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

[barrysloate]

There is also no mention of the Jim Creighton, which I believe was not issued by P & S. It was likely a memorial card, and not distributed while he was alive. That would be too early for it.

[bigfanNY]

For me it is N167 Old Judge. it meats my personal criteria for a baseball card
1- It was included in a product ( Unlike many of the other issues discussed you purchased old judge tobacco and got whatever card was in your pack. To me that is very differant from being able to choose what card you wanted)
2- it had wide distribution. Again unlike many of the other issues these were packaged and sent out to the public. Again differant from a person going to a particular place or person to pick out what picture they wanted.

So for me this first old Judge issue and those that followed are the first baseball "cards" All of the other issues to me are premiums All significant and collectable. just not cards.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

For me it is N167 Old Judge. it meats my personal criteria for a baseball card
1- It was included in a product ( Unlike many of the other issues discussed you purchased old judge tobacco and got whatever card was in your pack. To me that is very differant from being able to choose what card you wanted)
2- it had wide distribution. Again unlike many of the other issues these were packaged and sent out to the public. Again differant from a person going to a particular place or person to pick out what picture they wanted.

So for me this first old Judge issue and those that followed are the first baseball "cards" All of the other issues to me are premiums All significant and collectable. just not cards.

I agree with this. Unless it was included with a product and distributed nationally, I would not consider the item to be the first baseball card.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

I agree with this. Unless it was included with a product and distributed nationally, I would not consider the item to be the first baseball card.

I wonder what percentage of the baseball cards we post here would lose their status as baseball cards if we adopted the requirement of national distribution? I'm not really a T206 guy. Would this one still be a baseball card?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I wonder what percentage of the baseball cards we post here would lose their status as baseball cards if we adopted the requirement of national distribution? I'm not really a T206 guy. Would this one still be a baseball card?

That's one heckuva nice looking 2!

[darwinbulldog]

Thank you. I sold it to Scott L. last month on the BST for well above the usual SGC 2 price.

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I wonder what percentage of the baseball cards we post here would lose their status as baseball cards if we adopted the requirement of national distribution? I'm not really a T206 guy. Would this one still be a baseball card?

Again, we are talking about the FIRST baseball cards, not everything that came after the first card. In order to be considered the FIRST card or card set, I would say it had to be distributed nationally and not locally. Also your card would not lose it's status as it is part of a set that was distributed nationally.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

Again, we are talking about the FIRST baseball cards, not everything that came after the first card. In order to be considered the FIRST card or card set, I would say it had to be distributed nationally and not locally. Also your card would not lose it's status as it is part of a set that was distributed nationally.

But isn't it just by happenstance of Burdick's taxonomy that OM/SL and PB and Uzit and Piedmont are considered the same set?

And just to make sure I'm not representing your position incorrectly, you would say that regionally distributed baseball cards exist but, by definition, none of them can be considered the first baseball card? So, for example, D310s are in fact baseball cards, but if no other baseball cards had existed prior to 1912, D310s would not be, according to your rule, baseball cards? Or is it just that they would be baseball cards and they would be older than all other baseball cards but that you still wouldn't consider them the first baseball cards?

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

But isn't it just by happenstance of Burdick's taxonomy that OM/SL and PB and Uzit and Piedmont are considered the same set?

And just to make sure I'm not representing your position incorrectly, you would say that regionally distributed baseball cards exist but, by definition, none of them can be considered the first baseball card? So, for example, D310s are in fact baseball cards, but if no other baseball cards had existed prior to 1912, D310s would not be, according to your rule, baseball cards? Or is it just that they would be baseball cards and they would be older than all other baseball cards but that you still wouldn't consider them the first baseball cards?

You are most definitely twisting what I said and trying to apply simple logic for a first to things that came later. All T206's share the same basic design, so even if the designation T206 didn't exist, they are easily identifiable as being from the same overall set.

Regional issues are branches of the same basic card structure: included with a product and distributed to the public as advertisement pieces.

Now I ask you a question: in the realm of the first card and the idea that there must be one universal definition of a card to talk about cards at all, what relationship does a CDV or a cabinet card have with the modern baseball card? If you consider a CDV to be a baseball card, does that make a T206 not a card? Does that make the modern card not a card?