Topps Auto'ed Gold Infused Baseball Redemption - SHOCKING UPDATE!

[PadresFan86]

I'm hoping he likes Archives!

 

[mjbuchanan80]

So Topps advertised/promoted an aspect of their product and may not deliver on said promotion. Isn't this SOP for them? I'm amazed people refuse to take legal action against this company. So many just bend over and take it.

 

[BiggioBrooks755]

So Topps advertised/promoted an aspect of their product and may not deliver on said promotion. Isn't this SOP for them? I'm amazed people refuse to take legal action against this company. So many just bend over and take it.

I wish people would...Not hard to find them guilty.

 

[Sly]

So Topps advertised/promoted an aspect of their product and may not deliver on said promotion. Isn't this SOP for them? I'm amazed people refuse to take legal action against this company. So many just bend over and take it.

You really think the average person can compete in court with a company the size of Topps? Not a chance. On top of that, all Topps would end up doing is settling with the person, because the other person can't afford to take a company like Topps to court. And what is settling? Giving the person money or something else to shut them up, exactly what they're doing now.

The ONLY way a lawsuit would happen would be if someone started up a class-action lawsuit against Topps ... and again, that takes time and money. And considering card collecting is a hobby for majority of those involved, it's not worth the time or money.

Lawsuits from the average card collector against the companies will NEVER happen. Suing a card company over a $1000 redemption (and that's the EXTREME high-end redemption), probably not worth anyone's time.

Lesson to be learned ... don't buy redemptions.

 

[MansGame]

I agree, nearly zero chance a lawsuit for work or be worth it.... I think honestly the best route is to bring it to the MLBs attention... they're the ones who gave Topps the exclusive right?

 

[csmtampa]

Topps has never cared about thier customers and never will.

Will you be selling Topps cards on your website?

 

[BiggioBrooks755]

Yeah, why?

 

[PadresFan86]

Yeah, why?

I feel sorry for you

 

[Keyser Soze]

Just got this from Sports Card News:

And my responses:

Don't know who they are and if they have any clout or following. Anyone know?

 

[bongo870]

I wonder is topps has it in fine print that if the redemtion could not be forfilled a replacement with be in order. im sure Topps have covered everything by now...

 

[BiggioBrooks755]

I feel sorry for you

Reason why?

 

[mancini79]

I wonder is topps has it in fine print that if the redemtion could not be forfilled a replacement with be in order. im sure Topps have covered everything by now...

Per the fine print on back of voucher "Substitution of equal or great value will be made if the baseball if unavailable for any reason."

With only 20 being made, there is no book value. Topps can really be on the hook here. If somebody paid $3k for the voucher, then that is the perceived value. Topps will have a hard time disproving that value. The owner can prove to Topps that cases of Archives are being SOLD for $650ish. That doesn't seem like "equal or greater value".

 

[MansGame]

Per the fine print on back of voucher "Substitution of equal or great value will be made if the baseball if unavailable for any reason."

With only 20 being made, there is no book value. Topps can really be on the hook here. If somebody paid $3k for the voucher, then that is the perceived value. Topps will have a hard time disproving that value. The owner can prove to Topps that cases of Archives are being SOLD for $650ish. That doesn't seem like "equal or greater value".

Receiving multiple cases to get to "even" value is even worse.... Not like they can send cases of toilet paper worth equal value... Like Topps needs to use their head when trying to give someone equal value for a screw up

 

[bongo870]

Per the fine print on back of voucher "Substitution of equal or great value will be made if the baseball if unavailable for any reason."

With only 20 being made, there is no book value. Topps can really be on the hook here. If somebody paid $3k for the voucher, then that is the perceived value. Topps will have a hard time disproving that value. The owner can prove to Topps that cases of Archives are being SOLD for $650ish. That doesn't seem like "equal or greater value".

Well, the shop owner (in the beginning of this thread) settled on a replacement as did a few other people. I don't know what they settled on but if it was for a case of archives then how can they complain? seems like a lot of people settled with topps for a replacement.

