Upper Deck Mailday Redemption... FAILURE

Shockingly, I have a UD story that probably won't end well....

R2BG2XNQP 2/19/2010
DENNIS ECKERSLEY / KEVIN YOUKILIS
2009 BASEBALL ULTIMATE COLLECTION ULTIMATE DUAL SIGNATURES # ED TO 8 CD # UDS-8.



Card received today.... NUMBERED TO 39....

No big deal, EXCEPT THAT I REDEEMED 4 of them.


So I log into my UD account today...
DENNIS ECKERSLEY / KEVIN YOUKILIS
2009 BASEBALL ULTIMATE COLLECTION ULTIMATE DUAL SIGNATURES # ED TO 8 CD # UDS-8. Error on redemption, card is numbered to 39 not 8.



It would have been nice if I had known that BEFORE redeeming. It would have been nice if they notified me BEFORE shipping. Do I have any recourse here?

Aside from the typical UD sucks comments, what can I legitimately do? I bought four redemptions, because they were numbered to 8. I get notified AFTER SHIPPING that they were numbered to 39....

Yeah thats terrible for them to spring it on you like that, I see alot of UD redemptions shipped from Ultimate this week. I'd like to see that card signed 'Youk' and 'Eck'.

coltsnsox07 said:

I'd like to see that card signed 'Youk' and 'Eck'.

Click to expand...

Not a chance. And Youks signature got pretty terrible on these as well.

um, why would u want foor of those ?

boomo said:

um, why would u want foor of those ?

Click to expand...

I figure 5 out of 8 at an average of $25 per was a good deal.

Regardless, would love to know if anyone has a legitimate idea.

win some lose some when buying as investment..

1st4040 said:

win some lose some when buying as investment..

Click to expand...

Really? It's an easy flip here in Boston regardless to what the card was numbered to. How your statement carries relevance is beyond me.

I don't understand how Upper Deck can get away with changing the serial number. I'd call a lawyer if it was monetarily worth it.

baseballguy350 said:

1st4040 said:

win some lose some when buying as investment..

Click to expand...

Really? It's an easy flip here in Boston regardless to what the card was numbered to. How your statement carries relevance is beyond me.

I don't understand how Upper Deck can get away with changing the serial number. I'd call a lawyer if it was monetarily worth it.

Click to expand...

But it's not, so you won't, and they probably know that. For real, they can pretty much do whatever they want with these things. Who is going to actually do something about it? Who is going to spend 1000s of dollars taking them to court over baseball cards??

timfsu2k said:

But it's not, so you won't, and they probably know that.

Click to expand...

My ass hurts. Thanks UD.

/thread

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand what the drama of the situation is.

If I'm understanding correctly, you were attempting to purchase half of a total run of the Youklis/Eckersly cards made? For what purpose? To corner the market and flip them for $5 more?

This is hardly grand larceny on the part of Upper Deck. It always is unfortunate when an error is made, but where's the damage? You said you only paid "about" $25 for each card when you thought it was #d to 8. How much is it worth now that it's #d to 39, $22? It's not like they got the names of the players wrong, or you received them without a sticker.

It was a clerical error. Compare it to the error on Wall Street that shot the market down 1,000 points in a few seconds and affected billions of dollars and things will soon be in perspective.

To me it's one of the strangest pairings I've ever seen. What do Eckersly and Youklis have in common? Why are they on the same card together?

Again. It's unfortunate, but in my opinion ... it's not worth all the drama. Anyone interested in such a weird pairing would buy it for the same at /39 as they would out of /8. Did you really think there was someone out there who was going to be like "Oh my gosh! There were only 8! I gotta have this! Here's a thousand dollars. Wait ... do you think I gave you enough? Here. Take some more. Please."

In my opinion, this whole thread is an indictment against people's obsessions with card serial numbers. Buy the card, folks. Not the foil stamped number. Then these things won't matter.

I think UD got some extra stickers and made more of these cards to use as replacment. Who is going to know right?

unless someone makes a stink about it on FCB

Kevin

Chris Levy said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand what the drama of the situation is.

If I'm understanding correctly, you were attempting to purchase half of a total run of the Youklis/Eckersly cards made? For what purpose? To corner the market and flip them for $5 more?

In my opinion, this whole thread is an indictment against people's obsessions with card serial numbers. Buy the card, folks. Not the foil stamped number. Then these things won't matter.

Click to expand...

