple individual players.

I will go plus one on this comment. :cool:

Most people have seen the Mutuals P&S, but here is the Chicago, albeit used as the trade card of another retailer.

Jay,

Here is the link to the REA description for that item: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...vered-example/

Do we know for certain that it is not a P & S trade card? The reference to the Chicago company was affixed after the card was produced, so that company likely did not create the card. The verso is heavily trimmed; as such it does not identify where it came from. Inasmuch as it was a sporting goods manufacturer, do you think it was P & S (with a new verso) or a company affiliated with P & S?

Below is the verso of the version with the conventional ad, again taken from an REA auction: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...&gid=1&pid=2by

Both contain the phrase "Base Ball Players' Supplies". Admittedly that is not a unique advertising phrase, but it does make one wonder if this other verso is not from P & S or an affiliate.

The fact that the image has not yet surfaced in conventional CdV format is unusual if the card once existed in that format.

Corey-If I had to guess, I would say it is an affiliated company.

BTW, can anyone figure out the rebus on the Chicago trade card? I would think the end is "large sales and strong profits is our motto"

I also see what looks like "our line will do well to see" but the sticker is blocking too much of it.

Jay, I think a couple of the phrases are “see the biggest and best” and “do well to see”. .

People see the biggest and best assortment of _______. Our line will do well. To see all _____.Large sales and strong profits are our motto.

First blank—-stock?

That cat chasing the mouse could be "catcher" or "catching".