Unbelieveable Redemption Replacement from Topps!

[Krom]

Well, almost everyone in this thread can grasp that those statements by Topps are BS. Almost everyone.

Its kind of strange to have that phrase in a sig below scans of 18 cards that are 1/1s of stars. To me it would seem more natural to have a collection of base cards in the sig if you truly believed those words. Because i don't think anyone does. Its just a disclaimer, something to cover their @sses or whatnot.

 

[BiggioBrooks755]

Why is everyone all shocked at this?

1. Topps does not and will never care about their customers, and once again, crap like this proves it
2. Its been going on for 5+ years...

This is why I will NEVER buy or redeem a redemption.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Sigh, you still don't get it.

That statement appears on packaging and/or applies to to cards that Topps hasn't even made yet, yes? So how can they apply a value in the future, after the product has been released? You know, in the future.

As predatorkj pointed out with your own words: for Topps to be within the limits of its own statements, there can be no more value to these cards than the cost to produce them. And yet, when a replacement is handed out, they assign a value based on current Beckett value. Yes, current when you're talking to them, but whenever you are talking to a rep about getting a replacement, it's in the FUTURE of the release and Topps has already applied that statement to the release your calling about.

Let me give you an example that simple enough, even you should be able to follow: Topps releases 2010 BDPP in November of 2010. I pull a Matt Harvey redemption card. Your statement applies at that point, and Topps won't make an assertion to it's value out of the package, letting that certain card make money or lose money, independent of Topps. Yet, 2 years later (THIS IS NOW IN THE FUTURE), when I decide I don't want to wait for that card anymore, I call Topps and ask for a replacement card. They say "OK, we'll send you a card of equal current (yet still in the FUTURE) Beckett value." At that point, Topps does assign a value. If anything, that statement works backwards, and allows Topps to not have to shell out a high-end card if the card you were calling about used to be a mega-prospect who is no longer worth as much (Strasburg now, vs. Strasburg in 2010 Bowman Chrome). I pray you understand. I realize this example is more than a couple dozen words, and your contempt for anything you don't completely understand probably made you not even read it.

Try not letting your giant ego and total inflated sense of superiority get in the way. You're wrong here, and everyone is laughing at how consistently you embarrass yourself in these discussions.

Lets cut through the nonsense and see what's really here. You believe by Topps providing a substitute for something never created contradicts Topps' motto... despite the very existence of this thread and others like it.

You lose by default... and yet you still whine and argue. You were dealt a losing hand and can't even tell.

You've failed to show that Topps spends more or less to create replacement cards. You mistakenly believe that a redemption card is an actual baseball card when its clearly not - it's a 'certificate' for a card that may or may not be created and may be replaced. You believe imaginary cards have future value.

How imaginary would you like to get? Bowman non-MLB players are really MLB players? Minor league players are really rookies?

Despite all the rhetorical nonsense and wishful thinking "Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value." applies... and it pisses you off because you know I'm right... simply by the existence of this thread... never mind your interesting personal views on redemptions.

As I said before and as we know, this is just beyond you. I believe you may have good intentions, but believing in fantasy doesn't make you 'right' even though you hope to be. Maybe one day you'll learn to see the big picture, but I doubt it. Hint: The hobby ain't a real business and redemptions only have current value because they have no future.

Another not-so-clever retort?

 

[nappyd]

So if I advertise a promotion for a custom Ferrari and you win a slip saying I promise you a Ferrari three years from now and will send it if and when I'm ready. Now, this slip, this iou for a Ferrari, contains language that basically says "hey while you won rights to a Ferrari, yes the one we promoted and advertised, you may never get it and we'll say that you're going to get something of equal or lesser value, because to us a Ferrari is the same as any other car and has no value over that of any other".

So then a year or two later the company sends you a Dodge Stratus with an apologetic form letter saying "Sorry I wasn't able to give you the Ferrari I advertised in a promotion, and hey here's a Dodge Stratus, enjoy!". That would make you as happy as a pig in XXXX?

Because for two years you were waiting on that Ferrari the company I run told you that you were getting, the one they advertised and ran a promotion for, generating sales interest in their product for the hope of winning a Ferrari, only to end up with a Dodge freakin' Stratus.

