So you are basically speaking from no actual position of knowledge. This was all about a process you have developed in your head?
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Unbelieveable Redemption Replacement from Topps!
- Thread starter bcubs
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
So you are basically speaking from no actual position of knowledge. This was all about a process you have developed in your head?
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
Alright, IF we choose to believe that, you doubtless heard them say that they will replace your card with a card of equal value. If you say otherwise, we can assume that you're simply being obtuse again, since you clearly act as though you've never dealt with them.
And your sad attempts to elicit an emotional response won't work. I'm not "heated" about this, just stating facts. I was actually happy with the VALUE that Topps saw fit to purposefully reward me with for my replaced Harvey autograph. Oops, there I go again, using direct facts and experience; I forgot those do not apply to you, since you avoid them.
I assume you'll start using the word "inconceivable" at any moment...
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
This is not an acceptable answer. For one, #4 only occurs because the wording on the redemption entitles the holder to a card as per Topps' policies, not because any card exists.
Austin
Well-known member
When are you guys going to realize that uniquebaseballcards just argues for sport? He does it in every controversial thread just to troll you, and has been doing it since the Beckett board days.
You waste countless hours arguing with him and he'll never back down because he thinks it's fun.
You waste countless hours arguing with him and he'll never back down because he thinks it's fun.
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
You're saying someone who doesn't care what value is received in return isn't in an actual position of knowledge.
As you've shown you've nothing to offer here, you should leave.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
It's not acceptable to you maybe, but it's still the reality that Topps and the rest of us operate under. Just because you don't understand and are unfamiliar with what Topps does, doesn't mean it's wrong. You're the one that is confused, and you can't even see it. Sorry.
Also, you still haven't responded to my post about the direct interaction I had with Topps. I mean, I wouldn't either if I were you, since it destroys your whole point; but if you please...
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
I haven't been to the troll zoo in a while, so this is fun. Especially when it's someone as willfully clueless as this guy.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
He's saying that you've shown no actual proof that you have dealt with the redemption replacement process. None of us really believes you have anyway, so that's fine.
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
If any of this were true, this thread wouldn't exist.
But yet here we are.
I'm glad you think you understand how things work.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
Still dodging my request to respond to my call to the Topps CS rep, huh?
Also, please explain the last sentence of the 4th paragraph here:
What are they talking about value for? This magic card hasn't even been made yet? Topps should have checked with you first before putting this language on their redemption card, since they clearly don't understand you.
Now, go ahead and twist Topps wording again to fit into your tiny head. We'll wait. We'll be laughing too, but we'll wait.
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
Ok, I think I have been able to flesh this out so all parties involved can concede to certain 'truths' here.
1. The quote in UBBCs signature ("Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value.") does state that they will not say one way or another what any (if at all) future value any card(s) may or may not hold. Meaning in real world terms that they are selling a product 'as is' and do not place any kind of secondary market value on them with regards to future value. That's fair and understandable, as who can really predict, let alone want to guarantee, any kind of future value.
And with regards to redemptions, when you ask (or are told) that a redemption be replaced they use current value, with respect to the timeframe in which the redemption is being substituted for a card with similar secondary market value. And in this sense Topps is still not representing 'future value' but rather current value of said redemption (as of right now). And to be fair, this is somewhat accurate. Topps is not placing/creating value on the card but rather ascertaining 'current' fair market price as a guide (read: not creating or dictating pricing, but using the secondary as a guide) to help provide the customer with a proper replacement (in a best case scenario for a redemption replacement).
To sum this up, there is a difference between representing future value and/or using the secondary market as a guide with respect to redemption replacements. When you are representing future value in the context of the quote, you are placing a value and asserting card X will have this value 'because we say so'. And when Topps uses the secondary to gauge market pricing (in this case Beckett), they are simply trying to offer a fair replacement based on market value supplied by a third party and not themselves declaring or 'representing' value (current of future).
However....
When they sell a product in 2012 with the statement "Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value." and then in 2013 use secondary market data to assign value to a redemption replacement, it does fly in the face of the original disclaimer that states they will not represent any future value. How can you state in 2012 that you will not represent any future value of said card(s) but then in 2013 assign a value towards a replacement of said cards?
In the end, it is a bit of wordsmithing on both sides to try and create a aura of undisputable truth for each position, when in truth both sides of the coin (argument) have a point. Yet when taken in context and simply looked at in real world usage, Topps does indeed assign value to 'aged' redemption cards, far in the future from original sales dates. Albeit secondary market data from a third party. I think the only way one can look at this is how it actually plays out in a real world scenario, despite the aforementioned disclaimer, and contrary to said disclaimer Topps does assign future value, or rather value (in the future) from the original offering date with regards to replacing redemptions.
I hope this can put an end to this and we all can agree that arguing 2 sides of a dime does not make it a nickel.
1. The quote in UBBCs signature ("Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value.") does state that they will not say one way or another what any (if at all) future value any card(s) may or may not hold. Meaning in real world terms that they are selling a product 'as is' and do not place any kind of secondary market value on them with regards to future value. That's fair and understandable, as who can really predict, let alone want to guarantee, any kind of future value.
And with regards to redemptions, when you ask (or are told) that a redemption be replaced they use current value, with respect to the timeframe in which the redemption is being substituted for a card with similar secondary market value. And in this sense Topps is still not representing 'future value' but rather current value of said redemption (as of right now). And to be fair, this is somewhat accurate. Topps is not placing/creating value on the card but rather ascertaining 'current' fair market price as a guide (read: not creating or dictating pricing, but using the secondary as a guide) to help provide the customer with a proper replacement (in a best case scenario for a redemption replacement).
