Unbelieveable Redemption Replacement from Topps!

[hive17]

Its not the case to you, perhaps, but Topps already stated its policy - you're simply interpreting it incorrectly.

It doesn't seem like you know how replacements are assigned value, do you know?

I guess a better question would be: what do YOU think that statement in your signature means?

 

[predatorkj]

I'm not a lawyer, only a law school grad (woo hoo bar review) and I go back and forth on the legality of redemption cards. I think advertising as included a card that they haven't even begun contracting for (and eventually don't even give reasonable efforts to maintain) is violative of something.

But as to expired redemptions, replacement, etc, I think they are perfectly legal for the following reasons:

1. Purchasers of the product know that they are in there (or rather, a reasonable, habitual purchaser of their products should, which strikes me as enough)

2. No one purchases a box in order to obtain a particular card, so it isn't as though they are saying 'this includes a pujols autograph' on the outside, and then you get doc gooden as a replacement. (when it says "contains two autos" and you get 1 auto and an IOU, I think this is fine. Its like receiving a check)

3. Receivers of redemption cards from packs have an opportunity to mitigate (sell the dang thing)

4. Secondary purchasers of redemptions assume the risk of non-fulfillment.

5. By the language of the card, Topps fulfills them (they might calculate value like a *******, but they abide by a reasonable construction of the redemption terms)

I think of redemptions like checks or IOUs and Topps as a guy that bounces checks...a LOT. there isn't anything obviously illegal about redemptions per se, but one has to seriously doubt Topps' creditworthiness.

In terms of voiding expired redemptions, I think this is legally fine. Bad business to be sure (that they make them so short and don't offer replacements of any stripe), but legal. Again, like a paycheck that must be cashed within a certain time, an option contract on a stock, etc. It promotes a company's ability to have a degree of certainty in their affairs (after 2014, we will not be dealing with 2010 Bowman anymore). Now, I think that fulfilling redemptions is not particularly onerous, but again, it is only bad business, not illegal.

Short version: redemptions=checks, meaning they are only as good as the person writing them (here, bad). Checks are not illegal, nor is time limiting checks.

In your scenario, what I'm wondering is what if the person bouncing the checks is intentionally doing so? There is a difference to me, in somebody who writes you a check or IOU and fully expects to be able to honor it, and a person who does so knowing there is no way they will be able to honor it. Proving someone knows they can't honor their commitments would be kind of hard though. It would literally take the person or persons writing the IOU to step forward and admit to it.

 

[VandyDan]

In your scenario, what I'm wondering is what if the person bouncing the checks is intentionally doing so? There is a difference to me, in somebody who writes you a check or IOU and fully expects to be able to honor it, and a person who does so knowing there is no way they will be able to honor it. Proving someone knows they can't honor their commitments would be kind of hard though. It would literally take the person or persons writing the IOU to step forward and admit to it.

I think Topps operates from the presumption that they will honor their commitments, though from my understanding, the departments in charge of developing checklists and those in charge of acquisition are different.

That's why I'm suggesting that they are a significant credit risk. I think that they think they'll be fulfilling all of them. It's just that they kinda have a terrible track record. Some of it has to be on the buyers for continuing to buy. While there may be newbies/suckers, eventually you run out of suckers.

I mean, how many years of perfect redemption fulfillment/menu replacement (where you choose your replacement from a menu of options) would it take for you to consider purchasing again?

 

[JackLondon]

I think Topps operates from the presumption that they will honor their commitments, though from my understanding, the departments in charge of developing checklists and those in charge of acquisition are different.

That's why I'm suggesting that they are a significant credit risk. I think that they think they'll be fulfilling all of them. It's just that they kinda have a terrible track record. Some of it has to be on the buyers for continuing to buy. While there may be newbies/suckers, eventually you run out of suckers. I mean, how many years of perfect redemption fulfillment/menu replacement (where you choose your replacement from a menu of options) would it take for you to consider purchasing again?

I (and P.T. Barnum) would disagree with the bolded section of your post.

