Am I the only one who absolutely DESPISES non-liscensed baseball cards?

[jbhofmann]

Another card that was hotter than hot that has no MLB logo on it...

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Here's my limited take on the logo issue. Obviously, we all prefer logos. Some cards look better than others without logos.

Elite Extra Edition has never had team logos. Therefore, the airbrushing of the high school or college logos, if it is done, is barely noticable as most college and hgih school logos are unrecognizable. EEE has always had non-major league uniforms, therefore, it is the least impacted by the loss of the MLB license.

National Treasures -- why is this so successful? Because you're not missing anything. What I mean is, the player is rarely if ever pictured with an airbrushed jersey or hat. The hat simply isn't in the picture. Therefore, there is no noticeable lack of logo.

Other Panini products: When you make an MLBPA licensed set such as Prism and show jerseys and caps with airbrushing, it looks bad because you know what it is that you're missing.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Another card that was hotter than hot that has no MLB logo on it...

Doesn't this also qualify?

Not sure if these do:

 

[MansGame]

I love the examples being inserted into the thread as examples but most, if not all, are from product which WAS liscensed by MLB or was pre-liscensing by MLB lol

 

[BunchOBull]

Upper Deck did well to get NCAA licensing...this thing is beautiful:

 

[predatorkj]

I love the examples being inserted into the thread as examples but most, if not all, are from product which WAS liscensed by MLB or was pre-liscensing by MLB lol

Yeah but some pretty good cards like that MO rookie didn't have a logo on the front. Hell, the guy wasn't even in a uniform. Even the chipper jones from that set was popular and for a while outsold his rookies. Point is, if a card is cool looking and well designed, that's all that matters. Everyone is trying to make everything fit into a perfect mold and there is no reason to.

 

[Austin]

That Frank Thomas is gorgeous!
The Auburn logo in the card's design and his college uniform really make the card incredible.
It would look ugly and generic if Thomas was wearing a plain airbrushed jersey and the AU was taken out of the card's design.

 

[MansGame]

Yeah but some pretty good cards like that MO rookie didn't have a logo on the front. Hell, the guy wasn't even in a uniform. Even the chipper jones from that set was popular and for a while outsold his rookies. Point is, if a card is cool looking and well designed, that's all that matters. Everyone is trying to make everything fit into a perfect mold and there is no reason to.

I think maybe the issue is we're mixing "Am I the only one who absolutely DESPISES non-liscensed baseball cards?" and "Am I the only one who absolutely DESPISES non-liscensed baseball products?"

I personally interpreted the thread to be about entire product releases which were non-liscensed but others took it as individual cards... personally this is different because clearly there are some epic cards in the past with no logos on them (many have been shown already in this thread) but the real issue to discuss is entire products which every single card is non-liscensed and not just single cards over the last 30 years which have huge value but don't have an MLB logo. We could go around and around all day about cards in the past with no logo on them but the real topic IMO is about entire releases today with zero logos and no liscensing.

Anyways, it is what it is I guess... I loved NT myself but hate most everything else non-liscensed. Then again, I'll remind everyone how premium NT was lol... like how could you not be happy with that product? Every single card in the entire product was a hit lol.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I love the examples being inserted into the thread as examples but most, if not all, are from product which WAS liscensed by MLB or was pre-liscensing by MLB lol

Yes... strange how nobody cared about licensing then... ?

 

[MansGame]

Yes... strange how nobody cared about licensing then... ?

Not sure how to respond lol

I wouldn't say back then nobody cared about licensing because all those products were licensed. If you're referring to the cards made about 100 years ago, there was no such thing as licensing... part of me just feels like maybe what you're trying to say is back then no one even really knew about MLB licensing because everyone had it and it was the norm... we didn't know any better... now adays we know everything about it and since it is the norm, we enjoy seeing entire products which are licensed, rather than entire products which are not.

Did you read my post about getting cards with no logos confused with entire product releases with no MLB licensing? I think there is a clear difference.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Did you read my post about getting cards with no logos confused with entire product releases with no MLB licensing? I think there is a clear difference.

Not sure what you meant here, a clear difference in what terms? It seems you're saying it doesn't matter what the card looks like as long as its licensed here!

