Saturday, February 18, 2017

1st Bowman Card vs. RC

I bought a binder at an auction several months back and I've been going through it recently. I came across this 2010 1st Bowman Card of Aroldis Chapman.

I like this card and Chapman is a guy that is a must watch for me when he's in the game. I was glad it was in the binder. 

I don't have a ton of Chapman cards, but I try to pick up his cards when I find them in dime boxes. 

Aroldis Chapman is from Cuba and made his MLB debut in 2011 with the Cincinnati Reds. He pitched for the Reds from 2011 - 2015. Chapman had some off season trouble in 2015 that negated a trade to the Dodgers. Instead a few weeks later he was traded to the Yankees. He was traded to the Cubs in July of 2016 and was a part of the Chicago Cubs championship run. A few months later, Chapman signed a five year deal back with the Yankees.

The purpose of this post though is to discuss the 1st Bowman Card and the RC.

Here's Chapman's 2011 Topps RC. 

What do you think about the guidelines currently in place regarding the Rookie Card distinction? Are you a fan of the 1st Bowman Cards? How does it impact collect-ability and value? Do you even care? Do you like the RC logo being on cards?


  1. I enjoy early releases before the player makes his MLB debut. The RC stamp is fine with me, but I mostly like it because it helps me remember when he first came up. I actually prefer cards from Topps Pro Debut, Heritage Minors, Panini Elite Extra Edition, Bowman and the USA sets.
    For some reason I covet a player's minor league team issued card from his first professional stop versus some jazzed up mainstream rookie card that has the card collecting world captivated. I think I'm in the minority on this one.

  2. I prefer the RC stamp as well but find the most wanted cards are most always the first cards. We know this means Bowman. Guidelines are a bit pointless to many collectors.