What Do You Consider the First Baseball Card(s)?
 

I’ve seen various claims of what represents the first baseball card, including:

1860 CDV Brooklyn Atlantics
1863 Jordan & Co. – set of 6 (known)
1865 CDV Dave Birdsall “The Old Man”
1865 Peck And Snyder Trade Card - James Creighton
1866 CDV Unions of Lansingburgh – set of 6
1869 Peck & Snyder Cincinnati Red Stockings
1871-72 Mort Rogers Photographic Cards – set of 48(?)
1872 Warren Studios Boston Red Stockings – set of 8(?)
1886 N167 Old Judge New York Giants – set of 12

There are others I’m sure I missed. It’s obviously subjective as it depends on what is considered a baseball card. The Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards lists the 1863 Jordan & Co. as the first cards, but I’m interested as to what member of this board think and why.

I'm fine with calling baseball CDVs baseball cards, so I'll go with the one really pre-war (or perhaps I should say antebellum) baseball card.

I think the Atlantic’s CdV is the first card and the Grand Match tickets are the first set.

I love T206s, but 1933 Goudeys were always what I considered (as the first) talking to a lot of other people in the hobby. When you are kid growing up, you buy a pack of cards with bubble gum. I always thought that's where Goudey first came to mind...Tobacco cards just didn't feel the same as bubble gum cards.....

For me it is still the 1868/69 Peck and Snyders.

My selection
 

1844 Ticket to the Magnolia Base Ball Club ball. It meets my technical definition of a baseball card -- (I) public distribution, (II) commercial purpose, (III) baseball image (in this case a base ball game being played at Elysian Fields).

Here is how an ad in a local newspaper from 1844 reads in advertising the ball.

THE FIRST ANNUAL BALL of the New York Magnolia Ball Club will take place at National Hall, Canal st. on Friday evening, Feb. 9th, inst. The Club pledge themselves that no expense or exertions shall be spared to render this (their first) Ball worthy the patronage of their friends. The Ball Room will be splendidly decorated with the insignia of the Club. Brown’s celebrated Band is engaged for the occasion. Tickets $1, to be had of the undersigned, and at the bar of National Hall.
JOSEPH CARLISLE, Chairman.
PETER H. GRAHAM, Secretary

1990 Fleer - Jose Uribe...right?

Corey-That's a great piece, but that wouldn't fit my definition. For me, a baseball cards has to have one or several identifiable players. I would consider your piece baseball related, but not a baseball card.

I feel like a noob for asking, but I’ve always wondered what does CDV stand for?

It presumably depicts the Magnolia base ball team. The player resemblances can't be any worse than Buchner Gold Coins. Last I heard those were considered baseball cards. :D

LOL, Buchner made me realize how much alike many players looked. It’s a pity that Buchner didn’t do a better job on baseball. They did a great job on the Police and Fire Chiefs set.

Dan-CdV stands for Carte de Visite. This was the main type of photographic card before being supplanted by cabinet cards.

Thank you sir!

Well, these 1871 Troy Haymakers cards aren't old enough to be the first BB cards; but, they sure are rare.
Ten such cards were issued in 1871 - 1872 portraying players on this National Association team.


William "Clipper" Flynn (1871 - 1872)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...ipperflynn.jpg




Tom York (1871 - 1885)
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...makersyork.jpg




TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted, those are pretty amazing. Are they yours?

Not any more, Mike.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Very nice; similar in format and year to the Mort Rogers Cards.

Out of curiosity, why are the 1869 Peck & Snyders so often considered the first as opposed to some of those from earlier years?

The 1866 CDV Unions of Lansingburgh cards, for example, look very much like cards to me. What is it that disqualifies them?

Speaking only for myself, the question of how they were distributed and for what purpose. If a member of say, the Brooklyn Atlantics, walked into a photography studio in 1860 dressed in his baseball garb and had a CdV made of him, that in and of itself would not make it a baseball card UNLESS for some commercial purpose the public was made known of its existence and offered an opportunity to acquire one.

