Would you have a problem with this?

BBCgalaxee · Aug 29, 2014

Let's use the current topps chrome for example.

Would you be "ok" if topps announced that every fourth box would have an extra auto, but it would be DEFECTIVE?

Defect could be a smudge, faded, badly streaked, but the card condition wouldn't be affected.

And this extra card would also bear some sort of identifier so it couldn't be returned.

DeliciousBacon · Aug 29, 2014

Having pulled a few smudged autos from Chrome that weren't worth sending in for replacement, I don't think this scenario is far off from reality.

TNP777 · Aug 29, 2014

nope, that wouldn't be acceptable to me at all.

Brewer Andy · Aug 29, 2014

Sounds like something Leaf would do

rsmath · Aug 30, 2014

BBCgalaxee said:
Would you be "ok" if topps announced that every fourth box would have an extra auto, but it would be DEFECTIVE?

Defect could be a smudge, faded, badly streaked, but the card condition wouldn't be affected.

I wouldn't be okay. Using the online auction site scenario, I pass up bidding on autos that are annoyingly smudged and if the smudge is very minor and not very noticable, I'll lowball my bid instead of setting up a reasonable bid for the item.

I'd also say that Topps reps (when they actually go to a signing) should not be deadweight at the signing (i.e. pay attention and if autos are smudging, work with the athlete to find a fix so most of the signing are not smudges) or buy Panini autos since Panini apparently goes over incoming autos and seems to pull smudged autos aside to be destroyed.

AmishDave · Aug 30, 2014

Cardcop would rectify this problem immediately.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Would you have a problem with this?

BBCgalaxee

Well-known member

DeliciousBacon

Well-known member

TNP777

New member

Brewer Andy

Active member

rsmath

Active member

AmishDave

Featured Contributor, Collector Showcase, Senior M

Similar threads

Members online

Latest posts