im new here and im hearing that 1863 Jordan & Co. are the first baseball cards you know the 4 card set but then some people dont consider thats a baseball card they think a Cartes De visite isnt a baseball car which that it is i need some help here these cards are the oldest baseball cards that i have ever found are these really the oldest baseball cards? if not tell me if there are other ones and if you have links to the website where you found it that would help and is the 1863 "Grand Match At Hoboken" Benefit card Of Harry Wright really a baseball card or not? thanks
This message has been edited by JordanAndCompany on Jun 22, 2006 11:10 PM
The Hoboken Match is generally not considered a baseball card, as it was used as a ticket or pass. There are other Hoboken cards, but it is no known that the folks pictured are baseball players. They may have been cricket players.
This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 23, 2006 12:05 AM
The first baseball card, to me, is the 1868 Atlantics card...The first professional card is the 1869 Peck and Snyder Team card, as they were all paid. This is very "relative" and everyone has their own opinion. The other ticket-cards etc...could be cards to some folks, but not me. Best regards
edited to add "See mom- Did you notice all of the punctuation I used?"
This message has been edited by leonl on Jun 23, 2006 9:00 AM
Welcome aboard. I have a daughter that is 9. Don't worry about us old guys....we're mostly harmless. You, my little friend, are the next, next generation of vintage baseball card collectors. For the record there are many adults that don't write as well as you do. Keep on posting on our board....I will make sure us old guys don't upset you too much.....This is fair warning guys......
If it's a Peck & Synder we're calling the first baseball card, then I would think the honor would go to the P&S Jim Creighton, as it probably predates the Atlantics by a good several years. If it's CDVs, then it would be the Brooklyn Atlantics, which dates to 1860 or 1861. The Resolutes/Philadelphia (which also has in the image Henry Chadwick) that Hal refers to most likely dates to around 1864.
This message has been edited by benjulmag on Jun 23, 2006 10:37 AM
If you stick with this forum, you'll notice wrong usages of the words there, their, they're, site, sight, to, too, et al., and some of us are decades older than you, So don't let it throw you. You'll also find a wealth of information, so stay with it, my friend.
hey corey could you get me that picture of that 1860 to 1861 Card that would be very helpful if you do i just need those 2 pictures because i thought the 1863 Jordan And Co Were the oldest cards and the card that refers to Hal if its really 1864 than Jordan And Co would be older than that card so
.Just get me those 2 pics that i want
.and is that card really from 1864 i need the exact date okay
Thank You Very much Guys You Rock
oh yea whats the year of that Peck And SNyder Jim Creignton Card or whatever was his last name i need to know that too imi only 11 so i dont know alot about this 1860's baseball cards
This message has been edited by JordanAndCompany on Jun 23, 2006 12:32 PM This message has been edited by JordanAndCompany on Jun 23, 2006 12:10 PM This message has been edited by JordanAndCompany on Jun 23, 2006 12:09 PM
is no 11 year old.
Poor grammar absolutely, but his writing uses stream of consciousness that doesn't fit at all with an eleven year old's processes and writing methodology.
His word choices and sentence construction point to a semi-literate adult, or immigrant with only a passing aquaintance with the school system.
Jordan And Company has very little information ill try to do my best Jordan And Company is a 4 Card Set it was made in 1863 the most famous card from the set is the Harry Wright Card that Keith olbermann has as we speak by the way if you have a Standard catalog Of Baseball cards than it will talk about 1863 Jordan And Co and it shows a picture of the harry wright card and the other 3 cards in the set if anybody has a link about jordan and co that would be useful because i hope that helped you
This message has been edited by JordanAndCompany on Jun 24, 2006 11:59 AM
The name of the photographer's studio owner was Andrew Jordan.
Not sure if he was a photographer, but he was the manager of Abraham Bogardus studio earlier.
It's not a 4 card "set"
There are some pose variations as well as some without the "match" imprint.
There is no data available that sugests that William Crossley or William Hammond played baseball before or after the "grand match" date. (Both were very good cricket players in their time)
Not sure about Sam Wright baseball activities and guess you already know the answer to this question about both Harry and George Wright.
Visit the NYPL digital collection for some images or ask Barry Sloate who had two "commons" for sale a while ago.
