1865 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV for sale

[Peter_Spaeth]

The many discussions we have had about what is and is not a baseball card just show that the question is really not objectively answerable. To me the Brooklyn thing is not a card but if it is to someone else so be it.

[barrysloate]

There are several characteristics which constitute what we all agree is a baseball card:

1) It's a rectangular piece of cardboard that depicts a baseball player or several players.
2) It's typically distributed to advertise a product, such as tobacco, candy, or gum.
3) It's widely distributed to the greatest number of people possible.
4) If you collect the whole bunch of them you will be able to complete a set.

The Atlantics CdV certainly depicts baseball players, but it contains no advertising, was selectively distributed, and is not part of a set. So it does not have all of the traits we typically associate with a baseball card.

When I first started specializing in 19th century baseball memorabilia in the late 1980's, there wasn't a single collector who called a CdV a baseball card. But that definition has changed over time, and now most collectors consider it to be one.

What do I think was most responsible for that change? The slab. When the TPG started slabbing them, we started calling them baseball cards. It's just part of how the hobby has evolved.

[Kenny Cole]

Does it have to be rectangular? What about a series such as Colgans? Are they cards or not?

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Does it have to be rectangular? What about a series such as Colgans? Are they cards or not?

Colgan's Chips are interesting. They are quasi-cards. I would call them discs. In the end it probably doesn't matter. They're close enough.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There are several characteristics which constitute what we all agree is a baseball card:

1) It's a rectangular piece of cardboard that depicts a baseball player or several players.
2) It's typically distributed to advertise a product, such as tobacco, candy, or gum.
3) It's widely distributed to the greatest number of people possible.
4) If you collect the whole bunch of them you will be able to complete a set.

The Atlantics CdV certainly depicts baseball players, but it contains no advertising, was selectively distributed, and is not part of a set. So it does not have all of the traits we typically associate with a baseball card.

When I first started specializing in 19th century baseball memorabilia in the late 1980's, there wasn't a single collector who called a CdV a baseball card. But that definition has changed over time, and now most collectors consider it to be one.

What do I think was most responsible for that change? The slab. When the TPG started slabbing them, we started calling them baseball cards. It's just part of how the hobby has evolved.

I think one could reasonably argue that CdVs that contain the studio name on the verso (the overwhelming majority) advertise the studio, in much the same way that, say, a Topps card advertises Topps (and the product it produces -- baseball player images).

In regard to the requirement that the depiction be of a baseball player (or players), I would add the qualification that the depiction be in a baseball context. For example an image of Cap Anson taken on a tennis court in tennis attire and holding a tennis racquet would not qualify to me as a baseball card, no matter how it was distirbuted and no matter what it advertised.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I think one could reasonably argue that CdVs that contain the studio name on the verso (the overwhelming majority) advertise the studio, in much the same way that, say, a Topps card advertises Topps (and the product it produces -- baseball player images).

In regard to the requirement that the depiction be of a baseball player (or players), I would add the qualification that the depiction be in a baseball context. For example an image of Cap Anson taken on a tennis court in tennis attire and holding a tennis racquet would not qualify to me as a baseball card, no matter how it was distirbuted and no matter what it advertised.

Yes, a Topps card advertised Topps....but they sold bubble gum. That was their primary business. In later years the gum became less important.

[ullmandds]

I agree w/Barry in that the term "card" has become much more loosely assigned to things since slabbing. If we're going to call postcards, cabinet cards, discs, stamps, magazine cutouts cards...I would certainly consider a CDV with a studio's advertising...depicting a baseball team or player...a card...as back then...this is all there was?!

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Yes, a Topps card advertised Topps....but they sold bubble gum. That was their primary business. In later years the gum became less important.

Fair, but when bubble gum became ancillary to their primary business --baseball cards, or, better yet, were they to have discontinued the sale of bubble gum, did their player cards cease to be baseball cards?

My point is that I think the advertising requirement is satisfied if the product/service advertised is the commercial taking of photographs by the establishment distributing the "cards".

[barrysloate]

Yes, the inclusion of the photographer's imprint on a CdV is in fact a form of advertising, and as I said a CdV is loosely akin to a baseball card. It has some but not all of the characteristics. And it's okay to call it a baseball card, even though not every collector agrees it is.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There are several characteristics which constitute what we all agree is a baseball card:

1) It's a rectangular piece of cardboard that depicts a baseball player or several players.
2) It's typically distributed to advertise a product, such as tobacco, candy, or gum.
3) It's widely distributed to the greatest number of people possible.
4) If you collect the whole bunch of them you will be able to complete a set.

As kids we all would have agreed with the above (people my age, anyway), but I think you're assuming a lot, thinking we all are in agreement now.

For instance, I don't consider postcards to be 'baseball cards'. I also don't consider any mounted photograph to be a baseball card - in my opinion, they are mounted photographs. We even have more specific terms for them, such as 'cabinet photograph', or 'cart-de-visite'. Even if they advertise something;e.g-'Peck & Snyder', I don't consider them to be baseball cards. Perhaps it's the 'distribution' aspect you mention, or that such items aren't generally part of a 'set' (at least, a set of any meaningful size). But to me it doesn't matter - I collect both baseball cards and mounted photographs, and it doesn't matter to me what anyone else calls them.

[barrysloate]

Scott- I don't expect that everyone will agree with my definition of what constitutes a baseball card. We've had many debates on this topic, with varying opinions. The definition has widened over time for economic reasons too. A baseball card is worth more money than a mounted photograph. That's just a fact.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Scott- I don't expect that everyone will agree with my definition of what constitutes a baseball card. We've had many debates on this topic, with varying opinions. The definition has widened over time for economic reasons too. A baseball card is worth more money than a mounted photograph. That's just a fact.

Okay, I thought you were serious when you stated "we all agree", which sort of surprised me. Although, I do for the most part agree with your list of criteria.

[Peter_Spaeth]

When asked "what is art?" Picasso supposedly replied, "what is not?"

[bmarlowe1]

My understanding is that MLB does have a pretty strict definition of what a baseball card is and they are highly protective of their intellectual property with respect to this. If one tries to distribute what they consider a card depicting major leaguers (NL or AL) of any era in major league uniforms without a license they are not happy.

There was an unofficial SABR project to produce colorized cards of early players for distribution to members. Hundreds of different cards were produced (yes - they are a set) and they are amazingly good, glossy and all. In the end (at least so far) they could not be distributed.

Of course we can distribute images of players among the membership in many forms (newsletters, magazines, books, etc.) with no problem. Perhaps, instead of cards, we should try making a set of CDVs.

[triwak]

I agree that the photography studio advertising its own business interests on CDVs or cabinets, is advertising a "product." I also believe that postcards are also selling a product - a postage medium. To me, its more important that the "cards" were made available to the public, and therefore collected. As someone said above, very early (prior to 1886), CDVs and cabinets were all they had. And postcards have been collected for over a century. Plus, both are simply COOL AS HELL!! (Which is why I collect in the first place).