Topps believes (and rightfully so) that there will always be a new group of suckers (er, collectors) around the bend and, thus, will continue to produce crap. All they have to do is count on the fact that new collectors are so excited about cards that they will believe that the all-powerful cardboard conglomerates actually give a flying fig about the hobby and collectors. Yes, they will lose some collectors over time, but, as long as the hobby exists in some form or another, they will be willing to bet their collective corporate a$$ that there will always be money to be made.

 

[VandyDan]

I (and P.T. Barnum) would disagree with the bolded section of your post.

Topps believes (and rightfully so) that there will always be a new group of suckers (er, collectors) around the bend and, thus, will continue to produce crap. All they have to do is count on the fact that new collectors are so excited about cards that they will believe that the all-powerful cardboard conglomerates actually give a flying fig about the hobby and collectors. Yes, they will lose some collectors over time, but, as long as the hobby exists in some form or another, they will be willing to bet their collective corporate a$$ that there will always be money to be made.

Stock market crashes/bubbles bursting suggests that when people are trying to make easy money in an endeavor, the supply of suckers can indeed dry up.

 

[VandyDan]

related to the redemption problem, would it be fair to say that the issue comes up more with collector-focused products than prospector-focused products? I don't seem to remember too many redemptions in Bowman Chrome, Sterling, nor too many instances of non-fulfillment.

Mostly I hear about it in Heritage, Tribute, archives, Tier One, Five Star, etc.

 

[hive17]

related to the redemption problem, would it be fair to say that the issue comes up more with collector-focused products than prospector-focused products? I don't seem to remember too many redemptions in Bowman Chrome, Sterling, nor too many instances of non-fulfillment.

Mostly I hear about it in Heritage, Tribute, archives, Tier One, Five Star, etc.

That's probably fair. I would bet that the redemptions of prospects has more to do with their age and unreliability, which is less likely; the vets and retirees probably tell Topps "no" or are just used to having their way.

 

[JackLondon]

Stock market crashes/bubbles bursting suggests that when people are trying to make easy money in an endeavor, the supply of suckers can indeed dry up.

I get that. That is why I qualified my post with this: "as long as the hobby exists in some form or another".

After the bust following the late 80's boom, the hobby continued, albeit in a changed format.

As long as there is a hobby (and companies like Topps), there will be suckers. Chicken vs. egg, maybe, but they will exist together and, maybe, because of one another.

 

[predatorkj]

Stock market crashes/bubbles bursting suggests that when people are trying to make easy money in an endeavor, the supply of suckers can indeed dry up.

I'd say a bubble burst has far more to do with artificial inflation. Or things being purchased for far more than their actual value. Companies are edging way out on that cliff as well. But the two are not necessarily related. Different kind of sucker.

 

[predatorkj]

related to the redemption problem, would it be fair to say that the issue comes up more with collector-focused products than prospector-focused products? I don't seem to remember too many redemptions in Bowman Chrome, Sterling, nor too many instances of non-fulfillment.

Mostly I hear about it in Heritage, Tribute, archives, Tier One, Five Star, etc.

Oh, there are prospect related issues. Only difference is on the bottom line. Topps pays a prospect far less than a certified MLB star. Major issue is that the stars or even some of the premium items topps tries to secure(like this Hendrix relic) are really hard to come by. All I want I'd to feel like they don't put out a redemption for an item and then decide not to produce it because of cost. I suppose it's their prerogative. But it's not going to make me buy anything but retail and stuff on eBay. Otherwise, even a decent hit out of a box is a crapshoot. It's like playing the lottery only, when you win, you don't necessarily really win. What's the point?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

No, I'm simply going off of what I have been told by reps that I have talked to first-hand. They assign a VALUE to the replacement card based off of current Beckett VALUE. They say the word "VALUE". They attach a VALUE to the card not being delivered, and they replace that card with a different card of equal VALUE. They assign VALUE to 2 cards during the process. Is that clear enough for you? I'm sorry you're the one having trouble figuring that out.

Thus, that statement in your sig is nullified when they, after the product has been released, represent that the missing cards have a VALUE beyond just the cost of making a card that is part of a larger release.

Are you tired of being wrong yet, or do you want to keep looking foolish?

