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

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think that the 1871 ad refers to the JA Pierce team CDVs that feature composites of the players that are listed in the ad.

There are 7 teams listed on the 1871 ad - Boston, Chicago, Olympic, Athletic, Cleveland, Rockford and Kekionga. At least 5 of these teams are known to exist and the players featured in these CDVs match up perfectly with the players named in the 1871 ad.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I think that the 1871 ad refers to the JA Pierce team CDVs that feature composites of the players that are listed in the ad.

There are 7 teams listed on the 1871 ad - Boston, Chicago, Olympic, Athletic, Cleveland, Rockford and Kekionga. At least 5 of these teams are known to exist and the players featured in these CDVs match up perfectly with the players named in the 1871 ad.

That was my original thought when I first read the ad. But its reference to photos of named players made me think it was referring not to team images but instead to individual player images. Inasmuch as to my knowledge there are no known Peck & Snyder's of individual players (exempting Creighton, which technically was not a Peck & Snyder), likely the ad was referencing either the JA Pierce team CdVs or the Mort Rogers. Given the overlap of players with the Pierce's and the lack of known Mort Rogers from some of those teams, you very well might be correct in your assessment Kevin.

[benjulmag]

Here is the mammoth plate Peck & Snyder 1868 Brooklyn Atlantics at the NYPL. The condition as one can see is rough, but seeing it up close was amazing.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Here is the mammoth plate Peck & Snyder 1868 Brooklyn Atlantics at the NYPL. The condition as one can see is rough, but seeing it up close was amazing.

Corey-Was this image rephotographed to make the trade card photograph, or was that from a separate shot?

[barrysloate]

Great to see that Corey, thanks. Looking at how damaged that piece is may be a clue as to why no others have survived. Some issues don't hold up well.

[Leon]

I will go plus one on this comment.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Great to see that Corey, thanks. Looking at how damaged that piece is may be a clue as to why no others have survived. Some issues don't hold up well.

[oldjudge]

Most people have seen the Mutuals P&S, but here is the Chicago, albeit used as the trade card of another retailer.

[benjulmag]

Jay -- Here is the link to the NYPL website that shows the image (and allows enlargement for closer inspection): https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/...0-e00a18064a99

When comparing the image to the trade card image, they clearly appear to be the identical shot. As such, almost certainly the mammoth plate was reshot to create the trade card. To do the reverse would result in a noticeable degradation in the mammoth plate's resolution.

I am aware of no known CdVs of the 1870 Mutuals or White Stockings, which I find interesting. Other than mammoth plate size (none of which I know to have survived), they exist only in P & S trade card format. I wonder if P & S owned the negative and publication rights to these two images. The only 1970 P & S trade card known in conventional CdV format (i.e., having no advertising other than identification of the studio that took the image) is the 1870 Athletics. That image though is a composite, which is a significant distinction and consistent with this theory as one would expect a studio more than a sporting goods company to be the copyright owner of an image that requires shots of multiple individual players.