What Do You Consider the First Baseball Card(s)?

[oldjudge]

As can be seen from this discussion, there is no clear cut definition of what constitutes a baseball card. Rather, each of us has his own, possibly self serving, definition. I believe that the 1859-1860 Atlantic's CdV is the first. It portrays the preeminent team of the time and is known in multiple copies. I also believe that all 1863 Grand Match tickets, not just the Harry Wright, are baseball cards. The exhibition included not just cricket but also baseball. Thus, Hammond and Crossley(other card subjects), as well as Harry Wright, were baseball players for that event. Also, Harry is wearing basically the same outfit in both his single card and the card with his dad. Personally, I prefer the card with Sam, but that is a matter of taste.
I thought this would be a great time to show a card that ties to the Grand Match. In 1859, a group of professional cricket players from England embarked on the first overseas cricket tour to Canada and the U.S. They played a series of matches, with the U.S. team featuring the same four players later featured in the 1863 Grand Match (Harry, Sam, Crossley and Hammond). The touring cricket players also played a baseball game in Philadelphia. The CdV below was sold at one of the matches. Since the cricket players did play baseball some might call this the first baseball card; I would not. However, it is an incredibly historic and important CdV.

[Leon]

Jay, great card. Tickets are tickets though.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jay- Can you ID the Wrights, Crossley, and Hammond for me?

[oldjudge]

Gary-Not sure I understand your question

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jay, great card. Tickets are tickets though.

If tickets are tickets, then are schedules schedules and not cards? That would impact a certain Babe Ruth schedule.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

If tickets are tickets, then are schedules schedules and not cards? That would impact a certain Babe Ruth schedule.

Those are cards the hobby has always accepted as cards. I would take the '14 Baltimore Ruth over any card in the hobby except the Just So Cy Young. I am sure each collector would pick their own fave if they could have any card they want.
My "pockets" have holes in them though and I doubt I will ever own those type marquis cards!!
And I still agree with you about the Boston Red Stocking Schedule Cards. It is a fun debate.

.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Leon

Those are cards the hobby has always accepted as cards. I would take the '14 Baltimore Ruth over any card in the hobby except the Just So Cy Young. I am sure each collector would pick their own fave if they could have any card they want.
My "pockets" have holes in them though and I doubt I will ever own those type marquis cards!!
And I still agree with you about the Boston Red Stocking Schedule Cards. It is a fun debate.

.

Continuing with this debate, I think it is germane to look at the principal purpose of the item. In the case of the Jordan & Co. tickets/cards, inasmuch as one could for half the price gain entry without the player image, IMO adding the image stresses the card component as much if not more than the ticket component. With the BN Ruth, my guess is that fans had ready access to the team schedule through other means. So for that one I think the principal attraction is the baseball image. So for each of those items I would characterize them more as being cards than tickets or schedules.

[bgar3]

Jay, to go with that great cricket team photo, I have attached the pages from Chadwick’s manual of cricket, 1872 with the “box score” of that match. Of note is the annotation by Harry Wright’s name, “birth English” despite playing on the Americans. Based upon other annotations and corrections in the book, I believe the note was made by Alfred Wright, a-baseball and cricket writer who was also the manager of Philadelphia’s first NL team in 1876, although there are some annotations in another hand. It would not load Alfred Wright’s signature page but I will try in the next post.

[bgar3]

Alfred Wright signature in Chadwick’s cricket book.