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

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

Yes, because there would have been no such thing as a baseball card. That's like saying would I consider a computer from 2019 the first version of any computer ever so long as none existed before it.

Very good then. We're in agreement. Why then should it only be in the hypothetical/counterfactual example that a card that was not nationally issued would be considered the first baseball card but not so in reality?

And to answer your questions:

"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?"

Mainly that it meets some but not all of the criteria that make up the usual checklist for classifying something as a baseball card.

"If you consider a CDV to be a baseball card, does that make a T206 not a card?"

No.

"Does that make the modern card not a card?"

No.

[darwinbulldog]

I think basically we agree on everything except the utility of the regional vs. national distribution concept for designating something as either a baseball card or the first baseball card. To me it makes about as much sense as saying the card has to have the color green on it to be considered a baseball card as to say that it had to have been distributed nationally.

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Very good then. We're in agreement. Why then should it only be in the hypothetical/counterfactual example that a card that was not nationally issued would be considered the first baseball card but not so in reality?

And to answer your questions:

"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?"

Mainly that it meets some but not all of the criteria that make up the usual checklist for classifying something as a baseball card.

"If you consider a CDV to be a baseball card, does that make a T206 not a card?"

No.

"Does that make the modern card not a card?"

No.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. I interpreted the question as being "what was the first iteration of the modern baseball card" and that to me means distribution. You don't have to buy Topps at one bakery in Buffalo, just like you didn't have to buy your OJ cigarettes at one store in any one city. If the word national bothers you, then look beyond the semantics of the word and see the words widely distributed.

[darwinbulldog]

Fair enough. We can just disagree on that.

I would still consider N172s baseball cards if they had all been shelved by Goodwin back in 1887 and entered the hobby only as a find of old uncirculated cards that walked in the door at the National last year. So forget widely distributed. I don't require any distribution.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Fair enough. We can just disagree on that.

I would still consider N172s baseball cards if they had all been shelved by Goodwin back in 1887 and entered the hobby only as a find of old uncirculated cards that walked in the door at the National last year. So forget widely distributed. I don't require any distribution.

Agreed, what does distribution (and intent for that matter) have to do with anything? If I print a bunch of 2.5" x 3.5" pieces of cardboard depicting mlb players on front and their stats/bios on back and keep them for myself are those not baseball cards? What are they then? They may be unlicensed and worthless, but they are still baseball cards.

I think we like to overthink this topic.

[bigfanNY]

Jmho but I strongly disagree with the premise that distribution is not a requirement for a baseball card. it is in my opinion a key requirement. A person or person that cut up some baseball pictures of their favorite team created at best a proof set. And Although I might add said proof cards to my collection They would not not meet the criteria for a baseball card.
I did not make up the terms premium and proof early card collectors clearly had this discussion many times over decades. Burdick's catalog and other early sources developed these terms to help frame their and future discussions.
I would say that close to 100% of board members either opened a pack or a box that was distributed to a retail store and found their first baseball card. Goudey, Bowman, Topps Fleer, Dan Dee,Glendale Butter cream etc. Baseball cards.. For me at least opening that box or pack and the joy I got was a key part of getting hooked.
I understand their is a lot to be gained by having an item or items generally accepted as the first baseball card. And I have no skin in that game.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Agreed, what does distribution (and intent for that matter) have to do with anything? If I print a bunch of 2.5" x 3.5" pieces of cardboard depicting mlb players on front and their stats/bios on back and keep them for myself are those not baseball cards? What are they then? They may be unlicensed and worthless, but they are still baseball cards.

I think we like to overthink this topic.

If that is true, then why do you collect cards that were issued and distributed rather than home made cards?

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by packs

If that is true, then why do you collect cards that were issued and distributed rather than home made cards?

What does it matter what I collect? My argument is not about desirability, just that they are in fact baseball cards. You show my homemade cards to 1000 random people and ask what they are, what % will say baseball cards?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Bicem

What does it matter what I collect? My argument is not about desirability, just that they are in fact baseball cards. You show my homemade cards to 1000 random people and ask what they are, what % will say baseball cards?

You collect what you collect for a reason, so if distribution means nothing in terms of what is or isn't a card, why don't you collect cards that weren't distributed? It's the same question you'd ask someone who insists having an identical painting of an original master is the same thing as having the original painting.