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

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by packs

I am talking about the time period we are discussing, when the first cards were issued; popularly included as premiums in products like tobacco and candy. Topps did not yet exist. Gum was around.

Seems like the definition of a card should consistent across all time periods. I’m not saying your definition is wrong. There is no right or wrong answer. My definition is different, but that doesn’t mean it is better or worse than yours.

[packs]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Seems like the definition of a card should consistent across all time periods. I’m not saying your definition is wrong. There is no right or wrong answer. My definition is different, but that doesn’t mean it is better or worse than yours.

Aren't we discussing what is and what isn't a card because there is no universal definition, particularly during the advent of the "baseball card"? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[darwinbulldog]

There are preheliocentric models of planetary motion that fit with the observed data perfectly well, but they require a bunch of qualifiers and exceptions. But if you just say, "Wait, what if the sun is in the middle, and the rest of us are just orbiting it?" then you suddenly have a very simple model that elegantly predicts where/when everything should appear in our sky.

Likewise, if you start making exceptions and qualifiers to your definition of what a baseball card is, it just looks like picking and choosing what one feels like calling a baseball card and then scrambling after the fact to figure out what definition could fit the data. All of which is to say he's right. The definition needs to be independent of what year the card was produced.

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

There are preheliocentric models of planetary motion that fit with the observed data perfectly well, but they require a bunch of qualifiers and exceptions. But if you just say, "Wait, what if the sun is in the middle, and the rest of us are just orbiting it?" then you suddenly have a very simple model that elegantly predicts where/when everything should appear in our sky.

Likewise, if you start making exceptions and qualifiers to your definition of what a baseball card is, it just looks like picking and choosing what one feels like calling a baseball card and then scrambling after the fact to figure out what definition could fit the data. All of which is to say he's right. The definition needs to be independent of what year the card was produced.

If that is your perspective, what relationship is shared between a locally produced studio CDV and a T206 that was inserted into a pack of cigarettes and distributed nationally? Is it the depiction of a player? If that is the case, then I would say the ticket from 1844 must be considered a card, though there is no contemporary example that shares anything in common.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

If that is your perspective, what relationship is shared between a locally produced studio CDV and a T206 that was inserted into a pack of cigarettes and distributed nationally? Is it the depiction of a player? If that is the case, then I would say the ticket from 1844 must be considered a card, though there is no contemporary example that shares anything in common.

Fair question, and I guess if we're in agreement that the game depicted in the card is in fact baseball, then I would consider that a baseball card. So then we just have to settle on a definition of baseball. That's harder, and rather more like defining which of our billions of ancestors should be considered the first human. Certainly there were games that shared some features with modern baseball hundreds of years ago, but we'll have to settle on the necessary features to decide if the Magnolia Club of 1844 was in fact playing baseball and not some ancestral species of ball game. Is it baseball if you don't use a 4 ball/3 strike count, if the pitching is underhanded, if the bases are not to be stepped and stood upon by the players? And how different can the size or material of the baseball itself be before it is not actually a baseball? And can a sport played with some ball other than a baseball still be considered baseball? For me the biggest sticking point is probably the use of posts instead of bags as bases.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Fair question, and I guess if we're in agreement that the game depicted in the card is in fact baseball, then I would consider that a baseball card. So then we just have to settle on a definition of baseball. That's harder, and rather more like defining which of our billions of ancestors should be considered the first human. Certainly there were games that shared some features with modern baseball hundreds of years ago, but we'll have to settle on the necessary features to decide if the Magnolia Club of 1844 was in fact playing baseball and not some ancestral species of ball game. Is it baseball if you don't use a 4 ball/3 strike count, if the pitching is underhanded, if the bases are not to be stepped and stood upon by the players? And how different can the size or material of the baseball itself be before it is not actually a baseball? And can a sport played with some ball other than a baseball still be considered baseball? For me the biggest sticking point is probably the use of posts instead of bags as bases.

There appear to be bases under the posts. If that is the case, the purpose of the posts likely is not be the bases but instead to insure that the bases stay in place.

[drcy]

SABR Baseball Card Committee piece that addresses the question of what is the first baseball card: "Are CDVs and Cabinet Cards Baseball Cards? Yes, No and Maybe"