I do not think it is known how and whether studios made their baseball CdVs available to the public. Maybe only the player(s) depicted had the opportunity to acquire one. So for that reason some people do not regard them as baseball cards.

I will add calling something a baseball card does not preclude also calling it something else. The Jordan & Co. cards are a good example. They were used to gain entry to a three-game cricket/baseball match. For half the price the public could buy a ticket without the player image on it. So for those tickets that included a player photo, they also are "sports cards". To go further, inasmuch as the games played included cricket, in addition to baseball, the only Jordan & co. ticket I regard as a true baseball card is the solo image of Harry Wright. There is one where he is depicted with his father, who was a known cricket player and who is holding a cricket bat. That image would seem to stress the cricket component of the matches, as too are the ones of other players who seem depicted more in cricket than baseball attire. In contrast, the solo one of Harry Wright, who was regarded at the time as a prominent baseball player and who is neither attired nor holding any equipment clearly indicative of cricket, stresses baseball much more than the other known images, and for that reason I regard that ticket as a more clear cut representation of a baseball card.

As can be seen from this discussion, there is no clear cut definition of what constitutes a baseball card. Rather, each of us has his own, possibly self serving, definition. I believe that the 1859-1860 Atlantic's CdV is the first. It portrays the preeminent team of the time and is known in multiple copies. I also believe that all 1863 Grand Match tickets, not just the Harry Wright, are baseball cards. The exhibition included not just cricket but also baseball. Thus, Hammond and Crossley(other card subjects), as well as Harry Wright, were baseball players for that event. Also, Harry is wearing basically the same outfit in both his single card and the card with his dad. Personally, I prefer the card with Sam, but that is a matter of taste.
I thought this would be a great time to show a card that ties to the Grand Match. In 1859, a group of professional cricket players from England embarked on the first overseas cricket tour to Canada and the U.S. They played a series of matches, with the U.S. team featuring the same four players later featured in the 1863 Grand Match (Harry, Sam, Crossley and Hammond). The touring cricket players also played a baseball game in Philadelphia. The CdV below was sold at one of the matches. Since the cricket players did play baseball some might call this the first baseball card; I would not. However, it is an incredibly historic and important CdV.

Jay, great card. Tickets are tickets though.

Jay- Can you ID the Wrights, Crossley, and Hammond for me?

Gary-Not sure I understand your question

If tickets are tickets, then are schedules schedules and not cards? That would impact a certain Babe Ruth schedule.

Those are cards the hobby has always accepted as cards. I would take the '14 Baltimore Ruth over any card in the hobby except the Just So Cy Young. I am sure each collector would pick their own fave if they could have any card they want.
My "pockets" have holes in them though and I doubt I will ever own those type marquis cards!!
And I still agree with you about the Boston Red Stocking Schedule Cards. :) It is a fun debate.

.

Jay, to go with that great cricket team photo, I have attached the pages from Chadwick’s manual of cricket, 1872 with the “box score” of that match. Of note is the annotation by Harry Wright’s name, “birth English” despite playing on the Americans. Based upon other annotations and corrections in the book, I believe the note was made by Alfred Wright, a-baseball and cricket writer who was also the manager of Philadelphia’s first NL team in 1876, although there are some annotations in another hand. It would not load Alfred Wright’s signature page but I will try in the next post.

Alfred Wright signature in Chadwick’s cricket book.

Continuing with this debate, I think it is germane to look at the principal purpose of the item. In the case of the Jordan & Co. tickets/cards, inasmuch as one could for half the price gain entry without the player image, IMO adding the image stresses the card component as much if not more than the ticket component. With the BN Ruth, my guess is that fans had ready access to the team schedule through other means. So for that one I think the principal attraction is the baseball image. So for each of those items I would characterize them more as being cards than tickets or schedules.