 

[MansGame]

To my knowledge, no one "settled". They turned in their redemptions for gold infused signed baseballs... Told there were no signed baseballs... Received CASES of '12 Topps Archives as a replacement.

Believe me, if I would of been told "Well we settled with Topps for a few cases, etc" then I wouldn't of made a thread. They were XXXXXing on how they got totally SCREWED by Topps with this promotion.

I don't know anyone in their right mind who would buy these redemptions for over a grand and then accept cases of low end product in replace. That's highway robbery if you ask me.

 

[nyc3]

I was just told my my connection at topps that they settled after complaining about wait time. So in another words they complained then where offered these and then ACCEPTED them. No cases where sent out to the other gold winners, this was a case of a few people whining (rightfully so) and then taking what was offered.

 

[A_Pharis]

To be honest, when it comes to "Value" - Topps really sets the Value. What it sold for on the secondary market doesn't dictate to Topps what should be assigned the the item. Does it suck? Yes. Will it still happen? yes.

Topps only has to say "Hey, this is the value we put on th eball according to the costs associated with manufacturing it and the cost of what it woul dhave taken to get it signed."

 

[Keyser Soze]

I was just told my my connection at topps that they settled after complaining about wait time. So in another words they complained then where offered these and then ACCEPTED them. No cases where sent out to the other gold winners, this was a case of a few people whining (rightfully so) and then taking what was offered.

In my opinion, the main story here should be the fact that Topps made the Gold Rush Tickets a big part of their advertising, and now to say they can't get one of the signings done is massively incompetent. How can you put redemptions in for something so specific and not even have deals in place to get these signed? I can understand putting redemptions in products when you've reached a contractual agreement with the respective player but just haven't recieved the signed cards/items back yet. From an outsider, it just seems like a HORRIBLE business practice to advertise a very specific item and not even have an agreement with the necessary parties in place.

Regarding the case of Archives as a replacement...... If someone was offered that and took it, shame on them for taking such a low-ball replacement offer, and shame on Topps for even making such a low-ball offer.

 

[MansGame]

In my opinion, the main story here should be the fact that Topps made the Gold Rush Tickets a big part of their advertising, and now to say they can't get one of the signings done is massively incompetent. How can you put redemptions in for something so specific and not even have deals in place to get these signed? I can understand putting redemptions in products when you've reached a contractual agreement with the respective player but just haven't recieved the signed cards/items back yet. From an outsider, it just seems like a HORRIBLE business practice to advertise a very specific item and not even have an agreement with the necessary parties in place.

Regarding the case of Archives as a replacement...... If someone was offered that and took it, shame on them for taking such a low-ball replacement offer, and shame on Topps for even making such a low-ball offer.

This and this!

First, I totally agree that this was used to peddle the product to the market and it was all over everything you saw when you went to buy 2012 Topps Series 1. I even purchased a box in the hopes to maybe landing a ticket lol. I think it's sad they would do this and they were just praying they could actually produce the balls from the promotion... terrible.

Second, are you SHOCKED that Topps replied basically putting this on the consumer? I find it hillarious and odd that someone in passing would be b!tching about how Topps screwed them over on the gold infused balls but behind the scenes they really "accepted" the offer... hmmmm I would say the same thing if I were Topps "Well the consumer was being pushing about timing, so he accepted an offer for a couple cases of our cheapest product of 2012".

 

[nyc3]

In my opinion, the main story here should be the fact that Topps made the Gold Rush Tickets a big part of their advertising, and now to say they can't get one of the signings done is massively incompetent. How can you put redemptions in for something so specific and not even have deals in place to get these signed? I can understand putting redemptions in products when you've reached a contractual agreement with the respective player but just haven't recieved the signed cards/items back yet. From an outsider, it just seems like a HORRIBLE business practice to advertise a very specific item and not even have an agreement with the necessary parties in place.

Regarding the case of Archives as a replacement...... If someone was offered that and took it, shame on them for taking such a low-ball replacement offer, and shame on Topps for even making such a low-ball offer.

I agree 100% but keep in mind the signer is in part to blame also. I just dont understand knowing what an ass he could be why they didnt send to him first.