Topps being shady, keeping/grading cards, undermining value of previous releases, again

[Mighty Bombjack]

That's like blaming people who buy heroin for a heroin epidemic instead of those selling it. Come on. You can't believe this. It's illogical. You can make the connection in a literal sense, but it is still highly illogical to act like they are the same thing.

So what would you recommend to the heroin user who thinks the Afghani farmer is cutting the product too thin?

 

[sportscardtheory]

So what would you recommend to the heroin user who thinks the Afghani farmer is cutting the product too thin?

People are forced to sell heroin because others will buy it. You are right.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

People are forced to sell heroin because others will buy it. You are right.

I never said that. I'm asking you about what your advice to a heroin user would be if he came to you and complained about the Afghani farmer. Though it does seem you want to argue that the heroin user in no way supports the farmer because he is buying from some dude in the mall parking lot, tens of people down the supply chain.

this was your analogy, not mine.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Truth is, baseball cards are unlike any other industry, so any analogy inevitably fails.

There is a reason Topps has that "we make no claim as to future value" verbiage on their products. That's bullplop, but there's a reason they have it there. Now, if you can't see that buying ANY Topps cards does have an effect on current sales for modern product, just by propping up card values in general and supplying that "future value" that breakers are depending on, then I can't help you. Keep your head in the sand and maintain that you yourself aren't part of any problem. Your money is clean!

Topps is "shady", always has been, because they are the ones who set their own ethical bar. They are the leader in a unique industry. This hobby has always been shady. If that is unacceptable to your sensibilities, I suggest another hobby. Or keeping your head in the sand, whcih seems to work for you.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Truth is, baseball cards are unlike any other industry, so any analogy inevitably fails.

There is a reason Topps has that "we make no claim as to future value" verbiage on their products. That's bullplop, but there's a reason they have it there. Now, if you can't see that buying ANY Topps cards does have an effect on current sales for modern product, just by propping up card values in general and supplying that "future value" that breakers are depending on, then I can't help you. Keep your head in the sand and maintain that you yourself aren't part of any problem. Your money is clean!

Topps is "shady", always has been, because they are the ones who set their own ethical bar. They are the leader in a unique industry. This hobby has always been shady. If that is unacceptable to your sensibilities, I suggest another hobby. Or keeping your head in the sand, whcih seems to work for you.

Nah. You are wrong. Incentive is an idea, purchasing something is a transaction. Transactions are not equatable to incentive. Topps gets no money from me. A better way to describe wax busting is that it is gambling. Buying singles on the secondary market is simply taking advantage of someone else's gambling addiction. Topps makes their money on gamblers, not those who take advantage of gamblers. You're just wrong.

Topps creates product/Topps sells product/Topps profits/end

Everything that happens after that is inconsequential. Yes, if people didn't buy singles, Topps' sales would plummet. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

 

[metallicalex777]

Sportscardtheory purchases a Topps card from the secondary/third market > this motivates sellers to bust wax or cases due to confidence that people purchase singles > sellers give their money to retailers/LCS > retailers/LCS purchase boxes and cases from Topps > Sportscardtheory in theory (see what I did there) gave future money to Topps due to confidence of sellers knowing they will sell single cards to collectors/Sportscardtheorists.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Sportscardtheory purchases a Topps card from the secondary/third market > this motivates sellers to bust wax or cases due to confidence that people purchase singles > sellers give their money to retailers/LCS > retailers/LCS purchase boxes and cases from Topps > Sportscardtheory in theory (see what I did there) gave future money to Topps due to confidence of sellers knowing they will sell single cards to collectors/Sportscardtheorists.

How is "motive" equatable to a cash transaction? if you buy something from me for $5, I then have $5. What you do with it afterwards has nothing to do with the $5 I now have that used to be yours. If you sell it for $1 later on, I still have $5 and you are out $4, which is inconsequential to me and my $5.

I know that you guys are saying that without singles buyers, there would be less unopened buyers, but so what? Indirectly is not the same as directly. It's two different things. lol

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Sportscardtheory purchases a Topps card from the secondary/third market > this motivates sellers to bust wax or cases due to confidence that people purchase singles > sellers give their money to retailers/LCS > retailers/LCS purchase boxes and cases from Topps > Sportscardtheory in theory (see what I did there) gave future money to Topps due to confidence of sellers knowing they will sell single cards to collectors/Sportscardtheorists.

He so desperately wants his hands to be clean that he cannot see this.

Everyone enjoys the the hobby in their own way. Whatever it takes.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Nah. You are wrong. Incentive is an idea, purchasing something is a transaction. Transactions are not equatable to incentive. Topps gets no money from me. A better way to describe wax busting is that it is gambling. Buying singles on the secondary market is simply taking advantage of someone else's gambling addiction. Topps makes their money on gamblers, not those who take advantage of gamblers. You're just wrong.

Topps creates product/Topps sells product/Topps profits/end

Everything that happens after that is inconsequential. Yes, if people didn't buy singles, Topps' sales would plummet. But what doe sthat have to do with the price of tea in China.

What are these busters gambling for? For the possibility that these cards will have present and future value. Value that you are supplying. It's pretty simple.

 

[sportscardtheory]

What are these busters gambling for? For the possibility that these cards will have present and future value. Value that you are supplying. It's pretty simple.

After you buy unopened from Topps, it's then yours, right. As I have stated, incentive/motive isn't equatable to an actual transaction. It's just not. Once Topps sells it's pack/box/case to you, it's yours to do with as you please. End of story. Topps is now out of the equation. Whether someone buys it from you or not is inconsequential to Topps having their money already. You aren't getting it back. Any profit you make or loss you take is different money.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

After you buy unopened from Topps, it's then yours, right. As I have stated, incentive/motive isn't equatable to an actual transaction. It's just not. Once Topps sells it's pack/box/case to you, it's yours to do with as you please. End of story. Topps is now out of the equation. Whether someone buys it from you or not is inconsequential to Topps having their money already. You aren't getting it back. Any profit you make or oss you take is different money.