And, if you try to say that the Stratus is not the same as this unique Ferrari, which we never made or got the rights to or whatever, we'll refer to a digest ran by our friends at autotrader that shows a low value for this nonexistent Ferrari, approximately the worth of a Dodge Stratus, and support this value, despite our prior published claims of said value to the contrary. And yes, it will go against other industry sources of valuation of Ferraris, because screw you that's why.

That is the basis of the argument uniquecards is trying to make. Even he can't be self-delusional and stupid enough to believe what he types.

 

[Joshua.Roundtree]

So if I advertise a promotion for a custom Ferrari and you win a slip saying I promise you a Ferrari three years from now and will send it if and when I'm ready. Now, this slip, this iou for a Ferrari, contains language that basically says "hey while you won rights to a Ferrari, yes the one we promoted and advertised, you may never get it and we'll say that you're going to get something of equal or lesser value, because to us a Ferrari is the same as any other car and has no value over that of any other".

So then a year or two later the company sends you a Dodge Stratus with an apologetic form letter saying "Sorry I wasn't able to give you the Ferrari I advertised in a promotion, and hey here's a Dodge Stratus, enjoy!". That would make you as happy as a pig in XXXX?

Because for two years you were waiting on that Ferrari the company I run told you that you were getting, the one they advertised and ran a promotion for, generating sales interest in their product for the hope of winning a Ferrari, only to end up with a Dodge freakin' Stratus.

And, if you try to say that the Stratus is not the same as this unique Ferrari, which we never made or got the rights to or whatever, we'll refer to a digest ran by our friends at autotrader that shows a low value for this nonexistent Ferrari, approximately the worth of a Dodge Stratus, and support this value, despite our prior published claims of said value to the contrary. And yes, it will go against other industry sources of valuation of Ferraris, because screw you that's why.

That is the basis of the argument uniquecards is trying to make. Even he can't be self-delusional and stupid enough to believe what he types.

WINNER! End the thread on that one.

 

[rsmath]

I wouldn't say it's fraud if they were letting people know upfront that they may never get the card. And I believe they do have some wording that does cover that as far as their redemptions are concerned.

the way I see it, fraud would come into play if Topps never could make the card because they never had any contract in place and decided to make it a redemption anyway - sort of what I've seen some say about my Guy Bluford A&G card. Of course, it would take filing a lawsuit against Topps claiming fraud because of no intention to make a card that had a redemption inserted into product and then the lawyers using discovery to find out if any contracts were in place.

 

[rsmath]

As for the value assigned to replacement cards, why is Topps using Beckett?

Obviously Topps isn't using Beckett. The redemption card placed into product can be priced in most cases, but the customs they are making and sending out for replacements have no Beckett value. Who knows if Beckett will even checklist and price them to get a Beckett value. Chris Olds in a blog reply told me if Topps sends them a checklist of the custom replacement cards and if there is "sufficient" market data, they will be priced.

I guess if you feel you've been screwed by redemption replacements, try to make a log of Ebay value of the redemption card and of the replacement received to try to help support your position that you may be due something of more value as a replacement -- at least until Beckett prices the Redemption Set to create
beckett values for both the redemption registered and the replacement received.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

the way I see it, fraud would come into play if Topps never could make the card because they never had any contract in place and decided to make it a redemption anyway - sort of what I've seen some say about my Guy Bluford A&G card. Of course, it would take filing a lawsuit against Topps claiming fraud because of no intention to make a card that had a redemption inserted into product and then the lawyers using discovery to find out if any contracts were in place.

And the response is that Topps negotiated in good faith and believed they would have a contract completed at the time of the release of the product. They didn't, so they will issue a replacement.

Furthermore, the minimal amount of recovery would bar this suit from ever being filed.

 

[phillyfan0417]

So if I advertise a promotion for a custom Ferrari and you win a slip saying I promise you a Ferrari three years from now and will send it if and when I'm ready. Now, this slip, this iou for a Ferrari, contains language that basically says "hey while you won rights to a Ferrari, yes the one we promoted and advertised, you may never get it and we'll say that you're going to get something of equal or lesser value, because to us a Ferrari is the same as any other car and has no value over that of any other".

