1865 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV for sale

[drc]

It's true that a lot of the labels and definitions we use today are things we made up and used retroactively. And rose is still a rose as Romeo said to Richard III.

Having said that, I firmly don't believe any CDV with a baseball player on it counts as a baseball card. Just remember that baseball card is short for baseball trading card. It doesn't mean anything that is a physical card with a baseball graphic on it. Nor is any physical card a trading card.

But many 1800s CDVs of Queen Victoria, Abe Lincoln and such were sold to the general public as as collectibles-- and if someone wants to call those trading cards, I'd probably go along with that.

With many early sport and non-sport items, there are things you just don't know-- such as why and for whom it was made. Was a particular CDV of Robert E. Lee by a famous studio made for his personal use or intended to be sold/distributed to the general public? Sometimes you simply don't know.

[oldjudge]

My definition is a little less restrictive than Barry's. I think a baseball card is a piece of paper/cardboard portraying a baseball image, that was not part of a publication, that could be acquired by the general public. The caveat of not being part of a publication was meant to exclude baseball pictures in a newspaper or magazine from this definition. This would allow for CdVs (I think these were also sold by the photographer in the case of famous teams), exhibits, cabinets, postcards, trade cards, etc. My and Corey's requirement about a baseball image raises an interesting question about the grand match tickets coming up in REA, since the image there is of Harry Wright, or Harry and Sam Wright together, as a cricket player.

[drc]

When you get to early baseball cards, there's a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions, philosophy and personal sentiment. It's baseball card theory.

Many early CDVs of famous people were indeed marketed and sold to the public by the photographer, and famous people often handed out CDVs of themselves to general public fans. I've seen photographer advertising and order letters between famous people and studios that document this. Charles Dickens, as one example, ordered CDVs that he would send to fans who wrote to him. Those CDVs were definitely intended to be collected or otherwise kept as souvenirs or mementos. It also says you could own a Dickens CDV that was owned by Dickens.

[barrysloate]

Jay- I agree regarding the Grand Match Harry Wright. Since it is part of a set of cricket players, you need go no further. That eliminates it from being a baseball card. It may be the first trading card ever issued, and it may be the first cricket card ever issued. Those are both likely. But it is not a baseball card.

But I bet it is about to be called one.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I don't like to get caught up in all of the semantics of what determines what is and isn't a card?! A disc...is not a card...a stamp...is not a card...but...a CDV...whether it was made for the team/team members...and has a studio name attached...in my opinion...is a card. Remember guys...this is from a time period before there were any baseball "cards"...there was no definition! For whatever worth a "definition" really is anyway?!

You just hit the nail on the head - these were 'before' baseball cards as we know them. I'm not going to Olberman you, but I don't think there should be an assumption that before there were modern 'baseball cards, that there had to be something else that we will now call 'baseball cards'. Just as, before baseball was created, we wouldn't be calling other games 'baseball', simply because there wasn't yet a game 'baseball' to affix that label to.

But, as you say, it's all semantics. Barry stated that if something gets to be called a 'baseball card', that it will be worth more. If that's true, I guess I would prefer that you all think that all of my mounted baseball-related photos are baseball cards, even if I don't think so. But I don't really believe that if Olberman declared certain cdv's to no longer be baseball cards, and his word was acknowledged by all of us as an utterance from the true authoritative voice of our hobby king, that the value of such cards would go down.

As long as SGC is willing to put these items in slabs, they will maintain their value. The slab gives them their credibility and additional value - if you don't believe me, look at the prices of baseball-related cdv's prior to SGC's first encapsulation of such items, and their values immediately after. It was a pretty phenomenal increase.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

When you get to early baseball cards, there's a lot of gray area, unanswerable questions, philosophy and personal sentiment. It's baseball card theory.

Many early CDVs of famous people were indeed marketed and sold to the public by the photographer, and famous people often handed out CDVs of themselves to general public fans. I've seen photographer advertising and order letters between famous people and studios that document this. Charles Dickens, as one example, ordered CDVs that he would send to fans who wrote to him. Those CDVs were definitely intended to be collected or otherwise kept as souvenirs or mementos. It also says you could own a Dickens CDV that was owned by Dickens.

