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

[bgar3]

I think it is interesting that no one has mentioned whether or not one of the considerations should be whether or not the player or team was professional. I think that would be a significant consideration since the modern value associated with something being a baseball card is based upon professional players and teams.
I personally don’t care whether or not something is a baseball card, I care more about the historical significance of the subject or image. In that regard, it would be hard to beat Corey’s item from the 1840’s, but I would take any of the items put forth.

[GaryPassamonte]

Sorry, Jay. Are the Wrights, Crossley, or Hammond pictured in the cdv or does it show just the English contingent?

[packs]

I think for a card to be considered a "card" it must be part of a set with a predetermined checklist and issued to the public as a premium to go along with a product. For that reason I think CDV's are out, unless accompanied by an advertisement other than a photographer.

[oldjudge]

So by your definition no postcard, exhibit, or Topps card after they stopped including gum is a card.

[darwinbulldog]

Q.e.d.

[insidethewrapper]

First BB Card ? and it's listed as "English Cricketers". Looks like a Cricket card, not a baseball card.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

First BB Card ? and it's listed as "English Cricketers". Looks like a Cricket card, not a baseball card.

I agree, but since they played baseball while here I have heard it called a baseball card.

[packs]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

So by your definition no postcard, exhibit, or Topps card after they stopped including gum is a card.

I am talking about the time period we are discussing, when the first cards were issued; popularly included as premiums in products like tobacco and candy. Topps did not yet exist. Gum was around.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by packs

I am talking about the time period we are discussing, when the first cards were issued; popularly included as premiums in products like tobacco and candy. Topps did not yet exist. Gum was around.

Seems like the definition of a card should consistent across all time periods. I’m not saying your definition is wrong. There is no right or wrong answer. My definition is different, but that doesn’t mean it is better or worse than yours.

[packs]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Seems like the definition of a card should consistent across all time periods. I’m not saying your definition is wrong. There is no right or wrong answer. My definition is different, but that doesn’t mean it is better or worse than yours.

Aren't we discussing what is and what isn't a card because there is no universal definition, particularly during the advent of the "baseball card"? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bgar3

…..
I personally don’t care whether or not something is a baseball card, I care more about the historical significance of the subject or image..….

I think bgar3 (quoted above) summarizes it best. For me, being more a memorabilia collector than a card collector, the value of the Magnolia card has nothing to do with whether the hobby characterizes it as a card. I value it because it is a depiction of pre-Knickerbocker baseball, as well as support for the notion that the Knickerbockers original rules were more a formal codification of a game that was already being played than the creation of something entirely new.

Jay, BTW, whether you own something or not has no bearing on your assessment of the item, correct?

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I think bgar3 (quoted above) summarizes it best. For me, being more a memorabilia collector than a card collector, the value of the Magnolia card has nothing to do with whether the hobby characterizes it as a card. I value it because it is a depiction of pre-Knickerbocker baseball, as well as support for the notion that the Knickerbockers original rules were more a formal codification of a game that was already being played than the creation of something entirely new.

Jay, BTW, whether you own something or not has no bearing on your assessment of the item, correct?

I agree with the first part. As to the second, I would never (almost never (sometimes)) let ownership affect my opinion,

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

….. I would never (almost never (sometimes)) let ownership affect my opinion,

LOL. Well said!

[Joe_G.]

I love this discussion, a busy schedule has prevented me from weighing in earlier. In the vein of being biased towards something I own, I'd like to propose an option that meets the definition many are proposing and predates N167 and the many tobacco sets that would follow. Let's just say I'm proposing an early set for honorable mention.

In the spring of 1886 Tomlinson Studio would issue cards of the Detroit baseball club. These cabinets were offered for public sale starting April 28th, 1886 (Detroit Free Press announced that they could be purchased at Tomlinson Studio). The cabinets featured personalized mounts that included the players name and position. Every player was available in portrait and action pose (most players have more than one action pose). Later Tomlinson cabinets (1887 & 1888), team cabinets in particular, were offered for sale nation wide.

Here is a sample of a few 1886 cabinets I had recently posted to another thread (three players that would remain good friends in retirement - Lady Baldwin, Sam Thompson, and Charlie Bennett).

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Joe_G.

I love this discussion, a busy schedule has prevented me from weighing in earlier. In the vein of being biased towards something I own, I'd like to propose an option that meets the definition many are proposing and predates N167 and the many tobacco sets that would follow. Let's just say I'm proposing an early set for honorable mention.

In the spring of 1886 Tomlinson Studio would issue cards of the Detroit baseball club. These cabinets were offered for public sale starting April 28th, 1886 (Detroit Free Press announced that they could be purchased at Tomlinson Studio). The cabinets featured personalized mounts that included the players name and position. Every player was available in portrait and action pose (most players have more than one action pose). Later Tomlinson cabinets (1887 & 1888), team cabinets in particular, were offered for sale nation wide.

Here is a sample of a few 1886 cabinets I had recently posted to another thread (three players that would remain good friends in retirement - Lady Baldwin, Sam Thompson, and Charlie Bennett).

Joe - I love the Tomlinson cabinets and, IMHO, they fit the description of being a baseball card. That being said, I would lean towards some of the cards that Peck and Snyder advertised in 1869, 1870 and 1871 respectively as they were obviously issued earlier - unless you feel that team cards shold be excluded from being considered. Here are ads from 1869, 1870 and 1871 respectively:

[benjulmag]

Kevin,

That 1871 ad is amazing! I don't recall seeing it before. I also don't recall seeing any of the cards of the individual players it lists. If anybody has one or has seen one, I would love to see an image of its front and verso.

The large size photographs advertised have always intrigued me. The only one I have seen (at the NYPL) is the one of the Atlantics. The condition leaves something to be desired, but it is still breathtaking to see.

If only I had a time machine...….