2016 Bowman Chrome Preliminary Info (Vending Boxes Return)

metallicalex777 · Mar 29, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
I am unsure as to why I would care about this product. I did get a laugh out of the Kyle Schwarber 2nd year "RC" though. I love how this ridiculous company just makes it's own rules and expects no one to notice. Exclusive licensing at it's very worst. 'Get your Miguel Sano and Kyle Schwarber 2nd year "RCs", folks! Step right up!'

Why do you feel nobody notices? Topps has been doing the second and fifth year RC thing for years. Most don't like it or could really care less. The upside (there is always an upside to every downside in this hobby) is that someone that does care to have a RC logo on an auto can at least have one for cheaper than its first year card. I am sure you could care less about that, and I absolutely respect that, but you sound both disrespectful and not in the know thinking nobody notices this stuff.

rsmath · Mar 30, 2016

vending boxes are going to stink. I know they won't put those boy and girl cartoon drawings on it and the Bowman Chrome vending box is going to have to be sealed in cellophane (and maybe even a sticker seal before cellophane goes on).

I miss the days of the true vending box where to box featured that reliable and recognizable boy and girl collecting cards cartoon and the boxes weren't sealed (just a tucked in flap and you bought it from a dealer that you trusted so it never had to cross your mind that the dealer may have gone through the box before selling it).

sportscardtheory · Mar 30, 2016

metallicalex777 said:
Why do you feel nobody notices? Topps has been doing the second and fifth year RC thing for years. Most don't like it or could really care less. The upside (there is always an upside to every downside in this hobby) is that someone that does care to have a RC logo on an auto can at least have one for cheaper than its first year card. I am sure you could care less about that, and I absolutely respect that, but you sound both disrespectful and not in the know thinking nobody notices this stuff.

I'm not talking about prospect cards. I'm talking about Topps purposely withholding "RC"s solely for the purpose of unopened sales the next season. Sano's first licensed card was 2010 and Schwarber's was 2014 and both were true rookies last season (2015) in MLB. A player needs 131 at-bats to be considered a rookie in MLB Sano had 279 and debuted on July 2nd, while Schwarber had 232 and debuted on June 16th. That's nearly 6 months of opportunity to get these guys on cards in 2015 base sets. But no, Topps decided that they would hold them over into 2016 to help sell 2016 products. So now there are and will be 2016 Sano and Schwarber "RC"s, even though they aren't EVEN rookies. They are second year players. It's manipulative and shady business practice that not everyone even notices, other than those who pay attention to detail.

metallicalex777 · Mar 30, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
I'm not talking about prospect cards. I'm talking about Topps purposely withholding "RC"s solely for the purpose of unopened sales the next season. Sano's first licensed card was 2010 and Schwarber's was 2014 and both were true rookies last season (2015) in MLB. A player needs 131 at-bats to be considered a rookie in MLB Sano had 279 and debuted on July 2nd, while Schwarber had 232 and debuted on June 16th. That's nearly 6 months of opportunity to get these guys on cards in 2015 base sets. But no, Topps decided that they would hold them over into 2016 to help sell 2016 products. So now there are and will be 2016 Sano and Schwarber "RC"s, even though they aren't EVEN rookies. They are second year players. It's manipulative and shady business practice that not everyone even notices, other than those who pay attention to detail.

I was replying to your specific quote where you stated:

I am unsure as to why I would care about this product. I did get a laugh out of the Kyle Schwarber 2nd year "RC" though. I love how this ridiculous company just makes it's own rules and expects no one to notice. Exclusive licensing at it's very worst. 'Get your Miguel Sano and Kyle Schwarber 2nd year "RCs", folks! Step right up!'

You make better sense after you fishtail back with legit statements without speaking in emotion man. We are all adding to your discussion, but you are calling us all out for either being wrong, not comprehending what you mean (my quote of you above is a current example of that), which leads to how a lot of us choose to reply to your topics and quotes. If you can't see that I wasn't only talking about prospect cards then you fail to recognize my easy opinionated statement saying that RC logo card autographs, regardless if they are the true or first or second or fiftieth, simply have a brightside in the hobby for any COLLECTOR to spend less money to receive an autograph card of a player they may not typically be able to afford.

sportscardtheory · Mar 30, 2016

Sorry that 2nd year means 2nd year to me. It's not as though I said '2nd year pictured on a trading card'.