So, if a player ordered a bunch of photographs from George Burke, and mailed those out when requested from fans, they would be ... baseball cards? The only difference from the item you describe is the thickness of the paper. And a photograph is often thicker than a baseball card;e.g-Type 1 coupons are thinner than the postcard-stock photos that Burke produced for players in the '30s and '40s. Not all were postcard stock, but that was an option (I have some).

I'm just messing with you - for the most part I'm in agreement with Barry's list, but then again, I don't own any expensive baseball cdv's or postcards, so I have no financial incentive to define those as baseball cards.

[drc]

Card, as in the physical item itself, is defined differently by different people. Some people don't call something a baseball card simply because they don't think the fits the physical definition of a card. Sweet Caporal pins fit all the rules for being a baseball card except for one small detail-- it's a pin not a card.

For the benefit of those who don't know photography or French, the word carte in carte de visite (aka CDV) literally translates to card. And that's the original 1800s term, not a modern retroactive concoction.

And to reiterate what I said in an earlier post, card and trading card are not one and the same. A trading card has to be a card, but being a physical card does not in and of itself make something a trading card. And baseball card is short for baseball trading card.

[bmarlowe1]

Then there is Rucker's 1988 book, "Baseball Cartes - The First baseball Cards."

[drc]

Lionel Hutz: "This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps we should consult King Azaz's cabinet.

[drc]

What only complicates things even further is back then they referred to Oscar Wilde as a card.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

But I do not believe the general public had access to a standard CdV. That Brooklyn Atlantics was likely made for the members of the team to give out to their friends and family. The average fan of the team probably didn't even know they existed. And add to it that they had no advertising, they had no commercial value whatsoever.

That's not quite accurate, Barry, at least w/r/t CDVs' availability and value as a commercial product. Some photographers made and sold CDVs of famous people to the general public as collectibles. They definitely had commercial value. Charles Deforest Fredricks had a studio and gallery in NYC from which he retailed his line of famous people CDVs called "Specialite". They were available to the general public as a commercial product. Here is an example:

[barrysloate]

Thanks Adam. Some were, of course, such as the Cincinnati Red Stockings with the ad for Chadwick's Game of Baseball. Many weren't however. I don't believe the Atlantics would have been available publicly.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Thanks Adam. Some were, of course, such as the Cincinnati Red Stockings with the ad for Chadwick's Game of Baseball. Many weren't however. I don't believe the Atlantics would have been available publicly.

Barry, I'm not understanding how you are coming up with that assumption. There was only one produced (as far as we can tell, and as evidenced by the fact that it's a photo affixed to a recycled mount), so there's no proof whatsoever as to what it's intended use actually was - it could have been exactly the same as the Cincinnati Red Stockings cdv, something to be handed out by players to family members, or any of the other possibilities that I listed earlier in this thread.

[oldjudge]

My definition excludes pins and bottle caps but somehow still misses the 3-D plastic baseball cards, which should be included. Maybe an ammendment is necessary.

[barrysloate]

Scott- assuming I understand your question, because most of the Cincinnati Red Stocking cards that have survived contain various product advertising, such as the Peck and Snyder Sportings Goods store, or for Henry Chadwick's book The Game of Baseball, of course those were distributed to as large an audience as possible. When you have a product to sell, you want to get the word out to the public. In the case of the Atlantics CdV, because there is no product advertising, coupled with the fact that only a single one has survived (save the Library of Congress example), that suggests that a limited supply of them were available. Do we know for a fact the general public couldn't buy one of them? No. Is it reasonable to think they weren't able to? That's my opinion.

We don't know enough about how CdV's were distributed and circulated. Most were not available to the public. Some were.

[Runscott]

Barry - Thanks, I completely agree with you.

Also, since the Brooklyn cdv has now been sold, I think it's okay for us to be very honest about our opinions - not just regarding it's 'baseball-cardness'. I'll revive the original thread and piss off half the board by giving mine.