So then a year or two later the company sends you a Dodge Stratus with an apologetic form letter saying "Sorry I wasn't able to give you the Ferrari I advertised in a promotion, and hey here's a Dodge Stratus, enjoy!". That would make you as happy as a pig in XXXX?

Because for two years you were waiting on that Ferrari the company I run told you that you were getting, the one they advertised and ran a promotion for, generating sales interest in their product for the hope of winning a Ferrari, only to end up with a Dodge freakin' Stratus.

And, if you try to say that the Stratus is not the same as this unique Ferrari, which we never made or got the rights to or whatever, we'll refer to a digest ran by our friends at autotrader that shows a low value for this nonexistent Ferrari, approximately the worth of a Dodge Stratus, and support this value, despite our prior published claims of said value to the contrary. And yes, it will go against other industry sources of valuation of Ferraris, because screw you that's why.

That is the basis of the argument uniquecards is trying to make. Even he can't be self-delusional and stupid enough to believe what he types.

Wanna bet?

 

[hive17]

Lets cut through the nonsense and see what's really here. You believe by Topps providing a substitute for something never created contradicts Topps' motto... despite the very existence of this thread and others like it.

You lose by default... and yet you still whine and argue. You were dealt a losing hand and can't even tell.

You've failed to show that Topps spends more or less to create replacement cards. You mistakenly believe that a redemption card is an actual baseball card when its clearly not - it's a 'certificate' for a card that may or may not be created and may be replaced. You believe imaginary cards have future value.

How imaginary would you like to get? Bowman non-MLB players are really MLB players? Minor league players are really rookies?

Despite all the rhetorical nonsense and wishful thinking "Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will attain any future value." applies... and it pisses you off because you know I'm right... simply by the existence of this thread... never mind your interesting personal views on redemptions.

As I said before and as we know, this is just beyond you. I believe you may have good intentions, but believing in fantasy doesn't make you 'right' even though you hope to be. Maybe one day you'll learn to see the big picture, but I doubt it. Hint: The hobby ain't a real business and redemptions only have current value because they have no future.

Another not-so-clever retort?

See, you don't even understand my point; you've come to this battle of wits unarmed.

My only point is that that statement by Topps attempts to aleviate them of any stake in the value of the cards once they are produced. Topps is only invested in the cost. All the XXXX that happens in the secondary market is hands-off to Topps; this prevents some idiot from claiming that Topps caused them to "lose" a bunch of money investing in cards.

Yet, when it comes time to replace a card with another card, Topps explicitly uses the word "value", not "cost" and it explicitly references a secondary market publication when doing so. Thus, they ignore that original statement. If the customer service rep simply said: "we'll send you another garunteed hit based on the odds of the redemption you're asking about" I'd have no issue.

So I ask you again: what does that statement mean to you? Also, have you ever even had Topps send you a replacement or talked to a CS rep about replacements? I assume not, since you continue to come off clueless.

And before you answer: if your Aspergers is acting up, please stay off the interwebs.

 

[Krom]

See, you don't even understand my point; you've come to this battle of wits unarmed.

My only point is that that statement by Topps attempts to aleviate them of any stake in the value of the cards once they are produced. Topps is only invested in the cost. All the XXXX that happens in the secondary market is hands-off to Topps; this prevents some idiot from claiming that Topps caused them to "lose" a bunch of money investing in cards.

Yet, when it comes time to replace a card with another card, Topps explicitly uses the word "value", not "cost" and it explicitly references a secondary market publication when doing so. Thus, they ignore that original statement. If the customer service rep simply said: "we'll send you another garunteed hit based on the odds of the redemption you're asking about" I'd have no issue.

So I ask you again: what does that statement mean to you? Also, have you ever even had Topps send you a replacement or talked to a CS rep about replacements? I assume not, since you continue to come off clueless.

And before you answer: if your Aspergers is acting up, please stay off the interwebs.

Very well put. He SHOULD get it. He won't, but all you can do is try.