You can start from there...
Edited to add that the William Crossley CdV isn't in my collection anymore.
This message has been edited by JLeiderman on Jun 23, 2006 2:48 PM
Please call me at my office. I would like to speak with you...my number is 972-774-7032...I do need to discuss a few things about the board with you.
thanks....leon .. aka moderator dude
edited to add that I find it a little suspicious that an 11 yr old has the email addy of "Dealer221@aol.com" unless it's a parent's email...regardless I have emailed Sean also and am waiting for correspondence....
This message has been edited by leonl on Jun 23, 2006 3:46 PM
The Jordan & Co.s "cards" in my view are not baseball cards because they (i) were issued as tickets for a championship cricket match (as such I regard them as tickets) and (ii) depict players in cricket attire (so if cards would be cricket cards). With that said, they nonetheless are great items, just not baseball cards. Images of the c. 1863 P&S Creighton and the 1860/1861 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV can be found in Stephen Wong's book "Smithsonian Baseball". The Creighton image can also be found in Mark Rucker's book on CDVs. I would post them if I could, but I am one of the more technologically inept members of this Board.
To respond to the question of the date of the card, it was issued after Creighton's death (which was in 1862). The verso of the card is a tribute to Creighton and leaves no doubt he had died. The 1863 year of issuance is not represented as being exact, just a best approximation from people knowledgeable about Peck & Synders who have seen the card.
This message has been edited by benjulmag on Jun 23, 2006 3:30 PM
Corey, I agree with your analysis.
I do have a question about item (i)
"were issued as tickets for a championship cricket match (as such I regard them as tickets)"
I think you are partially correct on this one.
Can't remember right now, but one of the matches (The last one) was to be a baseball one and it was postponed. Not sure if it was played on a later date.
I remember reading the newspaper articles from those dates at the NYPL but memory fails me right now.
Even assuming the last match was to be a baseball match, the fact that the "cards" were issued as tickets of admission to me doesn't change the fact that they are still tickets. Also, because the players are still attired in their cricket garb (i.e., they didn't reshoot the images to show them in baseball attire), if cards, I still would regard them as cricket cards.
This message has been edited by benjulmag on Jun 23, 2006 3:52 PM
All of the subjects pictured were cricket players at the time and they were dressed like so.
Since I'm not a baseball "card" collector, I don't mind how are they called, tickets, cards, etc.
To me, they are simply a bunch of cricket players CdVs that happened to be used as tickets to a series of games.
The fact that one of the games was meant to be a baseball one, that both Harry and George are pictured, that Harry was closely related to the match organization and the ancient date on them, makes them pretty interesting.
Amazingly, I learned today from the PSA pop report that the first bb cards were issued in 1800:
1800 N508 SUB ROSE CIGARETTES WOMEN BASEBALL PALYERS
CARD NO NAME VARIETY 1-2 3-4 TOTAL
Total: 1 1 7
2 THE PITCHER WOMEN BASEBALL PLAYERS 1 0 2
4 CHANCE FOR DBL.PLAY WOMEN BASEBALL PLAYERS 0 1 2
5 "DOUBLE HIM UP!" WOMEN BASEBALL PLAYERS 0 0 1
7 CATCHER WOMEN BASEBALL PLAYERS 0 0 1
8 THE RIGHTFIELDER WOMEN BASEBALL PLAYERS 0 0 1
Sean (hi Sean) and I just spoke. I must say he is a grown up 11 yr. old. His dad knows he's on the chatboard. As long as nothing is naughty, it's ok. I asked about cards and his earliet is 1956. He sounded a little timid as I think I might be a little scary (to him). So I would again like to welcome our youngest board member, Sean. This is also a good lesson in why we do need to be cognizant of what we say, and the audience in cyberspace. regards
I apologize to you for my inhospitable crack at the start of this thread. We are all just a bunch of grown-up kids ourselves here at the Net54 Vintage Baseball Card Forum and we have in common with you a passion for baseball and old cardboard. Welcome aboard.
