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

[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.

[Bicem]

It's still a painting though!

[packs]

Originally Posted by Bicem

It's still a painting though!

But is it art?

[darwinbulldog]

And is it pornography?

[Bicem]

Now that's debatable, but no one would question whether or not it's a painting.

My argument is only that my homemade baseball cards are still baseball cards, and not whether or not they are collectable or desirable.