The Perfect Hobby Landscape

Adamsince1981 · Dec 3, 2009

MLB & MLBPA licenses for:

Upper Deck
Topps
Donruss/Pannini

* RC's can be made as soon as a player signs with a MLB team.
* Exlusives on Autographs and Memorabillia only.
* Veteran Exlusives on Memorabillia, Autographs, and privately owned photography only. (ex - every company could make a Mantle card)

Adamsince1981 · Dec 3, 2009

I'd love to here why the NO's feel the way they do...

ChasHawk · Dec 3, 2009

Adamsince1981 said:
I'd love to here why the NO's feel the way they do...

Because of the exclusives for mem. and autos. I'd love DLP to have a license again. DLP though. Not Panini.

Adamsince1981 · Dec 3, 2009

chashawk said:
Adamsince1981 said:

I'd love to here why the NO's feel the way they do...

Click to expand...

Because of the exclusives for mem. and autos. I'd love DLP to have a license again. DLP though. Not Panini.

Is the bolded the reason for voting NO?

Pannini owns DLP.

ChasHawk · Dec 3, 2009

Adamsince1981 said:
chashawk said:

Adamsince1981 said:

I'd love to here why the NO's feel the way they do...

Click to expand...

Because of the exclusives for mem. and autos. I'd love DLP to have a license again. DLP though. Not Panini.

Click to expand...

Is the bolded the reason for voting NO?

Pannini owns DLP.

Yes, the bolded.

And yes I know, which is why I don't care that Panini doesn't have a license. I doubt they would live up to DLP's standards.

Adamsince1981 · Dec 3, 2009

chashawk said:
Adamsince1981 said:

chashawk said:

Adamsince1981 said:

I'd love to here why the NO's feel the way they do...

Click to expand...

Because of the exclusives for mem. and autos. I'd love DLP to have a license again. DLP though. Not Panini.

Click to expand...

Is the bolded the reason for voting NO?

Pannini owns DLP.

Click to expand...

Yes, the bolded.

And yes I know, which is why I don't care that Panini doesn't have a license. I doubt they would live up to DLP's standards.

I will say that I don't love the Pannini basketball cards I've seen. But there are so many people that love the DLP and EEE releases that I figured most wouldn't mind seeing them.

ChasHawk · Dec 3, 2009

Adamsince1981 said:
chashawk said:

Adamsince1981 said:

chashawk said:

Adamsince1981 said:

I'd love to here why the NO's feel the way they do...

Click to expand...

Because of the exclusives for mem. and autos. I'd love DLP to have a license again. DLP though. Not Panini.

Click to expand...

Is the bolded the reason for voting NO?

Pannini owns DLP.

Click to expand...

Yes, the bolded.

And yes I know, which is why I don't care that Panini doesn't have a license. I doubt they would live up to DLP's standards.

Click to expand...

I will say that I don't love the Pannini basketball cards I've seen. But there are so many people that love the DLP and EEE releases that I figured most wouldn't mind seeing them.

I would love to see Ann's DLP still have a license. Panini seems to be in love with foilboard stock.

Superfractor · Dec 3, 2009

Assuming the logo would be used, based on premise one: How would you propose the RC logo be handled on such releases as Bowman?

Adamsince1981 · Dec 3, 2009

Superfractor said:
Assuming the logo would be used, based on premise one: How would you propose the RC logo be handled on such releases as Bowman?

The old MLB RC logo was terrible, but I'm fine with the new logo. That being said, I could care less if it is used on cards under the scenario I laid out.

But, if it was used, it should be used for every single RC regardless of what release it is.

ChasHawk · Dec 3, 2009

Superfractor said:
Assuming the logo would be used, based on premise one: How would you propose the RC logo be handled on such releases as Bowman?

Personally I would like the "RC" and any other extraneous logos just to go away.

Wouldn't you rather see a Giants logo on this card instead of the "RC" ??

I realize it's a mock-up, but if this is what to expect from Topps in 2010, bring on the unlicensed UD products.

Adamsince1981 · Dec 3, 2009

chashawk said:
Superfractor said:

Assuming the logo would be used, based on premise one: How would you propose the RC logo be handled on such releases as Bowman?

Click to expand...

Personally I would like the "RC" and any other extraneous logos just go away.

Wouldn't you rather see a Giants logo on this card instead of the "RC" ??

I would rather not see the RC logo used at all, but I don't see MLB removing it.