Hi all- I've been off the board for a few weeks. As Corey said, the Jordan and Co. cards have nothing at all to do with baseball. They are a set of cricket cards only; the issue is clouded only because Harry Wright is one of the four pictured and he played both baseball and cricket. The baseball game scheduled for the day the cards were to be distributed was rained out and never played, so there is no way to determine if the other three cricket players pictured would have participated. You can argue that these card/tickets were the first of their kind distributed in America, but in no way can they be called baseball cards. I also agree with Corey that the Jim Creighton is arguably the first baseball card, but because all the other Peck and Snyders were issued between 1868-70, his date of 1863 seems too early. I doubt there was a five year gap between the first and second issue. Finally. Hal's Resolutes card, a CdV, was probably issued around 1864, and there are earlier CdV's known, such as the 1861 Atlantics. I still think the definition of what a baseball card is and which is the first depends upon who owns it. Each owner seems to feel that his is the first, and not the other guy's.
There is a book titled "Baseball Cartes, The First Baseball Cards". It was written by Mark Rucker and published in 1988. It is the most complete compilation of baseball CDVs known. It includes the c. 1864 Resolutes/Philadelphia, as well as five of the seven known Peck & Synders (including the Creighton). It does not picture the 1860/1861 Atlantics because that carte was discovered after the book came out.
CDVs can be dated to a time period due to the style, but rarely to a specific year without specific information. For example, a CDV with square corners almost always dates before 1870. while a CDV with rounded corners dates to later. Interestingly, 1860s CDVs are easy to date due to the distinct mount style, while later ones can be more difficult.
During the Civil War era, tax stamps were sometimes put on CDVs. These can date a CDV to a specific year just like with a cigarette pack.
There was a case where a collector had a CDV-style card that he felt was the first baseball card. I thought it indeed could be, the problem being it was impossible (as far as I saw) to date it to a specific year. The question wasn't so much if it was a baseball card, but what year it was made.
In the earliest years of cards, there are no clear answers. If you're sure of the year, you aren't sure if it's a real baseball card. If you're sure it's a real card, you can't be sure of its exact age. The Peck & Snyders are the first baseball cards I know of that are clearly baseball cards. I have seen few if any early CDVs or other items that are clearly baseball cards.
The topic of the origins of anything is confusing for a 51 year old, much less an 11 year old. Starting with this topic is like skipping algebra and starting with calculus II.
This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:51 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:48 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:46 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:44 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:41 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:39 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:36 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 24, 2006 3:25 PM
Even if this discussion doesn't go on, go ahead and bump around a few of the other threads. Many will probably have discussions that interest you, and will help you learn T206's too. I understand you have one on the way.
Also, many threads (esp Recent Pickups) have scans of many wonderful cards so you can start seeing what you like.
The 1861 Atlantics CdV was discovered by Mark Rucker in the late 1990's, and I purchased it from him. I later traded it to one of the contributors to this thread. He can step forward if he chooses. To date the card is unique. It pictures both Pete O'Brien as a player, as well as Al Reach. The appearance of both helped us date it to 1860-61.
oh yea i came back from my little league playoff game and we got slaughtered 14-1 so that means were out this by far means my worst season ever oh yea before my game i picked up Smithsonian Baseball and its great i found the 1860 CDV Brooklyn Atlantics Card i recommend this book
I complement your insatiable curiosity. To answer your question about the 1860/61 Brooklyn Atlantics CDV, here are some tidbits. The carte is the earliest known baseball CDV. There is one known copy. In 1860/61, the Atlantics were one of the two top teams in the country, the other being the Brooklyn Excelsiors (led by James Creighton). The Atlantics were the dynasty team of the 1860's, being either the top or one of the top teams throughout the decade. There are three known images of Atlantics from the 1860s - the carte of 1860/61 team, a mammoth plate of the 1865 team (an alternative version from the same photographer also exists with the photo being CDV size), and the Peck and Synder trade card of the 1868 team. The 1860/61 CDV, the 1865 mammoth plate and the 1868 Peck and Synder are illustrated in the book "Smithsonian Baseball".
They are a set of 12 single player cabinets picturing the 1871 Boston Red Stockings. They were the dominant professional team before the National League was founded in 1876. Several of the players came to the Boston team from the 1869 Cincinnati team including George and Harry Wright and Cal McVey.
As discussed on this thread, there were team pictures and some individual photos made prior to this, but I think this is the first real "set" of cards, in the way we think of them today.