Also consider that some sets/releases are licensed in different ways. I think some Bowman sets has some cards that are MLBPA and others that are not, I think other sets have some cards that are HOF licensed but others that are not. There are so many combinations.

 

[MansGame]

Not sure what you meant here, a clear difference in what terms? It seems you're saying it doesn't matter what the card looks like as long as its licensed here!

Also consider that some sets/releases are licensed in different ways. I think some Bowman sets has some cards that are MLBPA and others that are not, I think other sets have some cards that are HOF licensed but others that are not. There are so many combinations.

I made a post/comment earlier in this thread about there being two different topics in this thread... one being non-licensed entire products and one being a single non-licensed card... I think those are two totally different topics IMO. Seeing one card from a set which show Bo Jackson with his shirt off (no logo) IMO is not really anything to get all worked up about... but it's an entire new topic when you want to discuss an entire baseball card release where every single card has no logos, etc. and is not licensed.

Again, I don't really have a dog in the fight because I buy almost only Albert Belle cards and to this day he isn't in a non-licensed product but I think it's a good discussion. I tend to like licensed product more than non-licensed but you seem to be indifferent, which is fine too. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.

 

[predatorkj]

I think maybe the issue is we're mixing "Am I the only one who absolutely DESPISES non-liscensed baseball cards?" and "Am I the only one who absolutely DESPISES non-liscensed baseball products?"

I personally interpreted the thread to be about entire product releases which were non-liscensed but others took it as individual cards... personally this is different because clearly there are some epic cards in the past with no logos on them (many have been shown already in this thread) but the real issue to discuss is entire products which every single card is non-liscensed and not just single cards over the last 30 years which have huge value but don't have an MLB logo. We could go around and around all day about cards in the past with no logo on them but the real topic IMO is about entire releases today with zero logos and no liscensing.

Anyways, it is what it is I guess... I loved NT myself but hate most everything else non-liscensed. Then again, I'll remind everyone how premium NT was lol... like how could you not be happy with that product? Every single card in the entire product was a hit lol.

All I care about is having a choice. MLB took our choice from us. Panini and leaf are trying to give it back to us and I support that. They have no control as far as being able to show logos so I don't hold that against them. I buy them for what they are. And I don't hold them to a higher standard than they can be. To get all worked up and say you despise these companies for making sets and giving you a choice seems kind of odd to me. It's like you either hate them for giving you a choice(which I seriously doubt any of you do) or you hate them for being everything they can be without a license, which makes no sense. It's like being mad at a ford focus for not being as fast as a Lamborghini.

 

[notjomommasclint]

I only purchase licensed cards. I like pro and college cards but in my opinion they aren't pro or college cards with no reference to the city, teams name, or logo.

As far as a monopoly.. Topps does not have a monopoly. It is an Oligopoly.


I'm old Greg

 

[ThoseBackPages]

 

[Austin]

As far as a monopoly.. Topps does not have a monopoly. It is an Oligopoly.

How does Topps not have a logo MLB team licensing monopoly in baseball?
An oligopoly is when an industry or market is dominated by a small group of companies.
Topps is the lone MLb logo license holder, so that's a monopoly.
Or am I missing something?

 

[jrinne]

I must not have enough time to be concerned with who has what. If the card looks nice Ill buy it.

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

I just don't care one way or the other. They're baseball cards. Cardboard with photos of dudes on them, no matter if there are MLB logos or not. If the design of the card is nice, I'll take it.

 

[Brewer Andy]

"How you collect" is probably a huge factor here. Player collectors or prospectors likely care less about the lack of logos than a team collector. Maybe not in all cases but I'm sure that's a safe generality. Still design, presentation, and appeal trump all

 

[notjomommasclint]

How does Topps not have a logo MLB team licensing monopoly in baseball?
An oligopoly is when an industry or market is dominated by a small group of companies.
Topps is the lone MLb logo license holder, so that's a monopoly.
Or am I missing something?

You can get the same players in topps, panini, and in prospect cases leaf. What the MLB does with their logo/named property would be at their choosing. Topps holds its exclusivity but a very similar product is still available in the open market from a small number of outlets.




I'm old Greg