Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo
Out of curiosity, why are the 1869 Peck &
The 1866 CDV Unions of Lansingburgh cards, for example, look very much like cards to me. What is it that disqualifies them?
|
Speaking only for myself, the question of how they were distributed and for what purpose. If a member of say, the Brooklyn Atlantics, walked into a photography studio in 1860 dressed in his baseball garb and had a CdV made of him, that in and of itself would not make it a baseball card UNLESS for some commercial purpose the public was made known of its existence and offered an opportunity to acquire one.
I do not think it is known how and whether studios made their baseball CdVs available to the public. Maybe only the player(s) depicted had the opportunity to acquire one. So for that reason some people do not regard them as baseball cards.
I will add calling something a baseball card does not preclude also calling it something else. The Jordan & Co. cards are a good example. They were used to gain entry to a three-game cricket/baseball match. For half the price the public could buy a ticket without the player image on it. So for those tickets that included a player photo, they also are "sports cards". To go further, inasmuch as the games played included cricket, in addition to baseball, the only Jordan & co. ticket I regard as a true baseball card is the solo image of Harry Wright. There is one where he is depicted with his father, who was a known cricket player and who is holding a cricket bat. That image would seem to stress the cricket component of the matches, as too are the ones of other players who seem depicted more in cricket than baseball attire. In contrast, the solo one of Harry Wright, who was regarded at the time as a prominent baseball player and who is neither attired nor holding any equipment clearly indicative of cricket, stresses baseball much more than the other known images, and for that reason I regard that ticket as a more clear cut representation of a baseball card.