[packs]

Baseball cards and photographs are two distinctly different things in my opinion. For something to be a photograph, it merely needs to be a photographic reproduction of somebody's image. For something to be a baseball card, it has to identify it's subject and be produced for the express purpose of advertising that baseball exists and this person is a baseball player.

The Atlantics CDV does not identify any of its players and I don't think it can be considered a baseball card. What does it have in common with traditional cards? I would say an image of a baseball player, but that is the same commonality that exists between any photo of a like subject. Photos of me in my Little League uniform are not baseball cards, for example.

The Atlantics CDV is more akin to a wallet photo you might give a friend or relative than a baseball card, in my opinion. I assume players aren’t identified because it wasn’t meant to be given to anyone not associated with someone in the photo.

I would consider the Peck Snyder trade card referenced as the first baseball card. Every player is identified and it was produced for the express purpose of advertising baseball's existence and that these are baseball players.