I am taking steps to get a handle on this.....One deleted thread, a deleted post or two....I hate to do it... but I have to agree with you...and to not heed my personal and public appeals is not happening....Not on this board....best regards
edited to add that I have deleted several posts in this thread....it was far more redundant......
This message has been edited by leonl on Jun 26, 2006 6:39 PM
Sean, for something to be a baseball card it has to have been sold or used commercially. For example,
your 1959 Topps card was sold commercially in a wax pack with gum at a store. Some kid probably forked
over his allowance in 1959 to get your card. Other baseball cards were used for advertising and have
ads printed on them. The Peck & Snyder cards have ads for Peck & Snyder sporting goods and
were given out as ads for the company.
The photo you linked to is a fine and early baseball photograph, but probably was not sold
in a store or used for advertising. Thus, it doesn't count as a baseball card.
The earliest known baseball cards were the Peck & Snyder cards, with the 1868 Peck & Snyder Brooklyn
Atlantics being the first in the set.
One of the Peck & Snyder cards is of James Creighton, who is pictured in the photo
you linked to. He's the guy third from the left, and he was the first big baseball star.
This message has been edited by drc1 on Jun 28, 2006 12:48 AM
Although not a card, his early albumized salt print cabinet may be of interest for your records. It is one of the earliest known team shots and represents a singularly rare uniform type. The featured team is the Pop & Go BBC who possibly hailed out of Pennsylvania. It originally came from Mark Ruckerís collection and he believes that it dates from around 1859-61. I too concur with Markís assessment given: the transitionary nature between albumen & salt, the mount and the uniform with the 1850ís V front bib evident on the far left bottom row player). Mark didnít have too much other background on it other than the Pennsylvania link. If anyone else has any other info on them, I would love to hear from you (itís just a touch hard carrying out research from the UK!)
You may want to talk with Scott Forrest as he was the "original" owner of the Pop & Go. photograph.
A fine early piece in my opinion, but not sure about its age since I haven't had the pleasure of holding it in person.
The 1860 Excelsior photo which resides at the New York Public Library is a mammoth plate salt print, roughly the size of a poster. Possibly the greatest early baseball image extant, but in no way a baseball card. Is the focus of this thread the earliest baseball card or the earliest known baseball image? I think it is losing its focus.
Thanks Jason- I did have a nice vacation other than catching lyme disease, and I am currently back in Brooklyn. I think the debate over what constitutes a baseball card boils down to a simple premise- baseball cards are worth more than other forms of memorabilia. If you call a Peck & Snyder an advertising trade card, which it always was until just recently, it is worth x. But if you can call it a baseball card, its value magically triples. Now just about everything that's square, made of paper, isn't too large and fits in a slab is called a baseball card. There's nothing wrong with definitions changing and evolving, but collectors should understand what is behind it.
yea me to in th ebook Smithsonial Baseball it shows the New York Knickerbockers with Alexander Cartwright and a coupl of other people i think thats the earliest photo theres also another thats shows the red stocking and its from 1859
This message has been edited by leonl on Jun 28, 2006 11:34 AM
Jay Ė they are firemen's uniforms (also check out the No 2 on the hat signifying a fire-fighters position on the crew - this is one of the reasons I think that this may be of the Mutual BBC who were one of a few early teams comprised of fire-fighters) and the chap on the right is holding a baseball near the guy on the left's shoulder. It is also definitely 1850's.
to whomever is concerned our little comrade Sean....will be back on the board this coming Monday...when I get back from the National. He emailed me wanting to be my best buddy last night and wanted my cell # again. I emailed and told him I am 44 and he is 11...and he needs to find a best buddy closer to his age. My little girl is 9 but not sure about that set up.....regards all...ALSO, thanks for posting this article...very informative....
Since the article cites that three St. George Dragonslayers played and the three pictured on the "stubs" other than Harry Wright were not baseball players, then that seems to identify their team affiliation. Why weren't any of the Excelsior or other baseball players pictured, and instead just Wright and the three cricketeers? To add, Sam Wright was probably not on the Dragonslayers, but none of the other two- Hammond or Crossley- have any record of ever having played organized baseball. Curious.
This message has been edited by barrysloate on Jul 25, 2006 3:14 PM