Oldest commercially produced baseball card?

[barrysloate]

Kevin- that's a fascinating ad and the first time I've seen it. I'd like to match those lineups with the year of the team. Boston wasn't formed until 1871 so I assume the other lineups are for their respective 1871 teams.

Of course, as was pointed out, it's not clear re: the 1868 Atlantics and 1869 Red Stockings whether they were still being printed, or if they were merely being offered as leftovers that never sold. My guess is the latter. Since they were in the process of distributing the current teams, they probably were done printing the old ones. Great document that needs some more attention.

[Rich Klein]

How about the 1868 Atlantics? That even pre-dates 1869

[barrysloate]

I want to also add that I'm pretty sure Peck & Snyder produced mammoth plate photographs of some of the key teams, such as the 1869 Red Stockings, but it doesn't appear any of them survived.

[GaryPassamonte]

Kevin's ad mentions "separate" players? Could there have been individual cdvs or trade cards? Interesting that there is no mention of Creighton?

[barrysloate]

I noticed that too Gary, and I'm picturing those composite CdV's that REA had several years back. But I'm not sure.

And I don't believe that Peck & Snyder issued the Jim Creighton. Corey would need to answer, but as I recall there is no store advertising on the reverse.

[1880nonsports]

Part of the problem in analyzing what would constitute a card for this discussion would be which of the following are viable candidates to be considered cards:

distributed contemporaneously alongside product
distributed in a product
available as a premium for buying a product
used in an exchange such as a ticket or currency
sold as novelty or memento

As I collect "insert" cards and the discussion is baseball - I think the N167 OJ's best fit the bill. There are depictions of base ball on the pages of books followed chronologically by steel engravings and CDV's, tintypes, the trade cards, and finally the tobacco/gum inserts. I prefer to keep each distinct. Should we also be discussing the manufacturer's motivation to define a card? Does an items size, construction, or production edify our definition?

[barrysloate]

Henry- a thought about the N167: They depict only NY Giants, Goodwin and Co. was based in New York, they clearly were issued in a very small quantity compared to the N172....so is it possible they were only available in the New York metropolitan area and virtually unknown anywhere else? If that is the case, then it cannot be considered the first nationally distributed set. That honor would go to N172.

I do consider N167 to be a very early baseball card set, but perhaps a regional one, and not unlike the Peck and Snyder issue.

[1880nonsports]

but I zeroed in on commercially produced in OP and kind of lost track of where the thread had morphed. I'm not really a base ball guy too much anymore - and my OJ book not at hand. What is the earliest attributed date for a card of a base ball player from the N172 set? Did the first series of cards pre-date the N173 cabinets initial production?

[E93]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Henry- a thought about the N167: They depict only NY Giants, Goodwin and Co. was based in New York, they clearly were issued in a very small quantity compared to the N172....so is it possible they were only available in the New York metropolitan area and virtually unknown anywhere else? If that is the case, then it cannot be considered the first nationally distributed set. That honor would go to N172..

Yes, but it can be considered the first baseball card set. And New York was really the center of baseball back then too.
JimB