Site Forum

Big agree with this...also I can't be the first one to have brought this up am I!?

Note that my comment was what it means, or doesn't mean, to me and my perspective as does everyone else's comments. Never implied that it doesn't mean something to others and discounting their views. The statement "it's always been an important part of the hobby" can be that way also; it's all dependent upon the collector if that's true. As you've seen already, it can fall either way and this site has a nice cross-section collector types.

Back to civil discourse. The link early can also be deceiving. It goes to a specific subset of cards that is "First Year" and was released as such. First Bowman goes on only certain cards. Again I can see the argument for include a FBC or similar annotation. May I suggest a reframing of the discussion as it looks to be taking a personal affront. Instead of terming it as "it must be labeled as such because it's important to the hobby" (subjective POV/meaning that it is) why not enhance the discussion about how Topps designated the card as such simliar to Rookie Stars/Future Stars, etc? It comes across less like a person's (well several in this case) personal preference to how the site is used and insteads provides a logical reasoning why something is done a certain way. More productive and gives a solution that can be pointed to down the line (like the FAQ....).    

Minus what I just posted, no it really hasn't been discussed before, at least in my memory. Goes back to what I just tried to say in my other post, and I agree with how Dave stated it

Apologies if I started to come off as brash or annoyed, was kind of my natural reaction to some of the reactions I was getting like I was a crazy person for thinking it should be denoted. I think I just didnt word it the way I should have haha. No disrespect to anyone here, I'm here like everyone else to discuss cards! 

Because it's very clearly a design element, actually printed on the card, I think it should be noted in Note1. Especially so as it only applies to certain cards, not the entire set, to my knowledge. That makes it different from the other cards. Which means it's pretty much a textbook definition of something that gets a Note1.

So who's gonna do the edits/glossary entries? If this is something that's going to be done someone has to so the dirty work....

Just to be clear:

If you are simply wanting to note that it is a player's first card issued by Bowman, that would not be an appropriate use of the Note field on the Database.

If you are referring to cards that have a mark like, for instance, the Topps All-Star Rookie cup (and thus, those cards receive the "ASR" Note in the Database), I would think it would be acceptable - and I think this is where you're going? Three points to go along with that, however.

• We had a handful of members work very hard on a Notes document a couple of years ago. It can be found here. I don't know if their names are out there or not, but I'm sure at least a couple of them would be willing to chime in. Talk to them and see if there is a reason something like this isn't listed already. It may have been a private discussion.
• Next, I would send Admin a message and receive permission to make that part of the site's vocabulary. It's his site, and it would be his final determination. He may not want it on here for some reason, though all interactions I've had with him have been met with receptiveness and a willingness to listen.
• Finally, should this come to pass after the first two steps, be prepared to do some legwork. If you come up with it and receive approval, and then want to ask someone else to go through and mark every "1st Bowman Card" with a Note, you're going to meet a lot of resistance. Be prepared to do that work yourself, and do it fully. I'm not sitting here saying you won't, I'm just warning you that there will be a lot of unhappy members if the work is done halfway or you ask someone else to do so.

If you are, in fact, wanting to simply note which players received their first Bowman card in a given set, I would recommend using the "Trivia" field for the set. You can enter a nice note there that says something along the lines of "1st Bowman cards in this set include..." and go from there. But again, that doesn't seem to be what you're driving at (though I could be wrong).

Edit to add that my points above still stand, but Jim is thinking the same thing I am about who's going to do it. Not that "because it's a lot of work" is a good reason to not do something. I'm just saying that I will not be volunteering for this one, personally - I've got enough going on.

Yea to clarify all I'm asking for is for the cards that have 1st Bowman Card printed on them, to be denoted, just like an ASR or Future Stars card. Easy enough!

No we do not put every card element in Note1.  Card companies put the RC logo on parallels and we DO NOT put RC in the Note for those cards.  We only put the RC in the Note of true rookie cards.  Why? Because it indicates a rookie card, not because it has a logo on it. It's not just cards with an RC logo, ALL rookie cards get the RC note dating back to the late 1800s.  If we give credence to 1BC and put 1BC (1st Bowman Card) in the Note of these cards, then as vrooomed stated ALL  Bowman cards of a player's first would be required to have the 1BC note.

No they wouldn't.