The Oldest Known Baseball Cards?

[M's_Fan]

The seller of these 1866 E.S. Sterry & Co. "Unions of Lansingburgh" cards makes that claim. They certainly are impressive, though the price seems more than a bit far-fetched.

But is this really the oldest known baseball card issue? They certainly pre-date the 1869 Cincinatti Team CDVs. Thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1866-E-S-Sterry-...item5d270a88c5

[Leon]

My opinion is that they are not the oldest known baseball cards. It's a great debate though. I think there is less of a debate as to what is the first professional (all players being paid) baseball card, even though it's a team card .....It seems as though there is always a bias in this debate and I will admit I own this card...so do have that bias, and that being said, I would like to hear challenges for debate on it...All in fun....

[rman444]

Leon - I don't think cardboard cut into the shape of a diamond counts as a card.

[Matthew H]

There are some earlier Peck & Snyder cards pictured in the Smithsonian book. Why do those not count?

[E93]

To my mind, the first baseball card (not cdvs, photos, cabinets, trade cards, etc.) set was the N167 Old Judge set. Debates about what is a "card" are interesting and endless. I doubt there will ever be consensus.
JimB

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

There are some earlier Peck & Snyder cards pictured in the Smithsonian book. Why do those not count?

I think that Leon's point was that the 1869 Red Stockings are generally considered the first recognized all-professional team, hence the 1869 Peck and Snyder would be considered the first baseball card of the "professional" era. There were certainly paid players before this date, but I am not sure if there were any teams that admitted to fielding a paid team.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

There are some earlier Peck & Snyder cards pictured in the Smithsonian book. Why do those not count?

The player(s) were not all paid....

and of course Kevin said it better than I did.....yes, there were paid players but not all paid teams that were touted as professional and paid.

[White Borders]

You might check out the posts towards the end of the following thread we did about a year and a half ago:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=111822

[benjulmag]

The seller is saying that these Cdvs he is selling are the earliest confirmed Cdvs of baseball subjects. That is untrue. There exists a Cdv of the Brooklyn Atlantics that has been confirmed to date to either 1860 or 1861.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Corey:

I believe that on an individual basis, there are George & Harry Wright CDV's that date to around 1863-65 if I am correct? Although, they may be more cricket pieces than baseball I guess.......

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Corey:

I believe that on an individual basis, there are George & Harry Wright CDV's that date to around 1863-65 if I am correct? Although, they may be more cricket pieces than baseball I guess.......

And they might be more tickets to a game than a card but "card" is almost undefinable. (is that a word?)

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Corey:

I believe that on an individual basis, there are George & Harry Wright CDV's that date to around 1863-65 if I am correct? Although, they may be more cricket pieces than baseball I guess.......

Phil,

On an individual basis that is correct, though, as Leon says, inasmuch as they were issued as tickets, as well as depicting the players in cricket garb, it is stretch to characterize them as baseball cards. A better candidate for an older baseball card of an individual player would be the Peck and Snyder Creighton. While one doesn't know for certain the precise year of issuance, it may very well have been before the issuance of the Unions of Lansingburgh Cdvs.

[Exhibitman]

This is such a murky issue, made all the more muddled by the conflation of image creation date and card manufacturing date into the concept of "oldest." You can sometimes specifically attribute an image to a date or year based on various factors that prove when it was taken but that doesn't prove when the card itself was made. Unfortunately, there were many images that were pirated in the 19th century, especially as the first wave of photographers died out, went out of business, or retired. A lot of late-19th century CDVs and cabinets reuse earlier images shot by famed photographers who were by then unable or unwilling to protect their creations.

The copyright system helps a bit, provided there is copyright data on the card. The earliest copyrighted images were sent to the US District Courts serving the cities where the photographers were located and had the dates of image submissions placed on their fronts along with a tedious copyright notice that listed the district court and the photographer's name. That system ended in July 1870 when the whole shebang was centralized in Washington DC. So, if you find a card with the USDC-style copyright notice on its front, you can pretty much conclude that the card itself was made pre-July 1870, who made it (as listed), and that the date listed on it was when the image was shot. Absent that, you have to do leg work to find out when the image was made, which at least tells you it can't be any earlier than that date, and you can sometimes cap the image creation date based on the death of the subject (for example, I know John C. Heenan, the subject of the first boxing card, croaked in 1873, so it was highly unlikely that he'd have sat for a portrait after that time). But pinning down the specific date of manufacture is often impossible. It is a lot of supposition and research and there is always a possibility of error.

[benjulmag]

"A lot of late-19th century CDVs and cabinets reuse earlier images shot by famed photographers who were by then unable or unwilling to protect their creations."

In my experience, very few 19th century baseball Cdvs and cabinets are reused or pirated images. And to a knowledgable and experienced collector, those that are are usually easy to detect.

[triwak]

Love these discussions!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

"A lot of late-19th century CDVs and cabinets reuse earlier images shot by famed photographers who were by then unable or unwilling to protect their creations."

In my experience, very few 19th century baseball Cdvs and cabinets are reused or pirated images. And to a knowledgable and experienced collector, those that are are usually easy to detect.

Perhaps that's true for baseball; it certainly is untrue for boxing, esp. CDVs.

[aaroncc]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Perhaps that's true for baseball; it certainly is untrue for boxing, esp. CDVs.

I agree for boxing it's a different story. Images were used again quite often. For some boxers this was their way of marketing.