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

[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.

[oldjudge]

David-It is my understanding that additional copies of team CdVs and cabinets, even if they were originally made exclusively for players, were always available for purchase from the photographer. In fact, many later cabinets added a note to this effect on the back.

[drcy]

Though those notes are often found on the back of normal nobody family photos, I assume indicating the family could order more.

The little history printed history on the back of the 1860 Brooklyn CDV is interesting. Not like something you'd get on the back of a normal family CDV.

As someone who deals with non-sport photos, I can say that during the civil war era CDVs of popular subjects and famous people were commercially sold to and popularly collected by the public. Lots of people collected CDVs of Lincoln, Queen Victoria, Robert E. Lee, Broadway actors and actresses et al, and it is conceivable a CDV of a big baseball team or star player would be available as a collectible. Charles Dickens and other famous people sent CDVs of themselves to fans who wrote to them.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by drcy

Though those notes are often found on the back of normal nobody family photos, I assume indicating the family could order more.

The little history printed history on the back of the 1860 Brooklyn CDV is interesting. Not like something you'd get on the back of a normal family CDV.

As someone who deals with non-sport photos, I can say that during the civil war CDVs of popular subjects and famous people were commercially sold to and popularly collected by the public.

Note on back of Stevens cabinet of baseball player

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by drcy

during the civil war era CDVs of popular subjects and famous people were commercially sold to and popularly collected by the public. Lots of people collected CDVs of Lincoln, Queen Victoria, Robert E. Lee, Broadway actors and actresses et al, and it is conceivable a CDV of a big baseball team or star player would be available as a collectible. Charles Dickens and other famous people sent CDVs of themselves to fans who wrote to them.

Exactly as I saw it. the Fredricks 'Specialite' CDVs I fastened on as the first boxing cards were part of a line of cards made expressly for sale at the photographer's gallery of images. Many of the photographers of the day paid celebrities to sit for them so they could make cards to sell to the public, as Fredricks did.

The N167 was definitely one of the first, if not the first, product insert card. But I'd not limit the definition of 'card' in a way that requires insertion with a product because there were so many other forms of card, like the Peck & Snyder, that are either cards predating N167 or not cards at all.

It is an interesting conundrum. Way more interesting that the contract I'm avoiding working on by loitering here.

[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.