Topps screw it up again - Bowman Platinum

[Leaf]

[quote="A_Pharis":dj18d85o]And to clarify, I know how you think it's a monopoly since Topps was given the right to be the only producer of licensed products, but it's a lot like items that are sold in stores.

Take, for instance, a specific line of clothes distributed only to Target stores. No other store can sell that brand, but it's not considered a monopoly. I think a monopoly would be more like if Topps were the only producer of baseball cards, period.

Edit: Oh, and Topps would have to be able to dictate the end all/be all pricing. As it is, right now, Topps could theoretically price themselves out of a market. At some point, people would buy other unlicensed brands. In a monopoly, Topps would have no such restraint.

It is my suspicion that the agreement with MLBP has something to do with the pricing. . . for example, it limits Topps to, let's say, no more than a 5% direct cost increase per year. MLBP has a vested interest in Topps selling product as well, so I would have to believe they've covered themselves appropriately.[/quote:dj18d85o]

I dont believe this to be true.
BG

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="A_Pharis":12u73b8h]And to clarify, I know how you think it's a monopoly since Topps was given the right to be the only producer of licensed products, but it's a lot like items that are sold in stores.

Take, for instance, a specific line of clothes distributed only to Target stores. No other store can sell that brand, but it's not considered a monopoly. I think a monopoly would be more like if Topps were the only producer of baseball cards, period.

Edit: Oh, and Topps would have to be able to dictate the end all/be all pricing. As it is, right now, Topps could theoretically price themselves out of a market. At some point, people would buy other unlicensed brands. In a monopoly, Topps would have no such restraint.

It is my suspicion that the agreement with MLBP has something to do with the pricing. . . for example, it limits Topps to, let's say, no more than a 5% direct cost increase per year. MLBP has a vested interest in Topps selling product as well, so I would have to believe they've covered themselves appropriately.

I dont believe this to be true.
BG[/quote:12u73b8h]

Like I said, it was a guess. Unless a Topps rep posts here, and even then I may not believe them, I suspect none of us will ever know.

 

[Leaf]

[quote="A_Pharis":1pawl5q6]

This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

Man, you are on a roll with sophomoric takes on this hobby. :lol:

He's correct though. Other people are allowed to produce baseball cards, just not major league ones. MLB is a brand.

I don't see how people don't understand this. MLB and all affiliated organizations control their own brands. They have the right to choose who uses their brand. They, however, cannot dictate who creates a baseball product -- only who can use images that they have rights to.

THAT'S NOT A MONOPOLY![/quote:1pawl5q6]

Call it what you like, when someone owns boardwalk and park place, its a monopoly.
And like the game, this monopoly is legal.
BG

 

[Leaf]

Crash - when are you going to scan your Topps business card and use it as your avatar?

I don't have a Topps business card. They don't pay very well.

I'm speaking objectively. I mean, they are giving you extra hits for the same money and people still complain. It gets old after a while.

LOL... for once I agree with Crash, Topps doesnt pay enough.
BG

 

[Leaf]

[quote="A_Pharis":1lp3uy0k][quote="Jeff N.":1lp3uy0k][quote="A_Pharis":1lp3uy0k]

This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

That's BK's ingenuity at work. Theoretically, what you're talking about - a patented process - is what every manufacturer does. Want a cola? Great, you have plenty of choices. If you want one that tastes like Coke, you gotta buy Coke.

This is different. This isn't Topps manufacturing a certain type of card -- i.e. refractors, which they (used to) own the rights to produce. This is about a license. The only place to get MLB cards is Topps.

Imagine you wanted to get the next Justin Beiber album... and it was ONLY available on iTunes. Now, there are plenty of pre-teen pre-pubecent suckasses out there who have albums in the record stores (are there still record stores? are there still albums?), but if you want Beiber, you gotta go to iTunes.

That's where we are. There are plenty of manufacturers making "off brand" cards, but if you want MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL CARDS of MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS, you gotta go Topps.[/quote:1lp3uy0k]

Thanks for the informed response, Jeff.

But would would it be more like the clothing example? It's not monopolizing for the owner of a certain property to choose their distributor or user of that license, right? It'd have to apply to the creation of the item, itself, wouldn't it?

At what point does it be cloudy? Like with contracting players to sign with only one company?[/quote:1lp3uy0k]

I haven't done monopoly type constitutional law since 1L (12 years ago) but I don't think that it's a monopoly if a company licenses a single vendor to produce product. For example, I believe there's only one company producing OFFICIAL baseballs. There's one company providing OFFICIAL NFL footballs. If you want a "house brand" product, there's only one place to buy it (that particular vendor)...

What I don't get, however, is why MLBP isn't allowing other vendors to obtain the MLBP license, unless Topps is providing sufficient revenue to where MLBP doesn't need Panini or other vendors. BG, want to interject?[/quote:1lp3uy0k]

I believe that either (a) a new company without the restraints of UD and Panini will be granted an MLBPA license or (b) an upstart company will test the 1st amendment issue of trading cards this year with pockets deep enough to go all the way to the supreme court if necessary.

