1948 Bowman Baseball Forum

I know my own thoughts on this but putting it out there. I think there are 44 of the 48 cards marked as RC. If we agree on this, we will be the only ones in the hobby who think this way.

Honest question - If the 1948 Bowman card is not considered the rookie card of a player, which card would be the one considered to be the RC?

I guess the question is how you (or more accurately, how does the site) define "rookie card" -- is it "first card/year by one of the major manufacturers in a major league uniform," or "first card released during/after their official MLB rookie season."

Not to throw another level on this, but the parallel, I'd think, would be players who come over from international leagues. For example, Ichiro has two cards (or years) with RC designations here: his 1993 BBM card, and all of his 2001 major US releases. Can they realistically all be considered rookie cards if there are eight years between them?

I see both sides of this, but I think like most things in this hobby, it's become somewhat relative because of the diversity of card sets and diversity of leagues. If I'm looking for a player's "rookie card" (quotes/emphasis mine in this case), I want their earliest card that's generally available to the public. For most players since 1948, most folks will consider that to be whatever year their first Topps/Bowman/Fleer/UD/Score/whatever card is, regardless of the set. It's why Kevin McReynolds, who I collect, has Fleer and Donruss RCs because he was in their 84 sets, but has no Topps RC because he didn't sign with them until 1987.

But to answer your initial question? It's a little weird to think of a guy like Johnny Mize, who debuted in 1936 and has cards in the TCDB going back that far, as having a 1948 "rookie card."

However the site decides, this would also impact other sports, no? https://www.tcdb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid/72609/1981-Donruss

I imagine a lot of people (especially some sellers) still think an RC symbol, on anything, means it's a rookie card. If TCDB stands alone on certain RC labels on the 1948 Bowman set, it's not so bad. But yes, Vrooomed poses a good question.

I stick with the first card released in a major set (IE topps fleer bowman atc) once they reach the major league of their respective sport. In Ichiro or Ohtani's cases that means their major league not Japanese league card. As for the 1948 Bowman because there were no releases prior to that year it will have a huge list of RC's. Playball may have been the first sports set but it was impacted by WW2 so the 1948 Bowman set is considered the first modern sports card era set. Modern in relative terms meaning the cards and gum were the product not as a extra to get you to buy another product.

I would argue (in the case of 1948 Bowman), that if 1947 was not the player's actual rookie year, then it is NOT a rookie card. A 1st card, yes, a rookie card, no. A rookie card should only be considered as such when it is from a set that is about that player's rookie season.

For players like Ichiro and Ohtani, they would have a Japanese League rookie card AND an MLB rookie card.

Just my opinion FWIW.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me for a player not to have a rookie card, if the first card issued for them was several years into their career because no one was issuing cards.  There's nothing set in stone saying a first card has to be a rookie card.

This was exactly my point. Some of the players who have the RC designation in the 1948 Bowman set were in the majors for several years before the set was released. If we only accept the major brands we are all familiar with today as the only sets that have RC, then what is Babe Ruth's / Lou Gehrig's / Ty Cobb's RC?

Didn't "FC" or first card used to be a thing?

Same thing with the 1933 Goudey. Most say those are rookie cards as well. 
My thoughts it got to start somewhere. If if you are wanting to change something to actually designate what card is a true rookie card set then we all must say the first set ever and every card should have the RC tag. 
The set I am referring to is the 1867 Troy Haymakers