Its always a lot of fun to watch you struggle with anything the least bit complicated. Its great to pull you into discussions to flesh out a point. You're a great straight man.

You said: "They assign a VALUE to the replacement card based off of *current* Beckett VALUE."

Which contradicts your point as Topps says:

"Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value."

You can't even keep yourself straight here. And if you can't understand the subtle difference, please stop whining for God's sake.

Furthermore, the entire replacement process involves cards *THAT WERE NEVER PRODUCED*. CARDS THAT WERE NEVER PRODUCED HAVE NO FUTURE VALUE because they never existed in the first place. They may only have current value however as unfulfilled redemptions.

People who buy cards assign value to cards or the cards that may possibly exist some day in the future. Topps, by their statement does not. Beckett does not assign future value to cards either. If it did, there'd probably be no prospectors and a lot less gambling.

Perhaps one day Topps will evaluate how it conducts replacements, but we've seen that Topps doesn't "properly" place current or future value on cards beyond what its cost to produce them.

 

[predatorkj]

Its always a lot of fun to watch you struggle with anything the least bit complicated. Its great to pull you into discussions to flesh out a point. You're a great straight man.

You said: "They assign a VALUE to the replacement card based off of *current* Beckett VALUE."

Which contradicts your point as Topps says:

"Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value."

You can't even keep yourself straight here. And if you can't understand the subtle difference, please stop whining for God's sake.

Furthermore, the entire replacement process involves cards *THAT WERE NEVER PRODUCED*. CARDS THAT WERE NEVER PRODUCED HAVE NO FUTURE VALUE because they never existed in the first place. They may only have current value however as unfulfilled redemptions.

People who buy cards assign value to cards or the cards that may possibly exist some day in the future. Topps, by their statement does not. Beckett does not assign future value to cards either. If it did, there'd probably be no prospectors and a lot less gambling.

Perhaps one day Topps will evaluate how it conducts replacements, but we've seen that Topps doesn't "properly" place current or future value on cards beyond what its cost to produce them.

I wish you and Hive would get along!

But in any case, I've got to disagree with you here. Not about you and Hive's argument. But...if topps is using beckett value to make replacements, then they are using that to assign value to their cards. In essence they are still applying value to their cards beyond their costs. Or knowledge of such value at least exists for them. In your own words you say(bolded above) that they only go by costs. But that's the problem, they don't. Or, maybe they only do it when it's convenient for them. Like when a card was going to cost an arm and a leg for them to make. As opposed to, let's say, a Doc Gooden auto. Why only offer a beckett related value for certain cards, and not for others?

As for the placing of value on a card not made, could we assume it's fair to say that if it's not a card numbered to 1/1, then an average of auction ending prices, and hit BIN's may suffice? Or no? See, it's funny how the circle starts again and it's like they need to go back to costs to produce the card. Uhm...I'd say in any case, the Hendrix is worth more on the secondary market if made or even in redemption form, beckett value would be a lot higher, and overall production costs would be more than this Gooden. So, exactly what way can this be argued as fair, respectable, or a good way to treat a customer? If it boils down to them saying "Hey...take it or leave it, we're not going to be fair about it.", fine. But let's just call it what it is.

 

[nappyd]

... So, exactly what way can this be argued as fair, respectable, or a good way to treat a customer? If it boils down to them saying "Hey...take it or leave it, we're not going to be fair about it.", fine. But let's just call it what it is.

Fraud?

 

[hive17]

Its always a lot of fun to watch you struggle with anything the least bit complicated. Its great to pull you into discussions to flesh out a point. You're a great straight man.

You said: "They assign a VALUE to the replacement card based off of *current* Beckett VALUE."

Which contradicts your point as Topps says:

"Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value."

You can't even keep yourself straight here. And if you can't understand the subtle difference, please stop whining for God's sake.

Furthermore, the entire replacement process involves cards *THAT WERE NEVER PRODUCED*. CARDS THAT WERE NEVER PRODUCED HAVE NO FUTURE VALUE because they never existed in the first place. They may only have current value however as unfulfilled redemptions.

