Exciting New Discovery Of One Of The Earliest Known Cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason W

Just wanted to share with you what I think is an exciting new baseball card discovery representing one of the two or three earliest baseball cards known to exist. This 1866 CDV baseball card, the only known specimen, features a photographic image of the famous Currier & Ives American National Game of Base Ball lithograph on the front. The reverse features an advertisement for George Gratton's "Baltimore Base Ball Emporium" on the reverse. This establishment was one of the first in the country to specialize in all products relating to baseball, including "bases, batts (sic), spikes, scores, shoes, shirts, caps, books" etc. and predates A. G Spalding & Bros. by 12 years. The Baltimore Base Ball Emporium, located on Baltimore Street east of Calvert, had its grand opening in 1866. Based on the style of the card, the year of the grand opening of the store, and the year of issue of the Currier & Ives print featured on the front, it is a virtual certainty that this advertising card dates from 1866. PSA agree with my assessment and have encapsulated & authenticated it as 1866.

Few realize that the players featured on this print are not generic depictions. Six members of the Athletics can be clearly identified at the bottom right. They are: Sid Smith, Joe Start, Dickey Pierce, Fred Crane, John Galvin, and Tom Pratt. In the crowd scene, facing the viewer, is Pete O'Brien. Because of the small scale of the CDV image, identification of the players is difficult on the CDV, but O'Brien in particular can still be easily identified with a magnifying glass on the CDV.

What do you guys think about the old earliest card debate? Is the 1863 Hoboken Grand Match Harry Wright a baseball card or just a ticket? Has the date of the circa 1865 Jim Creighton Peck & Snyder Memorial CDV been confirmed or just an estimate? Is this 1866 C&I National Game BBBE CDV a big deal in the baseball collector’s world or just a mild curiosity?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Why are you so certain that this trade card dates from 1866? I see no reason why it just as easily couldn't be from 1875 for example. The fact that PSA calls this an 1866 card should mean zero to any vintage card collector. As for the Hoboken grand match piece, I personally believe it is a ticket and not a card (nice purchase Keith ). Not that I've given it alot of thought, but I've always believed that the earliest baseball card was the Creighton P&S. I also like the fact that it is part of a group of cards issued by the same merchant.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I can say many things about this, but since I am closing an auction today, I will be brief. The 1863 Harry Wright is not a baseball card and never was; it's a CdV that was used as an admission ticket to a game, and because it contained a photograph of a popular athlete (wearing his cricket garb, by the way) makes it a form of keepsake. The date of 1865 for the Jim Creighton P&S is just an estimate. And the Baltimore card, which was on ebay and didn't meet the reserve, is very exciting as it introduces a new sporting goods establishment that we had not seen before on the reverse. However, it is simply a photograph of the Currier & Ives lithograph, not a photo of any actual players or game scene. It is an interesting baseball artifact but even less a baseball card than the previous two. I know someone is going to ultimately buy this new find as a new baseball card and pay way too much for it, but people are free to do with their money as they wish.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

is still the 1868 Peck and Snyder Atlantics card. There will probably never be a definitive answer to this debate. regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason W

Hi Jay,

Thanks for the response! I cannot ever be a 100% positive but I think 1866 is a reasonably educated opinion. The style of the card and the type on the back is pretty consistent with other CD's from the mid 1860's. Also it is reasonable to suspect that the Baltimore Base Ball Emporium was a seller of the Currier & Ives print in 1866 (definite release date). This card then, was most likely made to publicise this release, therefore gaining the distinction as the first baseball card issued to promote the sale of a specific product of manufacture.

Finally, from research, I know that the BBBE opened in 1866 (Baltimore city records) and closed in 1870.

Bob Lemke and Robert Lifson of REA have also both seen the card and agree that 1866 is a pretty firm date in their opinions.

Do you know anything further about the Jim Creighton Memorial? Is 1865 a firm date because I have seen it dated anywhere from 1863 - 1868?

Thanks Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

This kind of brings back the debate we had earlier about the business location, etc. of Peck & Snyder. I have just noticed that the advertisement in the back of the 1867 Beadle's Dime Guide is for "Andrew Peck & Co., 105 Nassau Street, N.Y.". If the Creighton CDV is attributed to "Peck & Snyder" then this would tend to place the Creighton CDV closer to the 1868 Atlantics team CDV. This would also make more logical since to me. Do we know when Snyder teamed up with Peck?