All of this is true. It also ignores the added incentive that people have to buy from Topps because of a perceived market for singles on the secondary market (a market to which you and I contribute). The stronger that market is, the greater Topps' primary market sales (cash transactions).

 

[sportscardtheory]

Topps doesn't make money from me if I buy a 2009-10 Topps Stephen Curry RC on ebay for $400. The person who sold it to me gets the $400. It's not rocket science. Topps already made money on the people who gambled on unopened 2009-10 Topps basketball.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

I want to return to your analogy.

The heroin user doesn't support the Afghani farmer because he doesn't buy from that farmer, he buys from some dude in the mall parking lot.

Is that correct?

 

[sportscardtheory]

I want to return to your analogy.

The heroin user doesn't support the Afghani farmer because he doesn't buy from that farmer, he buys from some dude in the mall parking lot.

Is that correct?

It's a bad analogy because the money changes hands on the streets.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

It's a bad analogy because the money is made on the streets. If heroin was legal and people bought it directly from the farmer, then it would make analogous sense. But that is not the case. The money changing hands happens on the streets and is directly given back to the farmer.

It does not return to the farmer, not directly. If it does, it does in the form of a purchase for more product due to the perceived market for that product, a market that the end user supplies (I.e., that farmer isn't seeing more money unless he supplies more product). It's a fairly good analogy, actually. Legality has nothing to do with it.

except perhaps for people who NEED things to be black and white. I'm having déjà vu about our steroid discussions...

 

[sportscardtheory]

INDIRECTLY, Topps may, POTENTIALLY, make money from me through created incentive by buying singles from already busted wax, but it's not direct and there is no way to gauge or monetize it, which matters when claiming that Topps makes money from me. How much then? If you can't answer that, your point is moot. There is a HUGE difference between indirectly and directly. A difference that isn't being understood here. Topps makes their money off of gamblers/risk takers, plain and simple. Topps themselves claims no value on the unopened they sell, so how is it that anyone can argue that they make money off the secondary market. It doesn't even make sense. Topps sells actual products, not incentives/ideas/motives/blah blah blahs.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

INDIRECTLY, Topps may, POTENTIALLY, make money from me through created incentive by buying singles from already busted wax, but it's not direct and there is no way to gauge or monetize it, which matters when claiming that Topps makes money from me. How much then? If you can't answer that, your point is moot. There is a HUGE difference between indirectly and directly. A difference that isn't being understood here. Topps makes their money off of gamblers/risk takers, plain and simple. Topps themselves claims no value on the unopened they sell, so how is it that anyone can argue that they make money off the secondary market.

No one is claiming that they make money off of the secondary market, but that the secondary market drives the primary market, fairly directly.

Topps sells actual products, not incentives/ideas/motives/blah blah blahs.

This is certainly Topps' company line. Does anybody actually believe it? Do you?

 

[U L Washington Rookie]

I never said that "Uncle Sam" should be involved. You said that. I called for more regulation, which you ridiculously assumed means massive government overhaul. Pull off the tinfoil hat and understand that something needs to be done to keep these shady practices in check. Whether it MLB/NHL/NBA/NFL or whether it be us with our wallets, petitions, etc, something has to change. These companies simply run amok and are seemingly getting ballsier and ballsier.

INDIRECTLY, Topps may, POTENTIALLY, make money from me through created incentive by buying singles from already busted wax, but it's not direct and there is no way to gauge or monetize it, which matters when claiming that Topps makes money from me. How much then? If you can't answer that, your point is moot. There is a HUGE difference between indirectly and directly. A difference that isn't being understood here. Topps makes their money off of gamblers/risk takers, plain and simple. Topps themselves claims no value on the unopened they sell, so how is it that anyone can argue that they make money off the secondary market. It doesn't even make sense. Topps sells actual products, not incentives/ideas/motives/blah blah blahs.

Dishonest or dense; either way, I'm embarrassed for being associated with this nonsense. Thanks for your 'contribution' to this forum that is this thread.

 

[metallicalex777]

How is "motive" equatable to a cash transaction? if you buy something from me for $5, I then have $5. What you do with it afterwards has nothing to do with the $5 I now have that used to be yours. If you sell it for $1 later on, I still have $5 and you are out $4, which is inconsequential to me and my $5.

I know that you guys are saying that without singles buyers, there would be less unopened buyers, but so what? Indirectly is not the same as directly. It's two different things. lol

Motive equates perfectly to any cash transaction inside and outside of this hobby. People do not spend money for the sake of just spending money, if they do that is defined simply as a donation. Let's take away who owns the actual dollar and focus on the dollar being exchanged for a product. With that in mind, let's use this as a discussion point:
-a person who uses a dollar amount (again, take away who owns the dollar) purchases a product, in this case a Topps baseball card
-that purchase, regardless of who owns the dollar, drives the actual sale directly to Topps regardless of who owns the dollar
-when anyone purchases a single Topps card, the value of the dollar is then used to purchase more product as there is a successful market where single Topps cards are being purchased
-when people STOP purchasing single Topps cards, this will stop a large majority of people that are purchasing boxes and cases from Topps
-when people STOP purchasing boxes and cases from Topps, this forces Topps to change their products (and potentially their ethics) if they want any further success to deliver a product that anyone would purchase whether it be a direct purchase from them

There are plenty of other tie-ins obviously and I am happy to continue further discussion around your opinion and my own.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Dishonest or dense; either way, I'm embarrassed for being associated with this nonsense. Thanks for your 'contribution' to this forum that is this thread.

K