The Oldest Known Baseball Cards?

[M's_Fan]

The seller of these 1866 E.S. Sterry & Co. "Unions of Lansingburgh" cards makes that claim. They certainly are impressive, though the price seems more than a bit far-fetched.

But is this really the oldest known baseball card issue? They certainly pre-date the 1869 Cincinatti Team CDVs. Thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1866-E-S-Sterry-...item5d270a88c5

[Leon]

My opinion is that they are not the oldest known baseball cards. It's a great debate though. I think there is less of a debate as to what is the first professional (all players being paid) baseball card, even though it's a team card .....It seems as though there is always a bias in this debate and I will admit I own this card...so do have that bias, and that being said, I would like to hear challenges for debate on it...All in fun....

[rman444]

Leon - I don't think cardboard cut into the shape of a diamond counts as a card.

[Matthew H]

There are some earlier Peck & Snyder cards pictured in the Smithsonian book. Why do those not count?

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

There are some earlier Peck & Snyder cards pictured in the Smithsonian book. Why do those not count?

I think that Leon's point was that the 1869 Red Stockings are generally considered the first recognized all-professional team, hence the 1869 Peck and Snyder would be considered the first baseball card of the "professional" era. There were certainly paid players before this date, but I am not sure if there were any teams that admitted to fielding a paid team.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

There are some earlier Peck & Snyder cards pictured in the Smithsonian book. Why do those not count?

The player(s) were not all paid....

and of course Kevin said it better than I did.....yes, there were paid players but not all paid teams that were touted as professional and paid.

[E93]

To my mind, the first baseball card (not cdvs, photos, cabinets, trade cards, etc.) set was the N167 Old Judge set. Debates about what is a "card" are interesting and endless. I doubt there will ever be consensus.
JimB

[White Borders]

You might check out the posts towards the end of the following thread we did about a year and a half ago:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=111822

[benjulmag]

The seller is saying that these Cdvs he is selling are the earliest confirmed Cdvs of baseball subjects. That is untrue. There exists a Cdv of the Brooklyn Atlantics that has been confirmed to date to either 1860 or 1861.