Site Forum

I came in to this thread set against adding any type of notation to first Bowmn cards but through reading I have come around to seeing it as a reasonable request. There would require a rule where the notation should only be added if the card has "1st Bowman" on the card. This means we would not be going back through every Bowman set and figuring out who has their first card in the set. Since this is a more recent addition by Topps it would only affect recent cards as well as future.

Part of my reason for coming around is because of Blowout Forums. With the addition of so many investors there are plenty of people talking about, and hunting, 1st Bowman cards as well as RC cards.

If the discussion comes to an agreement that a FBC notation should be added, I would be happy to go through the Bowman base sets that require the change and add it.

I would be happy to assist with this (contingent on the OK like you stated), but I don't know exactly what it entails outside of looking at the cards and marking it as 1st.

Corky wrote:

I came in to this thread set against adding any type of notation to first Bowmn cards but through reading I have come around to seeing it as a reasonable request. There would require a rule where the notation should only be added if the card has "1st Bowman" on the card. This means we would not be going back through every Bowman set and figuring out who has their first card in the set. Since this is a more recent addition by Topps it would only affect recent cards as well as future.

Part of my reason for coming around is because of Blowout Forums. With the addition of so many investors there are plenty of people talking about, and hunting, 1st Bowman cards as well as RC cards.

If the discussion comes to an agreement that a FBC notation should be added, I would be happy to go through the Bowman base sets that require the change and add it.

Wow, I go waway for a couple of hours and a whole lot happens.

To summarize:

• This is the first time this particular design element has been brought up.
• I was the one mentioned 1989 Bowman because I thought the OP was requesting any "first" Bowman card to be noted - this was before we started discussing the logo as a design element.
• I was one of the authors (and organizer) of the Notes document Jason mentioned. This was not specifically addressed - as a design element. I do believe there is a mention in the document that we do not have notes like FFC, FDC, or FTC for players that didn't appear in all sets their rookie year (such as Kevin McReynolds who didn't get a Topps card until his 3rd or 4th year in cards).
• There is language in the Note dicument that discusses documenting subsets (which means a design element has been used to "separate" the subset from the "regular" cards.

This is why I used the specific language I did in my last post asking if they should be treated as a subset.

This is perfectly within the site's rules and guidelines, would not need to be run past Admin, and should not be reversed by members who think this is not proper or "don't care" if these are documented this way.

Just let it be known, that the card MUST have the "First Bowman Card" logo on it to qualify for the Note field to have "FBC" in it (and yes, it should be "FBC", not "1BC").

Does this wrap this up? I would like the OP (gnarlycore) to send me a private message. I have a job for you. 

DM'd!

Yeah the way I understand it, it would ONLY apply to base cards that have this specific designation, similar to the Topps All-Rookie trophies, and like the Topps cards, it wouldn't be considered a subset ... just a special notation on the card. Same thing with the Upper Deck cards in the late 90s that had All-Star Game stamping or "Game Dated" notation .... they were regular base cards with a special notation and weren't a subset.

I just wanted to say after reading through this thread that we should try to keep in mind in general that not everyone has the same amount of time to work on the database.  This is a hobby after all.  Some of the reactions that imply the member coming up with the idea to improve the site must be the one to actually make the bulk of the additions to the database can come across as unwelcoming.  This especially comes to mind as there was a recent thread where new members were feeling unwanted by their interactions here.  

I for one have hardly any time anymore to spend on the hobby/TCDB.  But I have been a member here for a few years and would still think suggestions for improvement would be just as important as the work actually being done. Even if it was just to set a standard practice for moving forward and slowly and collectively making the changes considering this is a crowd sourced database. 

I completely agree.   

Also, I like the 1BC abbreviation. My $0.02. 

I am late to the party here but just wanted to say as a non-baseball collector I found this an interesting discussion.

When Imread the original post I felt this was just a marketing gimmick and not worth including but following through the thread and see the linked example(s) I changed my opinion and see how this is a specific design element and would/should be worth documenting.

Good discussion and an interesting read for someone with no prior knowledge of the subject.

Could be useful as this project gets tackled:

https://waxpackhero.com/firstbowman