I would bet a substantial amount that one of these 2 WILL occur.
BG
BG

 

[Leaf]

[quote="gmarutiak":3l7ia50b]
This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

Man, you are on a roll with sophomoric takes on this hobby. :lol:

He's correct though. Other people are allowed to produce baseball cards, just not major league ones. MLB is a brand.

Okay, lead me to all the 2010 unlicensed sets of current MLB players.

No one took the leap and bought a MLBPA licence. I assure you that such a licence is for sale, and it isn't terribly expensive.[/quote:3l7ia50b]

Actually, it is CRAZY expensive, but that could change.... BG

 

[thefatguy]

While the "rookie card" situation in baseball is blurry at best, the market created it.

:?:
I think MLB and Topps/Bowman did

If they had a clause like this, there would be no confusion. Products like BDP should be licensed as minor league.

The NHL prohibits trading card manufacturers from releasing rookie cards of players before they have skated in an official NHL game, so including these rookie exchange cards is a great way to add some additional value to the product while also creating excitement for the upcoming season. It’s important to us to allow enough time for this new rookie crop to skate and for some late call-ups before we finalize the checklist and begin production on these cards as we want to have a strong checklist.

 

[Leaf]

[quote="A_Pharis":1z1wjuv5]And Jeff, I believe Chris just answered your question in response to someone else --> they want too much for the use.

Chris said that the MLBPA (player association) license is cheap. With an MLBPA license, you can produce cards of the players with logos either obscured or completely airbrushed. Donruss started doing this -- then gave up, although I'm not sure if they even had the MLBPA logo.

I don't think Chris commented on the MLB Properties cost.[/quote:1z1wjuv5]

The ONLY reason UD and Donruss gave up was that during their licensing with MLBP, they agreed to NEVER challenge the marks. This is why they were cooked!

I never signed any such agreement.

BG

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="A_Pharis":2kqq0npu][quote="Jeff N.":2kqq0npu][quote="A_Pharis":2kqq0npu]

This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

That's BK's ingenuity at work. Theoretically, what you're talking about - a patented process - is what every manufacturer does. Want a cola? Great, you have plenty of choices. If you want one that tastes like Coke, you gotta buy Coke.

This is different. This isn't Topps manufacturing a certain type of card -- i.e. refractors, which they (used to) own the rights to produce. This is about a license. The only place to get MLB cards is Topps.

Imagine you wanted to get the next Justin Beiber album... and it was ONLY available on iTunes. Now, there are plenty of pre-teen pre-pubecent suckasses out there who have albums in the record stores (are there still record stores? are there still albums?), but if you want Beiber, you gotta go to iTunes.

That's where we are. There are plenty of manufacturers making "off brand" cards, but if you want MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL CARDS of MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS, you gotta go Topps.

Thanks for the informed response, Jeff.

But would would it be more like the clothing example? It's not monopolizing for the owner of a certain property to choose their distributor or user of that license, right? It'd have to apply to the creation of the item, itself, wouldn't it?

At what point does it be cloudy? Like with contracting players to sign with only one company?[/quote:2kqq0npu]

I haven't done monopoly type constitutional law since 1L (12 years ago) but I don't think that it's a monopoly if a company licenses a single vendor to produce product. For example, I believe there's only one company producing OFFICIAL baseballs. There's one company providing OFFICIAL NFL footballs. If you want a "house brand" product, there's only one place to buy it (that particular vendor)...

What I don't get, however, is why MLBP isn't allowing other vendors to obtain the MLBP license, unless Topps is providing sufficient revenue to where MLBP doesn't need Panini or other vendors. BG, want to interject?[/quote:2kqq0npu]

I believe that either (a) a new company without the restraints of UD and Panini will be granted an MLBPA license or (b) an upstart company will test the 1st amendment issue of trading cards this year with pockets deep enough to go all the way to the supreme court if necessary.

I would bet a substantial amount that one of these 2 WILL occur.
BG
BG[/quote:2kqq0npu]

Which one do you fall into?

 

[Leaf]

[quote="Jeff N.":y9k3fbwi][quote="A_Pharis":y9k3fbwi][quote="Jeff N.":y9k3fbwi][quote="A_Pharis":y9k3fbwi]

This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

That's BK's ingenuity at work. Theoretically, what you're talking about - a patented process - is what every manufacturer does. Want a cola? Great, you have plenty of choices. If you want one that tastes like Coke, you gotta buy Coke.

This is different. This isn't Topps manufacturing a certain type of card -- i.e. refractors, which they (used to) own the rights to produce. This is about a license. The only place to get MLB cards is Topps.

Imagine you wanted to get the next Justin Beiber album... and it was ONLY available on iTunes. Now, there are plenty of pre-teen pre-pubecent suckasses out there who have albums in the record stores (are there still record stores? are there still albums?), but if you want Beiber, you gotta go to iTunes.