To sum this up, there is a difference between representing future value and/or using the secondary market as a guide with respect to redemption replacements. When you are representing future value in the context of the quote, you are placing a value and asserting card X will have this value 'because we say so'. And when Topps uses the secondary to gauge market pricing (in this case Beckett), they are simply trying to offer a fair replacement based on market value supplied by a third party and not themselves declaring or 'representing' value (current of future).
However....
When they sell a product in 2012 with the statement "Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value." and then in 2013 use secondary market data to assign value to a redemption replacement, it does fly in the face of the original disclaimer that states they will not represent any future value. How can you state in 2012 that you will not represent any future value of said card(s) but then in 2013 assign a value towards a replacement of said cards?
In the end, it is a bit of wordsmithing on both sides to try and create a aura of undisputable truth for each position, when in truth both sides of the coin (argument) have a point. Yet when taken in context and simply looked at in real world usage, Topps does indeed assign value to 'aged' redemption cards, far in the future from original sales dates. Albeit secondary market data from a third party. I think the only way one can look at this is how it actually plays out in a real world scenario, despite the aforementioned disclaimer, and contrary to said disclaimer Topps does assign future value, or rather value (in the future) from the original offering date with regards to replacing redemptions.
I hope this can put an end to this and we all can agree that arguing 2 sides of a dime does not make it a nickel.
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
According to Topps, what is the future value of a replacement for this, or any replacement, exactly? Tell me right now, within 10% ebay value and I'll stop posting.
Wait, since you like imaginary cards so much I have some I can sell you. I'm sure you can get 'equal value' for them at any time. I'm even sure you can get future value for them as well. I'll sell you a Hendrix redemption code for 8 bills, I'll send over my paypal address right away.
uniquebaseballcards
New member
- Nov 12, 2008
- 6,783
- 0
Ha! I think this is right on - except for the fact that any replacement offered at all would have an intrinsic value - even if the value is one cent. Given this fact, its affect on Topps' slogan/statement is de minimis.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
I like how you've abandoned the idea that Topps assigns no value to thier cards a all. Smart, you were sinking FAST on that point.
You do realize that the present is the "future" of the past, right? Dear lord tell me you understand that. So, when I pulled that card, Topps made the assertion (via the packaging or whatever) that they would have no say in the future value of the card. Fine. EXCEPT. Now, today, in the future of that event, I call Topps, and they very clearly assign a value to the card for the means of replacement.
See, here's the real problem with that statement you keep defending. You say it says Topps won't "predict" the future. Fine, no one would reasonably argue that; no one can predict the future. But, some time in the future, there ABSOLUTELY will be a value applied to the card. You can pretend the card doesn't exist, but most of the time they do (on-card autographs are ALWAYS produced, just not signed); even still, the redemption card acts as a proxy. SO there WILL be a value applied to the card in the future. Your semantic arguments can't change that fact. And it will be TOPPS that assigns it that value. Value. Topps. Future. It DOES happen, and it will continue to happen. Topps know this now, rendering that statement silly and hollow.
Last edited:
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
I like what you've got here.
Let me ask a question that might complicate things, or open another avenue for discussion.
If Topps does not represent any future value to these cards, could I ask for a value that existed in the past? Meaning, Topps must decouple itself from that statement and always just use the "current" (relative to release date) value of the card. When Topps assigns a value, past, present or future, they are linking themselves to value outside of cost, which is what that statement attempts to avoid. If you won't represent a "future" value, can I quote you a "past" value that already exists?
I would think Topps would run from that idea, given that they could one day have to give Micheal Pineda 2011-ish value for a Micheal Pineda right-now redemption replacement.
matfanofold
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 7,645
- 1
I agree Topps would probably run from that idea, because in the end it is not Topps assigning value but rather a third party data stream (with regards to placing value on redemption replacements). And current value is all that really matters anyway, no? Having said that, I believe a argument could be made if, lets say, you bought/pulled a redemption that had a $200 realistic value to it, but after waiting 1 year for a eventual replacement it had depreciated to $40. I believe in this case you should be compensated the replacement value of the redemption as it was when you pulled/purchased (and initially tried to redeem) it. But the other side of that is what if you pulled/purchased a redemption with a $40 value and by the time they replaced it, it had a $200 value, you would want current market value, no?
Interesting thought though.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
Right? Which why the statement by Topps is bogus when dealing with redemption replacements. We know it, and Topps knows it.
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,881
- 11
If, and I'm only saying maybe, you could provide them proof that you paid *** in the past for the card you are trying to get a replacement on who's present value is much smaller, maybe they would be inclined to help w a better replacement. Not sure it would work and not sure they would accept a completed eBay or online transaction detail as proof, but maybe. That would show the "market" of said redemption when they were supposed to , or should have at least, fill it in a timely manner. A pack / box pulled redemption would not really work as the cost was mixed within the rest of the product.
Ryan
Ryan
joey12508
Well-known member
gotta go with [MENTION=2016]hive17[/MENTION] on this topps redemption process sucks monkey ****
predatorkj
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 11,871
- 2
Yes. Problem then becomes that with the advent of these new cards topps has recently been sending out, the whole process has become different. Now topps can basically just make cards for a set and what doesn't go out in boxes, may never be made. Whereas before, they had to have something laying around to send you. Might not be any more of that. They may just create redemption replacements and you get one of the small number of possible choices, none of which have thus far been very valuable looking. So this is my concern. Doesn't mean it will happen. But it might.
Similar threads