Collectors are a strange group. I know I have bid obsene ammounts of money especially from a player collector standpoint to own a certain card that was #ed 1/3 2/3 and 3/3. It's cool to say I own the only ones of these that exist. So youk and eck are paired together. That doesn't matter. The fact is that he bought something under the "promise" that it was #ed to a certain number. Then gets it and finds out the print run was upped nearly 5 fold. I'd be mad as hell if that was me.

And if people wern't obsessed with serial numbers then a Castro base auto should sell the same as the parallels. It simply is not going to happen. Serial numbers are ingrained into the hobby now, and a lower print run is going to command a premium. ESPECIALLY when something doesn't surface (as it would if someone owned half the print run of something.)

I'll take one for $15 if Eckersley is in a Cardinals uniform and Youkilis is NOT pictured in his pre-swing stance or under Porcello.

Have you tried calling UD yet? Might not get much as compensation, but it can't hurt.

Therion said:

Have you tried calling UD yet? Might not get much as compensation, but it can't hurt.

Click to expand...

Compensation is the un-funny part....as stated earlier...What is the difference? 39 between 8 on a card like this is very minimal when it comes to baseball card sales....

Adamsince1981 said:

Therion said:

Have you tried calling UD yet? Might not get much as compensation, but it can't hurt.

Click to expand...

Compensation is the un-funny part....as stated earlier...What is the difference? 39 between 8 on a card like this is very minimal when it comes to baseball card sales....

Click to expand...

Value is relative. In NE, the price difference could be quite large. On eBay, not so much.

Even if YOU don't feel it's a problem, the person that thought he was redeeming half of the run does. That is all that really matters in this situation. If I went from owning 50% of a company to owning 10.3% of a company, I'd be annoyed. Even if that company wasn't worth very much.

Therion said:

Adamsince1981 said:

Therion said:

Have you tried calling UD yet? Might not get much as compensation, but it can't hurt.

Click to expand...

Compensation is the un-funny part....as stated earlier...What is the difference? 39 between 8 on a card like this is very minimal when it comes to baseball card sales....

Click to expand...

Value is relative. In NE, the price difference could be quite large. On eBay, not so much.

Even if YOU don't feel it's a problem, the person that thought he was redeeming half of the run does. That is all that really matters in this situation. If I went from owning 50% of a company to owning 10.3% of a company, I'd be annoyed. Even if that company wasn't worth very much.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is baseball cards. Nothing more. A unfortunate error on the part of UD, but we don't know the outcome of this seller's financial difference. He could end up selling all 4 cards for more than he paid....this hobby is VERY unpredictable. If he "KNEW" he was buying 50% of the print run for $25 a pop...I'd guess there is a very small market on this particular error card.

I wonder how UD felt when MLB told them that they were handing a monopoly over to Topps??? I only mention this becasue of your "owning a company" post that was in regards to 39 baseball cards from 1 set. Seemed a little much.

If UD had a contract that said they could produce MLB cards for four more years and MLBPA took that time away, I'm sure they'd be quite upset. This guy has a card that says it is #ed/8. He has a valid complaint.

I don't really see a huge problem with the numbering issue personally but I can see that others might. He clearly does and it won't hurt for him to call UD and voice that complaint.

There are solidly valid opinions that differ from our own.

Therion said:

If UD had a contract that said they could produce MLB cards for four more years and MLBPA took that time away, I'm sure they'd be quite upset. This guy has a card that says it is #ed/8. He has a valid complaint.

I don't really see a huge problem with the numbering issue personally but I can see that others might. He clearly does and it won't hurt for him to call UD and voice that complaint.

There are solidly valid opinions that differ from our own.

Click to expand...

He has reason to complain...I'm just not sure he could prove his losses.

I'd love to hear from the collectors that were searching for 5 BC Red refractors and ended up with 8. Maybe they could provide some insight on sales prices...

All I'm saying is....Valid Complaint...but, tough to prove losses. Almost comical considering the player match-up. It would be fun to mix up a thread making fun of UD's player match ups and this threa.

Collector A: Who would buy this match-Up?
Collector B: This Guy! posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=1228075

Therion said:

If UD had a contract that said they could produce MLB cards for four more years and MLBPA took that time away, I'm sure they'd be quite upset. This guy has a card that says it is #ed/8. He has a valid complaint.

I don't really see a huge problem with the numbering issue personally but I can see that others might. He clearly does and it won't hurt for him to call UD and voice that complaint.

There are solidly valid opinions that differ from our own.

Click to expand...

Did the card itself say that? Or, was that revealed on the UD website when the number was entered? Then it could just attest to a simple data entry number.