That's where we are. There are plenty of manufacturers making "off brand" cards, but if you want MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL CARDS of MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS, you gotta go Topps.

Thanks for the informed response, Jeff.

But would would it be more like the clothing example? It's not monopolizing for the owner of a certain property to choose their distributor or user of that license, right? It'd have to apply to the creation of the item, itself, wouldn't it?

At what point does it be cloudy? Like with contracting players to sign with only one company?[/quote:y9k3fbwi]

I haven't done monopoly type constitutional law since 1L (12 years ago) but I don't think that it's a monopoly if a company licenses a single vendor to produce product. For example, I believe there's only one company producing OFFICIAL baseballs. There's one company providing OFFICIAL NFL footballs. If you want a "house brand" product, there's only one place to buy it (that particular vendor)...

What I don't get, however, is why MLBP isn't allowing other vendors to obtain the MLBP license, unless Topps is providing sufficient revenue to where MLBP doesn't need Panini or other vendors. BG, want to interject?[/quote:y9k3fbwi]

I believe that either (a) a new company without the restraints of UD and Panini will be granted an MLBPA license or (b) an upstart company will test the 1st amendment issue of trading cards this year with pockets deep enough to go all the way to the supreme court if necessary.

I would bet a substantial amount that one of these 2 WILL occur.
BG
BG[/quote:y9k3fbwi]

Which one do you fall into?[/quote:y9k3fbwi]


Why not leave it up to the MLBPA to decide which one?
BG

 

[gmarutiak]

This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

You're being ridiculous. Your Burger King example would only be similar to Topps' monopoly if Burger King was the only restaurant that was allowed to make burgers out of cows. Anyone could make a burger -- it would be our CHOICE to eat ratburgers, or catburgers, or humanburgers. Not a monopoly.

Nice try though.

 

[Leaf]

This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

You're being ridiculous. Your Burger King example would only be similar to Topps' monopoly if Burger King was the only restaurant that was allowed to make burgers out of cows. Anyone could make a burger -- it would be our CHOICE to eat ratburgers, or catburgers, or humanburgers. Not a monopoly.

Nice try though.

+1... nice

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Are we arguing the semantics of the word monopoly again? A "legal monopoly"? Isn't that called an "exclusive"?

I recall plenty of dicussion of how past "legal monopolies" on the player level may or may not have done "damage" to this industry. Now we're just talking scale.

 

[A_Pharis]

This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

You're being ridiculous. Your Burger King example would only be similar to Topps' monopoly if Burger King was the only restaurant that was allowed to make burgers out of cows. Anyone could make a burger -- it would be our CHOICE to eat ratburgers, or catburgers, or humanburgers. Not a monopoly.

Nice try though.

DOn't think so.

THat'd be like making cards out of a different product. The way the burger is made (not the type of meat) is a change of presentation - not material.

The making of cards with MLB-owned images is a change of presentation - not material.

A hamburger without cow is "technically" not a hamburger by most people's standards. A baseball card without logos/colors/team names is still a baseball card. That's why your assertion is wrong.

Call it "To-may-to, to-mah-to" if you want, but I question lines of thinking on here that are made up to be suitable to your beliefs.

 

[Leaf]

It's more like a monopoly on using the 10 most popular toppings on the burger.
You may not use mustard, pickles, ketchup, cheese, onions,etc..

I guess you can still make a burger, but who'll eat it?
Bg

 

[A_Pharis]

It's more like a monopoly on using the 10 most popular toppings on the burger.
You may not use mustard, pickles, ketchup, cheese, onions,etc..

I guess you can still make a burger, but who'll eat it?
Bg

If someone owns the rights to the use of the components... right. No one may eat the burger -- but it's not illegal. I still don't think monopoly is the right choice of word.

 

[A_Pharis]

Besides, why even still try to debate it with me? Jesse posted an article dealing with it regarding other sports, and it seems like it'd be pretty applicable to the situation.

 

[Kidmikey]

Just checking Platinum prices on eBay. 1st 3 Posey's to sell: $29, $30, $26. Now around $8. 1st 2 Strasburg's: $26, $25, now around $4.

They both have steadily gone down since 9/2.

You have a damn good reason to be mad if you are waiting for your hobby boxes to arrive 26 days from now

 

[crazy8parlay]

Just noticed the Matt Rizzotti auto on fleebay. Funny thing about the photo they used, is it's the same photo from the 2008 Bowman Sterling card of his.

 

[dp33]

Just checking Platinum prices on eBay. 1st 3 Posey's to sell: $29, $30, $26. Now around $8. 1st 2 Strasburg's: $26, $25, now around $4.

They both have steadily gone down since 9/2.

You have a damn good reason to be mad if you are waiting for your hobby boxes to arrive 26 days from now

You would have been in this boat whether or not hobby packs were sold in retail outlets.