People who buy cards assign value to cards or the cards that may possibly exist some day in the future. Topps, by their statement does not. Beckett does not assign future value to cards either. If it did, there'd probably be no prospectors and a lot less gambling.

Perhaps one day Topps will evaluate how it conducts replacements, but we've seen that Topps doesn't "properly" place current or future value on cards beyond what its cost to produce them.

Sigh, you still don't get it.

That statement appears on packaging and/or applies to to cards that Topps hasn't even made yet, yes? So how can they apply a value in the future, after the product has been released? You know, in the future.

As predatorkj pointed out with your own words: for Topps to be within the limits of its own statements, there can be no more value to these cards than the cost to produce them. And yet, when a replacement is handed out, they assign a value based on current Beckett value. Yes, current when you're talking to them, but whenever you are talking to a rep about getting a replacement, it's in the FUTURE of the release and Topps has already applied that statement to the release your calling about.

Let me give you an example that simple enough, even you should be able to follow: Topps releases 2010 BDPP in November of 2010. I pull a Matt Harvey redemption card. Your statement applies at that point, and Topps won't make an assertion to it's value out of the package, letting that certain card make money or lose money, independent of Topps. Yet, 2 years later (THIS IS NOW IN THE FUTURE), when I decide I don't want to wait for that card anymore, I call Topps and ask for a replacement card. They say "OK, we'll send you a card of equal current (yet still in the FUTURE) Beckett value." At that point, Topps does assign a value. If anything, that statement works backwards, and allows Topps to not have to shell out a high-end card if the card you were calling about used to be a mega-prospect who is no longer worth as much (Strasburg now, vs. Strasburg in 2010 Bowman Chrome). I pray you understand. I realize this example is more than a couple dozen words, and your contempt for anything you don't completely understand probably made you not even read it.

Try not letting your giant ego and total inflated sense of superiority get in the way. You're wrong here, and everyone is laughing at how consistently you embarrass yourself in these discussions.

 

[George_Calfas]

related to the redemption problem, would it be fair to say that the issue comes up more with collector-focused products than prospector-focused products? I don't seem to remember too many redemptions in Bowman Chrome, Sterling, nor too many instances of non-fulfillment.

Mostly I hear about it in Heritage, Tribute, archives, Tier One, Five Star, etc.

Matt Harvey is currently being replaced and several others have been mentioned in the past couple months. Maniscaso (sp) comes to minds as well.


What do you do in this case, the box contains a "guaranteed" auto. The opener hits an expired redemption. Thus the opener does not receive the guaranteed item. Now the guarantee is in direct conflict with the resultant outcome.

 

[predatorkj]

Fraud?

I wouldn't say it's fraud if they were letting people know upfront that they may never get the card. And I believe they do have some wording that does cover that as far as their redemptions are concerned.

Rather, I'd say it's just a real xxxxxx up way to do business. And it's pretty bad for the customer.

 

[predatorkj]

Matt Harvey is currently being replaced and several others have been mentioned in the past couple months. Maniscaso (sp) comes to minds as well.


What do you do in this case, the box contains a "guaranteed" auto. The opener hits an expired redemption. Thus the opener does not receive the guaranteed item. Now the guarantee is in direct conflict with the resultant outcome.

Wow, didn't even think about that last part.

 

[goldenegg1]

Only in this industry can this happen.
I can't think of any other industry out there that could get away with this garbage.

 

[ronfromfresno]

Only in this industry can this happen.
I can't think of any other industry out there that could get away with this garbage.

That's because monopolies are illegal in other industries.

As for the value assigned to replacement cards, why is Topps using Beckett? If they don't claim the cards will attain any specific value why would they look to a source that bases their valuation on the secondary market? The secondary market creates the value the Topps doesn't guarantee but that they "try" to follow when dolling out replacements.

 

[hive17]

That's because monopolies are illegal in other industries.

As for the value assigned to replacement cards, why is Topps using Beckett? If they don't claim the cards will attain any specific value why would they look to a source that bases their valuation on the secondary market? The secondary market creates the value the Topps doesn't guarantee but that they "try" to follow when dolling out replacements.

Well, almost everyone in this thread can grasp that those statements by Topps are BS. Almost everyone.