Discussion Topic & Your Opinions: What is the first baseball card

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I guess I would respond in two ways. First, I am not aware of any universally accepted definition of a baseball card. For me, it is a card picturing a baseball player, or players. Under that definition, the Atlantics CdV certainly fits. Second, we do not know how the Atlantics CdV was acquired. Perhaps it was sold by the photographer, or sold at the game. Perhaps it was given away as a premium if you used his services. Perhaps it was inserted into boxes of laundry detergent. Just kidding, but you get the idea. It is the earliest baseball photographic image that I know of on a card. Hence, for me it is the earliest baseball card.

As for your question about the Grand Match tickets, they are from 1863. However, they fit many definitions of baseball cards. In my mind, they are earlier baseball cards than any of the P&S cards, but still not the first. I use the plural since all of the Grand Match tickets were issued at the same time. Since all of the players on the tickets took part in the baseball game, they all have a right to be called early baseball cards.

+1... I have always felt that these grand match tickets should be considered baseball cards .

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

+1... I have always felt that these grand match tickets should be considered baseball cards .

They can be cards as anything else can. As Jay mentioned, there is no real definition of a baseball card. Tickets (Grand Match), Schedules (Red Stockings) and many other "pseudo-cards" are still cards to many. BTW, the 1860 card is a great baseball card.

[Exhibitman]

I'd say that the winner needs to be created to stand alone as a card rather than being the detritus of another use so I'd DQ the tickets and programs and the like. Great stuff to be sure but not really cards. I'd also DQ cdvs made on commission and for personal uses. It has to be something made for commerce. When I was trying to ID the 1st boxing card those were the two parameters I followed.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'd say that the winner needs to be created to stand alone as a card rather than being the detritus of another use so I'd DQ the tickets and programs and the like. Great stuff to be sure but not really cards. I'd also DQ cdvs made on commission and for personal uses. It has to be something made for commerce. When I was trying to ID the 1st boxing card those were the two parameters I followed.

This pretty much sums up how I define a "card" also. It needs to have been made for commercial distribution. But, at the same time, I can certainly understand other peoples' explanations as well.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I'd say that the winner needs to be created to stand alone as a card rather than being the detritus of another use so I'd DQ the tickets and programs and the like. Great stuff to be sure but not really cards. I'd also DQ cdvs made on commission and for personal uses. It has to be something made for commerce. When I was trying to ID the 1st boxing card those were the two parameters I followed.

Certainly a legitimate point of view. An equally legitimate definition is expressed in the rookie card listing which was published on this site. Under that definition, items such as woodcuts cut from newspapers are included. I think you can go one of two ways on this. If you take a strict definition of a card, i.e. what would an average person identify as a baseball card, your answer is an N167. If you expand your definition to mine, any baseball image on cardboard (BTW, I don't think newspaper cutouts are cards) you get the circa 1860 Atlantics CdV. As we enter 2016 I think we should all strive to be more inclusive in all facets of our lives. This is why I choose the CdV.😎

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

.......As we enter 2016 I think we should all strive to be more inclusive in all facets of our lives. This is why I choose the CdV.😎

And I would be biased too if I owned one of the two known . You should show it for us Jay. You know the guy sitting next to you at the auction won't be showing his.....

[GaryPassamonte]

As always, this subject creates an interesting debate. I'm on board with both Adam's/Kevin's and Jay's definition. However, if we take the any baseball image is a card definition, we need to include the handful of baseball images that were made before 1860. These would include tintypes, ambrotypes,and salt prints. This would also includes the Knickerbocker daguerreotype, if you consider it to actually depict members of that club.

[oldjudge]

Interesting point Gary. I think a "card" needs to be on cardboard. Maybe I am not that inclusive after all.

[drcy]

I define it as a card (a point of contention of counts a card) of baseball content/subject, available to the general (if local) public, almost always made for commerce/advertising but always intended/designed as a collectible for the public. Something being a physical card is not enough, including a CDV made just for the personal family photo album doesn't count. Something that resembles a card in all ways but was not available to the public is not enough. Something that resembles a trading card but was not intended to be collected doesn't count. Baseball card is short for baseball trading card, there's more to it than just being a physical card.

That's my definition and I don't intend to shove it down the readers' throats in the article.

If the c. 1865 Mathew Brady CDV was made for the personal use of the Wrights I would say it's not a baseball card. If it was sold through Brady's gallery then I would say it is a baseball card.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Certainly a legitimate point of view. An equally legitimate definition is expressed in the rookie card listing which was published on this site. Under that definition, items such as woodcuts cut from newspapers are included.

Hi Jay - If you are referring to Phil Garry's lists, I think that he created two distinctly different ones. One he labeled Rookie "Cards" and included everything that he felt constituted being a card - postcards, supplements, etc. His other list was for Rookie "Collectibles" which included more obscure items such as woodcuts, cut outs from magazines and books, photos, etc.

I know that many types of cards (postcards, CDVs, cabinets, tickets, schedules, etc.) fall into a gray are as to whether or not they are cards, but I do not think that many consider woodcuts and cut outs from magazines or books as actually being cards.