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

[jbhofmann]

I can't lump them all into the same category. NT Baseball is my product of the year...and it's not really close.

 

[Krom]

I'm not a fan of air-brushing...however the 2012 National Treasures set is one of my all-time favorites with the cropped portrait style photos.

I feel the same way.

 

[BiggioBrooks755]

I don't like them, but if I have a PC player in a set, I do grab them. So far I've been lucky and only had to grab 2 autos from 2012-13 Prizm. The one thing I hate about Prizm is that they are calling it a 2012 set, but they have some guys listed on their 2013 teams

Agree sadly

 

[A_Pharis]

NT baseball did a better job than most.

 

[A_Pharis]

Scratch "most" - "all."

 

[chompsmcgee]

Agreed, they're hideous.

I prefer my cards to have kids with photoshopped mlb jerseys on them.

 

[deaconblues63]

I prefer licensed cards, but I don't get worked up over the unlicensed ones.

 

[cgilmo]

I prefer licensed cards, but I don't get worked up over the unlicensed ones.

I agree with this.

 

[gracecollector]

NT baseball did a better job than most.

Yes they did. Player selection is awesome, cards look very nice... and yet it's still not enough for me to buy it. I'm with Super Mario. The lack of team names and logos disqualifies it as being a "big league" card in my opinion. I would have bought boxes of NT if it had team names and logos, but the cards that Topps' competitors are putting out just aren't MLB cards in my opinion. I'm not very thrilled with Topps offerings either. Basically, I've stopped buying wax and have been focused on 1998-2005 issues and vintage. And it's a shame because I like some of the young guys in MLB, but can't get any enthusiasm to collect their cards.

 

[Matsuicollector]

For me, the only knock on unlicensed stuff is that licensed stuff exists. For example, why buy a logo-less autograph of a player, when you can buy one that shows him in his full teams' uni that came out of a licensed product? The airbrushed logo's do take away enough from the card to be somewhat off-putting.

However, I am fine with the unlicensed minor league releases. Most at least say where they are from (e.g. "New York AL"), and for me that's enough. It's probably because they dont have licensed autos though, lol.

 

[Waxov]

No logos on helmets makes it feel like my little league where on side would put on plain blue helmets and the other side plain red. . . it fails to feel professional.

personally Id rather have a Miggy card with "MVP" on the hat vs. nothing at all.

 

[Junior Griffey]

I have essentially quit going after most baseball, with the exception of some Griffey autos and Cubs stuff. I haven't bought a box of baseball in a long time. If I have the urge to bust wax I get football or basketball.

 

[Waxov]

I have essentially quit going after most baseball, with the exception of some Griffey autos and Cubs stuff. I haven't bought a box of baseball in a long time. If I have the urge to bust wax I get football or basketball.

this is what I see these days a ton. I would watch chri5 box breaks on youtube starting 4-5 years ago, and it was all baseball getting busted. . .Sweet Spot, Black, Exquisite etc etc.. nowadays if you go to his channel its heavy heavy football with some basketball. offseason doesn't even matter, football is dominant. people are running from baseball currently and its sad... hard to blame them, I would only touch Bowman these days.

Topps = complacent
non logo products = unwanted (in general)

 

[sportscardtheory]

Of course most would PREFER licensed product, as do I, but I have no personal issues with unlicensed stuff. Don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[BBCgalaxee]

Since mlb KNOWS BEST what all collectors want (a monopoly), unlicensed is better than nothing.

Outside of any prospect product, I can't remember the last time I've sold so many premium priced boxes as I have prizm.

 

[bozemanbreaker]

I think 2012 EEE looks great and has lots of value.


Sent from my DROID RAZR

 

[mudflap02]

Yes they did. Player selection is awesome, cards look very nice... and yet it's still not enough for me to buy it. I'm with Super Mario. The lack of team names and logos disqualifies it as being a "big league" card in my opinion. I would have bought boxes of NT if it had team names and logos, but the cards that Topps' competitors are putting out just aren't MLB cards in my opinion. I'm not very thrilled with Topps offerings either. Basically, I've stopped buying wax and have been focused on 1998-2005 issues and vintage. And it's a shame because I like some of the young guys in MLB, but can't get any enthusiasm to collect their cards.

It would be amazing if someone in MLB's licensing department would read this post, and realize that's how a lot of collectors feel.

 

[DiebytheCubs]

I have to say, I agree with you that I will stay as far away from unlicensed stuff as I can but I do wish MLB would grant another license to spur some competition in the hobby.

 

[saraceno21]

Isn't prizm licensed by the MLBPA? I think we should support prizm so mlb will realize there is room for another company and they don't have to give topps exclusive rights. MLB is missing out on money the better prizm does. Money talks.

 

[henderson939]

As a player collector, I love the Panini & Leaf stuff. National Treasure is awesome, & Prime Cuts was good too. Topps has, God knows how many pics of Rickey Henderson over his long ass career and yet they seem to have only 5-7 that they reuse over and over again. Maybe they sold them to Panini? If I wasnt such an addict, I would be done with Topps until they change things up.