I think it is interesting that no one has mentioned whether or not one of the considerations should be whether or not the player or team was professional. I think that would be a significant consideration since the modern value associated with something being a baseball card is based upon professional players and teams.
I personally don’t care whether or not something is a baseball card, I care more about the historical significance of the subject or image. In that regard, it would be hard to beat Corey’s item from the 1840’s, but I would take any of the items put forth.

Sorry, Jay. Are the Wrights, Crossley, or Hammond pictured in the cdv or does it show just the English contingent?

I think for a card to be considered a "card" it must be part of a set with a predetermined checklist and issued to the public as a premium to go along with a product. For that reason I think CDV's are out, unless accompanied by an advertisement other than a photographer.

So by your definition no postcard, exhibit, or Topps card after they stopped including gum is a card.

Q.e.d.

First BB Card ? and it's listed as "English Cricketers". Looks like a Cricket card, not a baseball card.

I agree, but since they played baseball while here I have heard it called a baseball card.

I am talking about the time period we are discussing, when the first cards were issued; popularly included as premiums in products like tobacco and candy. Topps did not yet exist. Gum was around.

Seems like the definition of a card should consistent across all time periods. I’m not saying your definition is wrong. There is no right or wrong answer. My definition is different, but that doesn’t mean it is better or worse than yours.

Aren't we discussing what is and what isn't a card because there is no universal definition, particularly during the advent of the "baseball card"? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

There are preheliocentric models of planetary motion that fit with the observed data perfectly well, but they require a bunch of qualifiers and exceptions. But if you just say, "Wait, what if the sun is in the middle, and the rest of us are just orbiting it?" then you suddenly have a very simple model that elegantly predicts where/when everything should appear in our sky.

Likewise, if you start making exceptions and qualifiers to your definition of what a baseball card is, it just looks like picking and choosing what one feels like calling a baseball card and then scrambling after the fact to figure out what definition could fit the data. All of which is to say he's right. The definition needs to be independent of what year the card was produced.

If that is your perspective, what relationship is shared between a locally produced studio CDV and a T206 that was inserted into a pack of cigarettes and distributed nationally? Is it the depiction of a player? If that is the case, then I would say the ticket from 1844 must be considered a card, though there is no contemporary example that shares anything in common.

Fair question, and I guess if we're in agreement that the game depicted in the card is in fact baseball, then I would consider that a baseball card. So then we just have to settle on a definition of baseball. That's harder, and rather more like defining which of our billions of ancestors should be considered the first human. Certainly there were games that shared some features with modern baseball hundreds of years ago, but we'll have to settle on the necessary features to decide if the Magnolia Club of 1844 was in fact playing baseball and not some ancestral species of ball game. Is it baseball if you don't use a 4 ball/3 strike count, if the pitching is underhanded, if the bases are not to be stepped and stood upon by the players? And how different can the size or material of the baseball itself be before it is not actually a baseball? And can a sport played with some ball other than a baseball still be considered baseball? For me the biggest sticking point is probably the use of posts instead of bags as bases.

There appear to be bases under the posts. If that is the case, the purpose of the posts likely is not be the bases but instead to insure that the bases stay in place.

SABR Baseball Card Committee piece that addresses the question of what is the first baseball card: "Are CDVs and Cabinet Cards Baseball Cards? Yes, No and Maybe"

My definition involves an identifiable player. Corey's piece may depict baseball, but no one would say that Joe Smith is playing shortstop in the picture. As such, for me, it is not a baseball card.

Same for this D39 then? Not a baseball card?

Whoops, re-read your post and you would not call the cricket CDV a baseball card.

1970 Fleer World Series set
 

Not baseball cards?

Nice piece, David. The Peck and Snyders do seem to be the first issue that were positively for sale to the public for a price, that didn't have an ancillary purpose which a ticket or scorecard would have.

If you read my other posts you would see I say I do not consider it a baseball card.

It would not be something I would collect unless it was part of a set that included identifiable players.

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.