An open letter to Topps about Bowman Chrome

To Topps,

In 1997 you created a wonderful product called Bowman Chrome. Over the next few years you tweaked it a bit, introducing gold refractors in 1999 (albeit numbered /25) and autographs in 2001 (though the 1 per box concept came in 2002.) The product was a fabulous success. It had a simple, predictable format, and that worked really well. The company was happy because it was a very popular set (without the expenses of including signatures and game-used materials from expensive, high-priced current stars or retired players.) The fans were happy because they could get rookie cards of their favorite players, many of which were signed, and dealers were happy because in general the boxes provided a decent return on investment. Overall there was a level of market equilibrium that allowed people to consider that this model could carry on successfully for many years, and people would continue to view Bowman Chrome as the premier rookie set, while it carried a price point that allowed even casual fans to get involved.

Something happened though. Print runs started increasing, and the autograph checklist began expanding making it extremely difficult to pull a card of a top prospect. For the first time in a number of years buying boxes during the presell was a questionable move... they might be cheaper later on. Then Topps decided that it was ok to include signed cards of players whose rookie (card) year had passed. Initially that did not go over well, but over time the cards of those players, like Prince Fielder, ended up getting accepted. In the short term it appeared the weight of Chrome and the feeling in the market that "Chrome was King" was going to win that battle.

With a bit more courage now Topps decided to take the next step. If 2nd year auto's of players who never had a Chrome
autograph sold ok, maybe include 2nd Chrome autographs of players who already had a Chrome card. It was another move to expand the print run. At the same time it added additional confusion for collectors.

Then, in another attempt to "add value" Topps recognized that within their autograph checklist there were players who, had they had an unsigned card, would sell for a bit. One of the outstanding aspects of Bowman Chrome was the fact that over the years it had become the only set whose base rookie cards still offered value. And so Topps began making two versions for many players, a signed version and an unsigned version.

Over the years there was another trend to increase "value added," the introduction of more parallels. For the price of creating cards in another color, Topps could offer more and more rare parallels and provide more value per pack.

In reality though, Topps may have gained in the short term, but they are on the verge of destroying a product that could have been a cash cow for years. As the print runs increased, the set became less and less worthwhile to case busters and as the parallels have increased, it has diminished the value of the parallels in the eyes of collectors. While there was a fairly widespread belief that in the long run Bowman Chrome Gold Refractor Autograph would be the centerpiece of any player collection, that idea (or the idea that any Bowman Chrome card, outside of possibly the superfractor or red refractor) is fading. There is no longer any consensus on which card to target, and no card that people can display with confidence as "the card." The inclusion of second year signatures has confused and annoyed many collectors. Finally, introducing non-signed versions of the players with signed cards has destroyed the market for base Bowman Chrome cards and eroded a tremendous amount of value. A 2007 David Price Gold Refractor BGS 9.5 recently sold for under $30, a shocking testament to how far the value of base Chrome non-signed cards have dropped.

Topps, you have been systematically destroying the set that could have been a cash cow for many years. You have destroyed value by looking at short term gains over long term value. You have a product that was held on a pedestal by a huge number of collectors, and you have taken your turns hacking at the pedestal, and destroying everything that made Chrome popular. In the last couple of years you have introduced a number of features to Bowman Chrome that have added interest including AFLAC cards and Futures Game logos, welcome additions, but those were things should not have been needed in Chrome. It once was a product that could stand on its own, now it cannot.

In my humble opinion there are really two choices:
1. Go back to what made people like Chrome from the beginning. 1 autograph per box, with a reasonably small autograph checklist. No second year autographs. If a player does not have a Chrome autograph, that is fine. It only adds allure to the players who do. Do not make a base card of anyone with a signed card. It destroys more value than it creates. (At the current time you may want to consider something like you did in 2002 and short print the rookies for a year or two, to bring back some value for the base cards.) Get rid of the ridiculous parallels, and bring back value and recognition to those that you keep. That means axing the purple refractors, the orange refractors, and possibly one or two others. People might complain a bit in the short term, but in the long term it will bring back the value of the parallels that are left. (Look back to 2003 and see how collectors view those parallels... it is telling.)

2. Continue doing as you are now. Unlike the old product, you will have to continually add "gimmicks" because the base formula will not carry the set long term. Over time another product, possibly from another company, will pass Bowman Chrome as the premier rookie set, and people will take off the rose colored glasses and realize that they have been paying for boxes of cards that essentially offer a single valuable card (since the base cards are close to worthless these days) and wonder why they are not buying sets that offer better value.

Thank you for your time.

(Now to those who may ask, I will not actually be mailing this to Topps. They have people who read the boards, and honestly I don't think they will listen anyways, so in essence it is more of a vent. Obviously everything included is my own opinion, so anyone can feel free to disagree...)

I utterly agree with your statements. Many people praise the added extra value, but don't see the possible long-term ramifications for the set. I too would love to see BC as a staple for many years to come; but I currently see a mediocre future. The set is continuously being diluted, and ambiguity is increasing; it's a sad thing.

Send that **** in to Topps, and also to your Congressman.

I'd actually send that in an email and see what happens. Not like they can get pissed and make the product worse.

Your letter keeps mentioning "collectors", yet it silently screams "investors". I'm not knocking your position, but I feel there is a difference between the two. As a collector (at heart), I don't worry too much what my collection will be worth down the road. It's just a hobby to me first and foremost that keeps me interested in the game itself more. I admit that I'm probably in the minority nowadays within the "card community" however.