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

We've already seen Bob Lemke's authentication skills with the American Memorabilia pieces. It's a pretty big leap of faith to assume that if the store was open from 1866 to 1870 that this trade card would have come from 1866. Of course, if I were the owner I would make the same arguement that you are making. BTW, wasn't Rob the person who argued that the Wright ticket was the first baseball card. As Keith Olbermann would say---"Lets play oddball".

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Not this Rob.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Sorry--Rob Lifson was the Rob I was referring to

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

but it is, rather, the photo FROM WHICH the Currier and Ives was taken, isn't it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Jay, of course you are right and no one will ever know for sure the CDV's exact date. If you go by percentages and circumstantial evidence though, the card is more likely to be 1866 than 1870.

A) BBBE Had it's grand opening in 1866 (card released to publicise opening?).

B) The C&I Print was issued in 1866. Why would they publicise the print 4 years later?

C) The print consists of an actual championship game played in 1865 between the Atlantics of Brooklyn and the Mutuals of New York. This game was big news at the time (a current affair). People would not have any interest in the game 4 years later so once again why use it to publicise your product?

D) It has all characteristics of a mid 1860's card in style.

I know that this is not an exact science and I will never be able to prove it but do you not agree that it is more likely to be 1866 than 1870 given circumstantial evidence?

Thanks - Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

The original was painted by one of the Currier & Ives artists while attending the 1865 Grand Match for the Championship watched by over 20,000 and played between the Atlantics of Brooklyn and the Mutuals of New York, which was played on August 3, 1865. The Atlantics won, 13-12, in a five-inning rain-shortened contest. Though this is one of baseball's most famous early images, it is often misidentified as featuring what is generally recognized as the first organized baseball game played between the Knickerbockers and the New York Nine at Elysian Fields in June of 1846.

From this original painting, Currier and Ives made their lithographs. This CDV was most likely produced (in Photo form) from this image to promote the release of the C&I lithograph.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

No, Jason I don't agree. This trade card could have been produced any time. You need more proof before you call it the first baseball card. Besides, it is only by the loosest of definitions that anyone would consider this a baseball card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

If you can find an original currier & Ives print (at the time they called it The American National Game of Base Ball in their catalog), you have something very rare (only 3 known). One just went up for auction the other month and sold for over $80,000.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Jay, I am not calling this the earliest card, just one of the earliest.

The debate regarding what a true baseball card is will rage on and on but below you will find how the respected Cycleback defines a card. If cycleback is right, then the BBBE CDV covers all criteria.

From Cycleback

http://www.cycleback.com/april14.html

QUESTION: Can a CDV be considered a trading card?

ANSWER: Some, but not all can be called trading cards.

"There are two necessary components to a trading card. First, it has to be a card. Personal definitions of cards vary, but most consider the classic example of a card to be a business card or a standard sized Topps baseball card.

The second component for a trading card is it has to have been distributed, or intended to be distributed, in a commercial way. A trading card has to have been distributed, intended to be distributed, or at least available, to the general public, and it has to have been for an advertising, promotion or other commercial purpose. 1870s trade cards were given away for free to the public and usually had advertising for a store or whatever on the front or back. 1909-11 T206 baseball cards have tobacco ads on the back and were distributed as prizes in tobacco packs. 1960s Topps cards were sold directly to the public with bubble gum. Today, trading cards are popular enough that they are sold by alone. Though distributed differently, these all fit the definition of trading cards.

Another important component (Yeah, I know I said there were only two components, but I'm adding another. Get off my back) is that trading cards were intentionally made so that they would be collected by the public. Even in the 19th century, companies realized that it was good to create an advertising item that someone would collect. Having a kid paste in his hobby your company's trade card because he likes the cartoon picture on it is a lot better than him throwing away a plain flyer.

The Cartes de Visite (aka CDV) photographs definitely are cards in the physical sense. In fact, the name is French for 'visiting card.' If you hold one in your hand, you will see that it's a card with a smaller paper photograph pasted on the front.

Most CDVs are not trading cards, because of the commercial part. Most were simply family portraits or such made and kept by a family. The same as the Kodak snapshots of your camping trip in your photo album, or the Wedding photo on your dresser.

Some CDVs are trading cards. In the 1860s-70s, CDVs of popular subjects, like Abraham Lincoln, Queen Victoria and popular actresses were sold to the public in stores. Many of the famed baseball 1860s-70s Peck & Snyder baseball cards are CDVs, with Peck & Snyder advertising stamped on the back (Peck & Snyder was a prominent sports equipment manufacturer). Some non-sport CDVs were sold with products, like tobacco, and have advertising printed on front or back.