Superfractor · Dec 3, 2009

I agree. I don't care for RC logos. I think - we as collectors - can safely infer when a player's card is his RC/First Year. Frankly, I don't want the RC logo on a Bowman card, ever.

braden · Dec 3, 2009

Adamsince1981 said:
I'd love to here why the NO's feel the way they do...

A player should have a RC when they make their Major League debut.

uniquebaseballcards · Dec 3, 2009

Used to be that the player's position and team name were always on the front of the card. It really bothers me when these are missing.

I like logos on cards that indicate something important has happened to the player. I love the old all-star logos from the late '70s and enjoy the Topps rookie cup logos. I also like MVP, ROY and Cy Young logos/indication where appropriate if they're done right. It makes sense to have RC and Pro-Debut logos because these also highlight huge occurrences in a player's career.

chashawk said:
Superfractor said:

Assuming the logo would be used, based on premise one: How would you propose the RC logo be handled on such releases as Bowman?

Click to expand...

Personally I would like the "RC" and any other extraneous logos just to go away.

Wouldn't you rather see a Giants logo on this card instead of the "RC" ??

I realize it's a mock-up, but if this is what to expect from Topps in 2010, bring on the unlicensed UD products.

Superfractor · Dec 3, 2009

uniquebaseballcards said:
Used to be that the player's position and team name were always on the front of the card. It really bothers me when these are missing.

I like logos on cards that indicate something important has happened to the player. I love the old all-star logos from the late '70s and enjoy the Topps rookie cup logos. I also like MVP, ROY and Cy Young logos/indication where appropriate if they're done right. It makes sense to have RC and Pro-Debut logos because these also highlight huge occurrences in a player's career.

chashawk said:

Superfractor said:

Assuming the logo would be used, based on premise one: How would you propose the RC logo be handled on such releases as Bowman?

Click to expand...

Personally I would like the "RC" and any other extraneous logos just to go away.

Wouldn't you rather see a Giants logo on this card instead of the "RC" ??

I realize it's a mock-up, but if this is what to expect from Topps in 2010, bring on the unlicensed UD products.

Click to expand...

The problem here is Bowman: Bowman safely implies a prospect/draft pick, which then leads to first-year and X-year prospect card(s). Wouldn't you think it'd be redundant to put the RC logo on every single first-year card in the set?

Check that: The more I read my post, I doubt there would be redundancy simply because Bowman lets us know whether it is his first-year or not and simply removing "First-Year/1st Bowman" for "RC" would suffice. I'll still await any responses without the edit...
Bowman introduced semantics simply because of those regulations towards RCs and so altering those rules would allow Bowman's brand to rid themselves of such semantics and safely label a first-year card as a RC.

uniquebaseballcards · Dec 3, 2009

I certainly agree with you here if you're saying the MLB RC logo shouldn't go on Bowman cards. A player's first Bowman card has the "First Bowman Card" or "First Year" indication though. I'm assuming Bowman won't be carrying the Pro-Debut logos either.

Bowman is always going to be a special case given its special license, I wish it only showcased draft picks and minor league players, this way it wouldn't use the MLB RC logo.

Superfractor said:
The problem here is Bowman: Bowman safely implies a prospect/draft pick, which then leads to first-year and X-year prospect card(s). Wouldn't you think it'd be redundant to put the RC logo on every single first-year card in the set?

Superfractor · Dec 3, 2009

uniquebaseballcards said:
I certainly agree with you here if you're saying the MLB RC logo shouldn't go on Bowman cards. A player's first Bowman card has the "First Bowman Card" or "First Year" indication though. I'm assuming Bowman won't be carrying the Pro-Debut logos either.

Bowman is always going to be a special case given its special license, I wish it only showcased draft picks and minor league players, this way it wouldn't use the MLB RC logo.

Superfractor said:

The problem here is Bowman: Bowman safely implies a prospect/draft pick, which then leads to first-year and X-year prospect card(s). Wouldn't you think it'd be redundant to put the RC logo on every single first-year card in the set?

Click to expand...

Yes, I did say that. I later settled that if the RC logo goes on all products, then it might as well go on Bowman. However, they should remove the first-year logo to reduce redundancy.

But I much rather go with your "Bowman is a special case" remark. That way, the RC logo would never show its face on Bowman's prospect and draft-picks cards.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

The Perfect Hobby Landscape

Would you prefer this over how it will be in 2010?

YES

NO

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in