And who did I "call out"? What are you talking about? I'm just stating my opinions on the matter at-hand. I don't really understand why anyone takes offense to someone else's opinions that have nothing to do with them.

metallicalex777 · Mar 30, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
Sorry that 2nd year means 2nd year to me. It's not as though I said '2nd year pictured on a trading card'.

And who did I "call out"? What are you talking about? I'm just stating my opinions on the matter at-hand. I don't really understand why anyone takes offense to someone else's opinions that have nothing to do with them.

My fault for referencing your call outs in this thread, that was carried over from the Topps Being Shady thread. Although it is my opinion, I perceive that you are calling out people who are voicing their opinions against yours. As an example in that thread you are using typed words stating "Nah. You are wrong. Incentive is an idea, purchasing something is a transaction..." (incentives in a paid product actually drive transactions so they go hand in hand) and "Pull off the tinfoil hat and understand that something needs to be done to keep these shady practices in check...". Again, just my perceptions and opinions on how I am reading your typed words trying to comprehend your actual meaning.

sportscardtheory · Mar 30, 2016

metallicalex777 said:
My fault for referencing your call outs in this thread, that was carried over from the Topps Being Shady thread. Although it is my opinion, I perceive that you are calling out people who are voicing their opinions against yours. As an example in that thread you are using typed words stating "Nah. You are wrong. Incentive is an idea, purchasing something is a transaction..." (incentives in a paid product actually drive transactions so they go hand in hand) and "Pull off the tinfoil hat and understand that something needs to be done to keep these shady practices in check...". Again, just my perceptions and opinions on how I am reading your typed words trying to comprehend your actual meaning.

Maybe you should read the thread. My responses have been tame in comparison to the rude responses I have received in that thread. I mean, if saying "Nah. You are wrong" is offensive, holy cow. lol I don't see you saying anything to the guys sarcastically calling me "noble" for speaking my mind. Where were you when the guy called my opinions 'terrible'. Where were you when he called me "dense"? lol But yeah, sorry for being so abusive telling someone they are wrong and using the tinfoil hat line after he put words in my mouth.

metallicalex777 · Mar 30, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
Maybe you should read the thread. My responses have been tame in comparison to the rude responses I have received in that thread. I mean, if saying "Nah. You are wrong" is offensive, holy cow. lol

I have read and comprehended the thread. Tame in comparison does not mean that I don't have the luxury to have my own opinion of feeling like you are calling out people for being wrong or tin-foiled capped based off of their opinions. I never said those were offensive, the only time I ever spoke to offensive was the fact that you stated in words that "no one" expects Topps to be doing what they are doing. I was not offended by that, I used the adjective "offensive" to point out that saying nobody would expect that. I'll be honest, I trolled your use of words and own up to that, but I still was a piece of the discussion

vwnut13 · Mar 30, 2016

sportscardtheory said:
I am unsure as to why I would care about this product. I did get a laugh out of the Kyle Schwarber 2nd year "RC" though. I love how this ridiculous company just makes it's own rules and expects no one to notice. Exclusive licensing at it's very worst. 'Get your Miguel Sano and Kyle Schwarber 2nd year "RCs", folks! Step right up!'

I stand right there with you on the RC Logo.

All In Cards · Apr 1, 2016

Jaypers said:
As a consumer I don't know....perhaps @All In Cards can shed some light on this.

sorry for just seeing this, just got home from Disney!!

looking at the sheets now and hoping to have pricing soon on both hobby and vending

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

2016 Bowman Chrome Preliminary Info (Vending Boxes Return)

metallicalex777

Super Moderator

rsmath

Active member

sportscardtheory

Active member

metallicalex777

Super Moderator

sportscardtheory

Active member

metallicalex777

Super Moderator

sportscardtheory

Active member

metallicalex777

Super Moderator

vwnut13

Active member

All In Cards

Super Moderator

Similar threads

Members online

Latest posts