The problem that arises for the trading card collector (who tend to be a picky bunch), is that it is not easy, and sometimes impossible to tell how a CDV was distributed. The CDVs sold in stores usually don't have an appearance different than one that was not. If there are enough examples of a particular U.S. Grant CDV, it be assumed that they were commercially issued. Most CDVs of Abraham Lincoln and Queen Victoria are likely trading cards. But, in many cases, it's impossible to know. Many trading card collectors don't like 'there is no answer' as and answer, but that doesn't change the answer.

An interesting test case for you to ponder is the 1863 Hoboken Match Harry Wright CDV which is owned by CNN Newscaster and well baseball card collector Keith Olbermann. If this CDV is defined trading card it is the earliest known baseball card- which makes it a significant piece of memorabilia, at least in the baseball world. The problem is that not everyone agrees that it is a trading card.

Harry Wright was a pioneer in baseball, often referred to as the "father of professional baseball." Olbermann's little photographic card pictures Wright on front and was used as a pass for series baseball and cricket matches in Hoboken New Jersey. The back has printed info concerning the game. It was more than likely that this pass was given to, or at least intended for, a VIP, and almost certainly wasn't intended for the general public.

As you can see, the pass' method of distribution doesn't align with the criteria I earlier mentioned. There definitely was a commercial component (pass for games), but was not distrubuted or available to the general public like tobacco cards or bubblegum cards. Many respectable and knowledgeable people consider Olbermann's card to be the earliest known baseball card. Others do not, as it was never intended for the consumption of the general public. As one collector said to me, "It's not a trading card. It's a ticket."

I will let you decide for yourself whether or not Keith Olbermann's card is a true baseball card."

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

<<A) BBBE Had it's grand opening in 1866 (card released to publicise opening?).>>
If this were the case, then why doesn't it say anything about the grand opening on the ad back?

<<B) The C&I Print was issued in 1866. Why would they publicise the print 4 years later?>>
We're still publicizing that print today. But I doubt this card was created to publicize the print - if that were the case, there would be something on the back concerning it (probably). I think it was simply a card produced to advertise the store, using a popular baseball print on the front.

<<C) The print consists of an actual championship game played in 1865 between the Atlantics of Brooklyn and the Mutuals of New York. This game was big news at the time (a current affair). People would not have any interest in the game 4 years later so once again why use it to publicise your product?>>
We still consider that print a classic today, 138 years later. It's a great classic baseball painting, which is why it remains popular - I bet 4 years after it's creation it was still extremely popular. Actually, it would probably have been popular on cards created in the 1880's or even later.

<<D) It has all characteristics of a mid 1860's card in style.>>
True

<<I know that this is not an exact science and I will never be able to prove it but do you not agree that it is more likely to be 1866 than 1870 given circumstantial evidence?>>
I don't see any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to indicate one date over the others.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

This trade card has a photograph of a lithograph on its obverse. It just happens that the lithograph is of a baseball scene. It is really stretching things to call this a baseball card. However, this is not an exact science and you can call it whatever you like. I assume if it goes to auction it will be described as a baseball card, but then again so was the Wright ticket. Maybe Olbermann will buy this one so he can have the two first baseball cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Jason,

"This CDV was most likely produced (in Photo form) from this image to promote the release of the C&I lithograph."

Why would you assume that? No where on the back of the card does it say they sell prints. Nothing even remotely implies they sell prints, but they are saying they sell sporting goods. If they used this card to promote sales of the print then that is what you would read on the back of the card, trust me, I'm in advertising.

Also, wasn't there a title on the original print? The name of the print is missing in this image. If they did want to promote the print, why take the name off? I think they used this image simply because they sell sporting goods and needed a sports related image. In the 1866-1868 era sports images were slim pickings.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Hi Petecld, Thanks for your comments.

You are right, its all speculation. None of these claims are concrete, I am just suggesting possibilities and looking for what other people think. I am not trying to ram this down peoples throats but everyone always wants to argue the negative possibilities. I can not prove what I suggest is definitely true but on the other hand no one can prove they are not. Both arguments have equal merit.

