1865 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV for sale

[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.