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

[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"

[oldjudge]

My definition involves an identifiable player. Corey's piece may depict baseball, but no one would say that Joe Smith is playing shortstop in the picture. As such, for me, it is not a baseball card.

[darwinbulldog]

Same for this D39 then? Not a baseball card?

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Same for this D39 then? Not a baseball card?

It would not be something I would collect unless it was part of a set that included identifiable players.

[packs]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

My definition involves an identifiable player. Corey's piece may depict baseball, but no one would say that Joe Smith is playing shortstop in the picture. As such, for me, it is not a baseball card.

Whoops, re-read your post and you would not call the cricket CDV a baseball card.

[benjulmag]

Not baseball cards?

[GaryPassamonte]

Nice piece, David. The Peck and Snyders do seem to be the first issue that were positively for sale to the public for a price, that didn't have an ancillary purpose which a ticket or scorecard would have.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by packs

Whoops, re-read your post and you would not call the cricket CDV a baseball card.

If you read my other posts you would see I say I do not consider it a baseball card.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by 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"

David - It seems as though my opinion is constantly changing, but I certainly like your explanation that baseball card needs to have been "intended to be commercially issued, as a collectible for the general public."

[barrysloate]

It's clear that over time the definition of what constitutes a baseball card has expanded. Perhaps a generation ago we would have said the first baseball card was an Old Judge, or an Allen & Ginter, or some other 19th century issue that could be found in cigarette packs.

Today we've added CdV's, cabinet cards, Peck & Snyder trade cards, Mort Rogers scorecards, Grand Match of Hoboken tickets, and an invitation to a baseball ball into the mix. It gets complicated and there is no real agreement about what really counts. Each issue has some characteristics of a traditional baseball card but lacks some of the others.

But whenever we have a debate about the first baseball card, or what is the real rookie card, I think one factor that comes into play is ownership. Many of us do a lot of research, and we put a great deal of time and money into our purchases. So it's natural that when we find something really early we make a case that we've found the holy grail. And I think that may cloud our objectivity somewhat. We take credit for a great find, but rarely give that same credit to somebody else. I think that is human nature, and as a result we may never have an agreement on what actually is the very first baseball card.

[oldjudge]

Barry, are you trying to explain Corey's claims? 😉

[barrysloate]

Jay- here is my point: yes, I spoke with Corey yesterday and said the same thing you did. The 1844 Magnolia card is a wonderful piece of baseball memorabilia, but the case that it is a baseball card is questionable.

So if you found the Magnolia instead of Corey, and paid a lot of money for it, is it possible it would then take on a greater significance? I maintain that ownership clouds our objectivity.