On the topic of the card as a promotion for the print, I do have a little extra background info to suggest this being a possibility. The 1864 Baltimore City Directory originally published by John W. Woods shows that Geo Gratton owned and operated a book & print gift store (1864) prior to the opening of the BBBE. The C&I print was exactly the kind of thing that he was selling and probably continued to sell at the BBBE.(Before anyone says this does not prove anything, I know - its just a little extra circumstantial evidence to the cause).

I am a Marketing Director myself and what you say is true in modern day advertising, but remember this was the 1860's - they had only just realised that advertising on the back of CDV's was beneficial. Advertising techniques had to evolve into what they are today. The Victorians weren’t known for their marketing flair.

Anyway this is all fun and games and I enjoy the debate. It’s just like arguing with my mother about religion - I cannot say for sure and neither can she!

Cheers

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Meares

and even moreso given the claim. Thanks for sharing Newbie question: A baseball card is used to sell a product, correct? So what is to distinguish a baseball card from a baseball trade card? I read the cycleback piece, so I guess I'm asking those who make a distinction between the two. Is it just a matter of convention, that tobacco cards have generally been marketed as the first baseball cards? Other reasons? Someone mentioned specificity, mode of distribution, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: New or Old

1) If I own the card that is being debated as one of the first baseball cards then it is "one of the first baseball cards."

2) If I want to buy the card that is being debated as one of the first baseball cards then it's not a baseball card, merely a piece of card board with a baseball image on it.

3) If I buy the card that is being debated as one of the first baseball cards then refer to number 1.

If you're looking at this particular object and wondering what it is then it's obvious that it's a regular CDV that happens to show a (drawn) picture of a baseball game and none of the players are recognizeable. This CDV is affixed to an advertisement that even claims to have books on the sport. By the way, what are the earliest known books on the subject of baseball?

JDF

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet

Good points made by most.

Regardless if these are "true cards" are not, they do represent the beginnings of what we term baseball cards. These things more than likely paved the way in the evolution of the baseball card, therefore are or should be important to most of us.

An analogy-- Neanderthal man is not human. More than likely, he did evolve into human. This makes him important in human evolution, therefore valuable in his own right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob VT

Darren,


I beg to differ, my brother-in-law is a neandrathal and I have to call him human or else my kid would be, well, part neandrathal - I'm sure the brother-in-law was adopted, it's the only thing that makes sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

I’m with Leon on the Peck & Snyder card being the first true card. However if any of the other cards were mine and up for sale in an upcoming auction, than I disagree with all of you and my cards are ultra rare proof variations and one-of-a-kind items. And I better not hear a peep out of any of you until the auction is over.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Where is the documentation regarding the issuance of this card, other than the presence of a name on it? Before I feel comfortable with someone labeling something as the first card, I'd like to see more.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that a C&I litho was being reproduced in this format around the time it was issued? Wouldn't Mr. Currier and Mr. Ives get a little bitchy about someone stealing their work?

Why hasn't this ever been seen before or mentioned in any of the literature?

Has the photograph been examined under a 'scope per David Rudd's suggestion to see if the photo is at least of vintage manufacture?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As for it being a baseball "card" I believe the answer is "yes". I believe it is a baseball "trade" card to be more exact. And by it's own merit it is a "cdv"-trade-baseball-card, or H-unc, as I would call it. I would date it to mid 1860's to early 1870's from what I know about cards....stretching the description to anything else is well...stretching it.........my opine only.....later

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Hi warshawlaw, please find the further info requested.

I am not saying this is the oldest card, just an early one.

As far as it being odd that C&I would give permission for this images use on this CDV, this would make sense, if as I suggested earlier, that this card was produced to publicise the release of the C&I print and its subsequent sale in BBBE.

As far as why this card has never been identified previously, it was purchased from a non-baseball dealer. The guy specialised in old photos and non-sport CDV’s. Before he got his hands on it - it was probably sitting in some CDV album in someone’s attic.

As far as its authentication, I own many early baseball CDV’s from the early to late 1860’s and I am 100% convinced that this is genuine. But of course I did not only rely on my own judgement which could be biased, I approached others for their opinions too.

The card has been seen by 4 different experts and physically handled by 2 of them. Both David Rudd & Bob Lemke have seen large scans of the card and agree that everything is consistent with the assertions. Both Rob Lifson (who's seen just about every card there is over 30 years in the hobby) and PSA have scrutinised the card in person and done many hours of research on it. Both are 100% convinced the card is genuine. PSA have now encapsulated it, calling it The American National Game of Base Ball BBBE CDV and labelling it as “Authentic”. All four experts agree that this is the only known example in existence.