A Topps who's right who's wrong post

BBCgalaxee · May 17, 2014

Over on blow out, someone finally got their 2013 Archives Originals redemption item sent.

Basically, the redemption is good for an original item, no specific mention at all what it is, but you knew it wasn't recent item.

The redemption cards were selling for around $100.

The OP was sent a $10 1981 topps pack.

So my question is, did topps do anything "wrong" here?

Sure, there was no mention of what item would be sent but should topps have noticed the redemption cards selling for so much that a $10 item wouldn't be a good idea?

Or shouldn't the hobby be willing to pay $100 for some mystery item?

hive17 · May 17, 2014

Are there even any decent rookies in that set? Seems kind of bogus to literally set the collector up and leave yourself the ability to send them garbage. Maybe packs with the best rookies from the 70's and 80's, but 1981? No thanks Topps. Kudos to anyone that didn't hold on to those redemptions.

A_Pharis · May 17, 2014

Topps doesn't dictate the secondary market prices. They aren't at fault for what the redemption sold for.
They promised an original item, and an original item got delivered. It sucks, but it's not Topps' fault. People that spend money on mystery redemptions are fools - period.

Brewer Andy · May 17, 2014

Definitely sucks for the buyer but they were obviously willing to gamble when they bid on the redemption. Lame ass "hit" but no, I don't think Topps did anything wrong. That pack is 33 years old

A_Pharis · May 17, 2014

Also, I'm just never fond of people who call foul on condition. Getting a flawless card out of a manufacturing process is pretty damn difficult, and it's not like they can just reprint ONE card (since it's a sheet).

So, yeah. I repeat - it sucks, but Topps isn't in the wrong.

RiceLynnEvans75 · May 17, 2014

I don't think Topps did anything wrong. Regardless of what the item sells for on the secondary market, it's not like they are the ones receiving any of that money anyway. If Topps themselves were selling redemptions for $100 a pop then I would expect something in return up around that price. Honestly, I think redemptions in which there is no indication of anything you're to get in return is probably better since, it seems to me anyway from reading forums, they can't fulfill a lot of them anyway. Better not to get peoples hopes up TOO high and not come through in my opinion.

mancini79 · May 17, 2014

What did people expect? If it were a pack or item of substantial value, they would have depicted that on the redemption. Or at least advertised that those prizes were part of the program. They weren't going to give away $100 pack of cards just because. People paying $100 for a redemption that guaranteed nothing specific are at fault here.

jbhofmann · May 17, 2014

Cliff notes --

2001 Topps Tribute = $50/pack
Pulled aTed Williams buyback :value on eBay= $400-$600

Sent 1971 Topps manager card

I was crushed. They did nothing "wrong" just shady in my opinion.

Erich · May 17, 2014

Topps is not at fault. Maybe someday these fools will learn the redemption's they buy are worth no more that the paper they are printed on. At this point you have got have an extra chromosome to buy one or redeem one.

A_Pharis · May 17, 2014

jbhofmann said:
Cliff notes --

2001 Topps Tribute = $50/pack
Pulled aTed Williams buyback :value on eBay= $400-$600

Sent 1971 Topps manager card

I was crushed. They did nothing "wrong" just shady in my opinion.

Oh, yeah. There's no doubt that it sucks.

Topnotchsy · May 17, 2014

Topps may be technically in the right but assuming these redemptions are not all that common they are idiots and it's poor business. If this was what they planned all along they should have given some indication. Instead people who paid serious money for these redemptions are now angry and upset and it can ruin their collecting experience. We need to know first whether this was an exception or the rule (as far as what Topps sent) but if it's the latter, playing such games is stupid.

A_Pharis · May 17, 2014

I doubt it's the exception. For every single really good hit from these redemptions - there's going to be tons of terrible ones.

Mighty Bombjack · May 17, 2014

I agree with everyone here saying Topps did nothing wrong. I think those redemptions had huge odds, which may have made people think they would be valuable, but paying 100 bones for one was stupid. That's on the secondary market being out of whack, not Topps.

jbhofmann said:
Cliff notes --

2001 Topps Tribute = $50/pack
Pulled aTed Williams buyback :value on eBay= $400-$600

Sent 1971 Topps manager card

I was crushed. They did nothing "wrong" just shady in my opinion.

I've seen this story from you before and it blows. My question: was that the hit in the pack, or was there a GU card in there as well?

Mighty Bombjack · May 17, 2014

A_Pharis said:
Also, I'm just never fond of people who call foul on condition. Getting a flawless card out of a manufacturing process is pretty damn difficult, and it's not like they can just reprint ONE card (since it's a sheet).

So, yeah. I repeat - it sucks, but Topps isn't in the wrong.

I get very tired of people who complain about condition issues as well, as long as they are relatively minor. However, I'm confused what this has to do with the OP's question. Were the '81 Topps cards damaged or what? That would be funny, asking Topps to replace some '81 cards because the came out of the pack 90/10 o/c!

hive17 · May 17, 2014

Agreed on the odds. If these were seeded as case hits, a $10 junk pack is pretty weak.

Super Mario · May 17, 2014

Why place a redemption in a product fully knowing you're going to send out a worthless item to the person who redeems it?

jbhofmann · May 17, 2014

Mighty Bombjack said:
I agree with everyone here saying Topps did nothing wrong. I think those redemptions had huge odds, which may have made people think they would be valuable, but paying 100 bones for one was stupid. That's on the secondary market being out of whack, not Topps.

I've seen this story from you before and it blows. My question: was that the hit in the pack, or was there a GU card in there as well?

Donnie Baseball bat card was the hit.

JoshHamilton · May 17, 2014

This is just like idiots buying Lucky redemptions and getting pissed when #1 wasn't Puig.

Topps isn't at fault.

CubsfanP · May 17, 2014

I agree that technically Topps did nothing wrong.

However , this and many actions they take pushes collectors away from the Hobby, which is bad business and bad for us.

A_Pharis · May 17, 2014

Mighty Bombjack said:
I get very tired of people who complain about condition issues as well, as long as they are relatively minor. However, I'm confused what this has to do with the OP's question. Were the '81 Topps cards damaged or what? That would be funny, asking Topps to replace some '81 cards because the came out of the pack 90/10 o/c!

The guy over at BO had other cards, too. One was a Reggie Jackson 1/1 with a pretty dinged corner.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

A Topps who's right who's wrong post

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Featured Contributor, The best players in history?

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in