Personally, I love the fact that I can buy a rare un-autographed parallel for just a few bucks. If it's rare, it will always be rare. Look at it this way: By offering both auto'd and un-auto'd cards of a player within a set, they are giving collectors several options (at different price points, etc.).

I do agree with you that it can get VERY confusing when trying to figure out what a player's first card is (especially when the cards are not identified correctly as such). I wish they'd stick with just first-year cards within the Bowman line of products. That's just my personal take though, as collectors have demonstrated that they want 2nd or 3rd-year autographed chrome cards (as you stated). As for the base cards being worthless, I don't think they're any more worthless than another set's base cards (unless the other set's base cards are limited and/or serial-numbered). Usually, a player's chrome base rookie card is still held in higher esteem than a rookie card from another set (base Topps for example).

As for being a "cash-cow", are you referring to Topps, or the folks who rip-and-flip?

TomMurry said:

Not like they can get pissed and make the product worse.

Click to expand...

Oh, you'd be surprised. They can and will. It's been happening more and more, with each passing Bowman product.

Just to add to Sy's letter a bit, I'd like to see Topps bring back accurate wording on the backs of parallels. Just saying "Refractor", no matter the parallel, is confusing to many. Not to mention they didn't even use that word at all with 2011 Bowman Chrome's parallels, which was ridiculous.

Topps also needs to keep an accurate database as to who has had Chrome cards in the past, and to make a concerted effort not to repeat them in future Bowman products. It's one thing to create a prospect card of a player in a blue theme, then give him a green themed "RC" once he has been called up, but it's another to give him blue prospect issue cards in consecutive products. There are way too many promising ignored prospects to omit, and so they need to realize this and sign them to contracts.

Dont bitch, boycott

Vote with your wallet.

Too many topps fans, too much retail support.

Now that Topps has managed to hook people on a new kind of card with BC - especially investors - they'll try to make it more collectible like (base) Topps and then try to get people hooked onto another product yet to be named. A solid collector base is probably more stable to Topps' bottom line than investors (who tend to be more fickle) anyway.

Just looking at the length and tone of the initial post in this thread without delving into its content, its not hard for many of us here to lose perspective and forget we're talking about something as simple and (what's supposed to be) fun for *everyone*. We're talking baseball cards after all!

Good read and I agree. But what about the etching? They just don't have that "chrome" effect anymore.

carlitoson said:

Your letter keeps mentioning "collectors", yet it silently screams "investors". I'm not knocking your position, but I feel there is a difference between the two. As a collector (at heart), I don't worry too much what my collection will be worth down the road. It's just a hobby to me first and foremost that keeps me interested in the game itself more. I admit that I'm probably in the minority nowadays within the "card community" however.

As for the base cards being worthless, I don't think they're any more worthless than another set's base cards (unless the other set's base cards are limited and/or serial-numbered). Usually, a player's chrome base rookie card is still held in higher esteem than a rookie card from another set (base Topps for example.)

As for being a "cash-cow", are you referring to Topps, or the folks who rip-and-flip?

Click to expand...

I took out parts of your comment in the quote to save space since my response is only to these statements.

With regard to your initial statement, I do think you are in the minority. Over the last few years on these boards (and others like it) there have been tons of collectors here, and for many a Bowman Chrome Rookie Autograph (and its parallels) are centerpieces of a collection. The reality is that when the cards cost hundreds of dollars, many people care that what they are paying for will not be worthless down the line. Even amongst those collecting purely for fun, it is hard to justify spending significant sums on a piece of cardboard if there is no hope of recouping at least a bit of the expense should the time come when a person wants/needs to sell.

With regards to the cash cow, I was referring to Topps. Chrome has to be one of the cheapest (if not the cheapest) product they make over the years (no players who can demand much money for their signature, no cut autographs, no expensive game-used etc.) In exchange for short term profits (more cases sold through a larger print run) they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs IMO.)

thefatguy said:

Dont bitch, boycott

Vote with your wallet.

Too many topps fans, too much retail support.

Click to expand...

Oh, I have not dreamed of opening a box of Chrome in a very, very long time, though I generally stuck to Chrome when it came to picking up singles. As the years go on though, there seems to be less and less of a reason to do so.

I know I'm in the minority but I hate the etching.
Of course I was also never that fond of xfractors either.
Just too busy for me.
Again, I know I'm in the minority but I my favorite BC sets to were those without autos.
It took putting sets together out of my budget.
David

I've been saying since 2008: Get rid of Bowman w/ Chrome and replace it with paper Bowman. Make the Bowman checklist the EXACT same as Bowman Chrome. Same autos, same prospects, same image, same everything. Only difference is Bowman will have it's own unique parallels, and Bowman Chrome will have it's own parallels. Topps used to be ahead of the curve in terms of the amount of quality prospects they COULD put into one of their Bowman products. Since 2008 though, the number of top prospects who don't have cards have dwindled to only a handful of names because Topps is forced to distribute top names across 3 products. If 2 of their 3 products had the same checklist, they could take what would have been the best prospects from 2 different Chrome products and concentrate them into 2 products with the same checklist...just like what they did when Bowman Chrome came out in 1997.

I somewhat agree on the parallels. There needs to be some sort of consistency if BC is going to be a staple for generations. I'm all in favor of getting rid of orange, purple, and red refractors, but I do wish the Xfractor was returned just to keep it somewhat consistent with what existed when the parallel autos were originally introduced.