Site Forum

Just a friendly reminder to check the Site's Rules and Guidelines before adding Notes to the Database, especially large edits to sets that have been listed for a long time.

https://www.tcdb.com/Docs/Rules%20and%20Guidelines%2010.20.2018.pdf

A few members have been busy recently adding non-conforming Notes to more than 50 sets, which is time wasted on their end, not to mention the time those errors will take to correct.The sets involved include flagship Baseball releases back to the mid-90's, which should be a clue that something has not been overlooked in more than half the cards in those sets. This Site is crowd-sourced so this post is not meant to discourage edits, but please make an effort to know what you're doing before assuming hundreds of people have consistently overlooked something in several thousand cards spanning almost 30 years. If you have any questions about whether huge number of Notes need to be added, please ask before flailing away and wasting a lot of your, and others', time.

Thanks 

Which sets/notes are you referring to in this case?

If this is in reference to "FBC", there was a huge thread and discussion about this about a month ago. It is a card design element, much like a Topps "rookie cup" or an "All-Star" designation. These actually fall well within the rules and gudelines.

https://www.tcdb.com/Forum.cfm/Page/I/ID/0/?MODE=VIEW&ThreadID=27213&C=47

This is the thread that Dan mentioned. 

My bad, I missed that thread. However, I do not agree it is a design element the Rules allow; specifically Rule X says:

"Rule X: Certain information is expressly prohibited from inclusion in the Note and Note2 fields. This includes card descriptions that do not reflect one of the three Note characteristics, such as F[P]C for First [Product] Card, e.g., First Topps Card or First Fleer Card."

The rule is further discussed in the Guidelines:

Guideline 10A-- Artificial descriptions that do not truly reflect any recognized card characteristic are not consistent with TCDB objectives and should not be included. For example, First [Product] Cards represent an issuer attempting to create the added value of a RC designation for a card that is not a true Rookie Card, and the TCDB does not include these designations. A very limited exception applies to certain Topps Baseball cards issued between 1957 and 1971 picturing multiple players under a collective title such as "Chisox Clubbers" or "Yankees' Power Hitters". Although not assigned a subset name at the time issued, it is assumed that cards meeting these criteria would have been assigned a subset name had they been issued more recently, and the TCDB wishes to indicate such card groupings. Using the Note “CPC” with the definition "Combo Player Card" is the approved method for identifying these cards as a group substantially equivalent to an unnamed subset of the Topps Baseball set for that year.

I personally don't mid the FxC Note, but it's expressly prohibited by the current version of the Rules.

Thanks

I believe it was decided that the First Bowman Card note was allowed because that logo is a design element, as opposed to when, say, Topps would have a note on the back of the card that said "*Rookie Card" in fine print. The important distinction is that we're noting the logo as a design element, not that we're noting every player's first card from that brand.

The FBC designation is only supposed to go on those cards that are exhortation stamped as such by the manufacturer, but just the actual "first card." But the officially manufacturer designated first bowman stamp. 

It's expressly prohibited from us using it on cards in the 1989, 1990, and 1991 Bowman sets (and they have a lot of "first Bowman cards", but no cards are actually labelled as such, so there are no "First Bowman Cards" (yes, my capitalization there on both text parts within the quotes is very important).

The document specifically says any "artificial descriptions". This would be akin to marking all players in a set if they won the Gold Glove the year before - even though there is nothing on the card to indicate they won the gold glove.

Again, the FBC Note was only added to sets where the design element was placed on the card - even if there is another player in the set that has his first Bowman card - if it doe not have the logo, it does not get the Note.

The only thing we could add to the document is to append to Rule X "(Unless there is a design element indicating a company's first card, which may be included.)" 

Hey Guys, sorry if I caused any confusion by adding those notes in today. I was under the impression that if the card had a 1st Bowman Logo on the card, that a FBC note could be added, much like an All-Star Rookie ASR note. That is what vrooomed, Hamilton2, FreehanSolo seem to be saying.

I believe that a FBC note should not be added to the 1989 Bowman Ken Griffey Jr. #220 card for example because there is not a manufacturer logo on the card even though it is his first Bowman card. 

It helps me to have these notes added in because it helps identify which of the Bowman cards is the first one. Some players have many prospects cards between Bowman - Prospects, Bowman Draft Picks and Prospects, and Bowman Draft Picks and Prospects - Prospects, etc.(for example Carlos Correa has like 4).

If I have made a mistake, I appologize.

The apology is mine. Apparently I was wrong here and inadvertently caused the very issue I was trying to avoid. I believe I have restored all of the Notes deleted earlier today.

Thanks