 

[predatorkj]

I've said it before and hopefully I was correct but I think unique's point of view is that the prices of cards and products is dictated solely by us collectors and people who sell on the secondary market and what we'll pay. And that in a lot of cases, we feed a fire that constantly burns us. I think he's mad at the system. I think we all are. I think the quote in his sig is more of an irony than anything and I think he knows it as we all do. Topps damn well knows cards are worth money and are easily able to manipulate this to their advantage. It's a capitalist society and if they know they can make a product and we will buy it, they do so.

Where the arguments diverge is...we're mad because people aren't getting a fair shake when they spend mega bucks on topps products or redemptions(secondary market or not). And Unique's primary argument is "duh...so why do you continue to feed this beast."

Or maybe I have it all wrong...

 

[hive17]

I've said it before and hopefully I was correct but I think unique's point of view is that the prices of cards and products is dictated solely by us collectors and people who sell on the secondary market and what we'll pay. And that in a lot of cases, we feed a fire that constantly burns us. I think he's mad at the system. I think we all are. I think the quote in his sig is more of an irony than anything and I think he knows it as we all do. Topps damn well knows cards are worth money and are easily able to manipulate this to their advantage. It's a capitalist society and if they know they can make a product and we will buy it, they do so.

Where the arguments diverge is...we're mad because people aren't getting a fair shake when they spend mega bucks on topps products or redemptions(secondary market or not). And Unique's primary argument is "duh...so why do you continue to feed this beast."

Or maybe I have it all wrong...

I always figured the point of having that line is to say: "you can never get mad at Topps for the prices on the secondary market. They make cards for the hobby; we treat it like a business."

Which would be fine, if Topps didn't then rely on that secondary market, and the "business" we've all made of it, to assess the value of the replacements they give.

That's what he doesn't understand. That statement from Topps is supposed to decouple them from the secondary market; yet they "re"couple themselves when they reference it for the purposes of replacement cards.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

See, you don't even understand my point; you've come to this battle of wits unarmed.

My only point is that that statement by Topps attempts to aleviate them of any stake in the value of the cards once they are produced. Topps is only invested in the cost. All the XXXX that happens in the secondary market is hands-off to Topps; this prevents some idiot from claiming that Topps caused them to "lose" a bunch of money investing in cards.

Yet, when it comes time to replace a card with another card, Topps explicitly uses the word "value", not "cost" and it explicitly references a secondary market publication when doing so. Thus, they ignore that original statement. If the customer service rep simply said: "we'll send you another garunteed hit based on the odds of the redemption you're asking about" I'd have no issue.

So I ask you again: what does that statement mean to you? Also, have you ever even had Topps send you a replacement or talked to a CS rep about replacements? I assume not, since you continue to come off clueless.

And before you answer: if your Aspergers is acting up, please stay off the interwebs.

Again, whatever you write here is completely moot as the mere presence of this thread negates whatever 'points' you think you're making. Trying to hide behind personal attacks simply makes you look small.

Its so very clear you're so focused on the business side of things, 'value' and your narrow view of the hobby that you've lost sight of the whole hobby itself. Topps, by this statement shows its not, thankfully. Its as clear as that.

The statement allows Topps to keep the hobby a hobby despite some .05% of all hobbyists who think it ought to operate like a business because of all the time and money they spend on the hobby... you know, like some people here. Like yourself.

Topps is going to do whatever they want but sure they'll help when they can... because its a hobby. In their mind this is all about simple baseball cards... and they're right.

Surely Topps would send anyone an inexpensive Gooden or Gary Carter or Don Mattingly auto for a Hendrix relic if asked, and we all know they get many requests like that because there are many good collectors out there only interested in the card and not 'value'. God knows you wouldn't make such a request. The Beckett equivalent value is used to cover the small percentage of people who are obsessed with getting equal value. Not everyone is like yourself, not many people demand equal 'value' for redemptions.

What's the 'value' of a Hendrix redemption if Topps replaces it with Gooden autos once time and Harper autos another? Topps doesn't care, but someone obsessed with 'value' would be.

