2010 Bowman Checklist Change UPDATED WITH PICS FOR PROOF!!!

[aaron41984]

I was at the LCS today picking up supplies and looked through the paperwork for 2010 Bowman that Topps had sent the owner and his checklist was much different from those posted on Blowout, here, etc. The checklist Topps sent him showed each Prospect Auto as having a Base Chrome Prospect card in the set. Does anyone know if this is correct?

 

[HMS Sports Cards]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

I have no idea if that is true, but wouldn't that be a good thing? I much rather have base cards of Ackley, etc... then some other random prospect. I don't see it hurting the value of the autos... see Montero in 2008 BDP. It seems it would increase the value of the set.

Just my opinion as both a seller and a collector.

H

 

[Buynhisellnlow]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

I have no idea if that is true, but wouldn't that be a good thing? I much rather have base cards of Ackley, etc... then some other random prospect. I don't see it hurting the value of the autos... see Montero in 2008 BDP. It seems it would increase the value of the set.

Just my opinion as both a seller and a collector.

H

x 2

If that's true then I'll be picking up more cases than I had originally planned. If Strasburg, Ackley, Tate, etc. are in the base set then that definitely adds more value per case.

 

[Buynhisellnlow]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

Bump for the OP - I'm also interested to see if this has any validity to it.

 

[CollectorsCorner]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

while this post is here I also want to confirm the jumbos come 2 chrome autos 1 regular auto. As I have heard it differently multiple times

 

[CollectorsCorner]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

also I may be missing it but doesn't strasburg have an auto in the set I don't see it on any checklist

 

[Buynhisellnlow]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

Bump - anyone have any additional info to the questions raised in the thread?

 

[aaron41984]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

Seriously, gilmo? anybody? no idea about this?

 

[Jaypers]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

I was at the LCS today picking up supplies and looked through the paperwork for 2010 Bowman that Topps had sent the owner and his checklist was much different from those posted on Blowout, here, etc. The checklist Topps sent him showed each Prospect Auto as having a Base Chrome Prospect card in the set. Does anyone know if this is correct?

The only change I'm aware of is the new addition of USA Chromes and parallels.

 

[aaron41984]

Re: 2010 Bowman Checklist Change

The Proof....
JP, I know you have no faith in what I have said but this IS the Topps factory direct checklist that my LCS owner got in January. These are iPhone pics but should show up well enough. If not just save them to your comp and blow them up. The first pic is self explanatory. The 2nd is the bowman base checklist and you will notice Ackley, Tate, etc in the lower right corner. The third shot is to prove I was at the shop and show that he keeps all his product info from the companies in a nice organized binder. I know all you naysayers would just say I printed those in my basement otherwise. Haha

 

[bballcardkid]

^^^

NICE!!!!

 

[Superfractor]

^^^

NICE!!!!

The fact that there will be Base-Chrome with AU-Chrome? I disagree, but if they fix the problem of which one is 1st BC, along with a few details, then I would be willing to tolerate.

 

[darocker80]

wait so nick franklin isi a non auto?

TBD strasburg? or they'll just let him me the non auto

and damn ackley, tate brett jackson grant green have non autos and autos. will that mean their bowman chrome auto won't ahve the 1st bowman chrome logo on it?

 

[bballcardkid]

^^^

NICE!!!!

The fact that there will be Base-Chrome with AU-Chrome? I disagree, but if they fix the problem of which one is 1st BC, along with a few details, then I would be willing to tolerate.

I don't here anyone complaining about Montero having a base Chrome and a Chrome Auto. Both are first year rookies.

 

[Superfractor]

I would settle for monikers such as:

"1st Bowman Chrome Auto Card."
"1st Bowman Chrome Card."


I'm still picking my poison, though.

Technically, it is a logical consistency since there also exists "1st Bowman Cards." I suppose it could be reasoned that an autographed card distinguishes it from the chrome-base (see base and base-chrome contrasts).

Then again, all of the above was all moot, since they'll both be named "1st Bowman Chrome Card."

 

[Superfractor]

^^^

NICE!!!!

The fact that there will be Base-Chrome with AU-Chrome? I disagree, but if they fix the problem of which one is 1st BC, along with a few details, then I would be willing to tolerate.

I don't here anyone complaining about Montero having a base Chrome and a Chrome Auto. Both are first year rookies.

Technically no; His AU is his second-tier Chrome. The AU is labeled "Bowman Chrome." I don't know if both his Chrome-Base and his Chrome-AU were in the same product? Were they?


Addendum: The problem I have, is not that they have Chrome (Base and AU alike) in the same year, it is that they have Chrome in the same product.

 

[bballcardkid]

Yes, they were released in the same product.

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter what designation the card has? The year is all that matters.

 

[Superfractor]

Yes, they were released in the same product.

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter what designation the card has? The year is all that matters.

Of course, I agree. Then again, in that same perspective: We shouldn't care so much about the strangers who play this sport.

Anyways, I think I can settle. His AU is (Jesus') "Bowman Chrome," and so it's reasonable to assume this upcoming Bowman Baseball product will have the same labels. That was my main problem.


Good news, Beefycheddar: There will be two Brothers Superfractors.

 

[MallCopKJ]

Is Jose Iglesias not on the checklist as an auto anymore, or does the list continue onto the other side??

 

[TomMurry]

Havent they been hyping the Strasburg Auto in this?