You need to realize that Topps will exist well without you and the .05% of rabid collectors, and that these rabid collectors likely cause 95% of the company's troubles. You'd definitely cause trouble if you could, you're doing it here. Sure, Topps would never say any of this publicly but there it is.

Frankly you should be grateful for this statement. Any manufacturer guaranteeing future value would cut down not only the amount of fun in the hobby but your bottom line as well as Topps would surely be in a strong position to cut down your profits.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I've said it before and hopefully I was correct but I think unique's point of view is that the prices of cards and products is dictated solely by us collectors and people who sell on the secondary market and what we'll pay. And that in a lot of cases, we feed a fire that constantly burns us. I think he's mad at the system. I think we all are. I think the quote in his sig is more of an irony than anything and I think he knows it as we all do. Topps damn well knows cards are worth money and are easily able to manipulate this to their advantage. It's a capitalist society and if they know they can make a product and we will buy it, they do so.

Where the arguments diverge is...we're mad because people aren't getting a fair shake when they spend mega bucks on topps products or redemptions(secondary market or not). And Unique's primary argument is "duh...so why do you continue to feed this beast."

Or maybe I have it all wrong...

I agree with some of what you said, but my post above explains it better. The quote in my sig is good for the hobby, but most people here wouldn't understand why. Funny thing is that normal people on the street understand Topps' statement better than most people here even though most people here consider themselves card 'experts' LOL. This is mostly because many people here don't think much beyond themselves and the people on this board when considering the hobby.

 

[phillyfan0417]

I agree with some of what you said, but my post above explains it better. The quote in my sig is good for the hobby, but most people here wouldn't understand why. Funny thing is that normal people on the street understand Topps' statement better than most people here even though most people here consider themselves card 'experts' LOL. This is mostly because many people here don't think much beyond themselves and the people on this board when considering the hobby.

I think we all forget you know whats best for us and the hobby.

 

[hive17]

Again, whatever you write here is completely moot as the mere presence of this thread negates whatever 'points' you think you're making. Trying to hide behind personal attacks simply makes you look small.

Its so very clear you're so focused on the business side of things, 'value' and your narrow view of the hobby that you've lost sight of the whole hobby itself. Topps, by this statement shows its not, thankfully. Its as clear as that.

The statement allows Topps to keep the hobby a hobby despite some .05% of all hobbyists who think it ought to operate like a business because of all the time and money they spend on the hobby... you know, like some people here. Like yourself.

Topps is going to do whatever they want but sure they'll help when they can... because its a hobby. In their mind this is all about simple baseball cards... and they're right.

Surely Topps would send anyone an inexpensive Gooden or Gary Carter or Don Mattingly auto for a Hendrix relic if asked, and we all know they get many requests like that because there are many good collectors out there only interested in the card and not 'value'. God knows you wouldn't make such a request. The Beckett equivalent value is used to cover the small percentage of people who are obsessed with getting equal value. Not everyone is like yourself, not many people demand equal 'value' for redemptions.

What's the 'value' of a Hendrix redemption if Topps replaces it with Gooden autos once time and Harper autos another? Topps doesn't care, but someone obsessed with 'value' would be.

You need to realize that Topps will exist well without you and the .05% of rabid collectors, and that these rabid collectors likely cause 95% of the company's troubles. You'd definitely cause trouble if you could, you're doing it here. Sure, Topps would never say any of this publicly but there it is.

Frankly you should be grateful for this statement. Any manufacturer guaranteeing future value would cut down not only the amount of fun in the hobby but your bottom line as well as Topps would surely be in a strong position to cut down your profits.

So, you admit that Topps recognizes value. Even if it's for your made-up statistic of .05% of collectors. Good, you finally see my point. Sorry you had to lose this argument, but if you were smarter, you might have had a chance. Good luck out there, it gets harder from here. Your condescending attutide and complete arrogance won't help you.

I'm still at a loss of why you think this threads' existance has any bearing on my point. You say Topps doesn't represent value. I call Topps and they represent value when they talk to me. The end. You can't debate those points and you've looked sad trying.

Thanks for allowing me to embarrass you once again...

 

[hive17]

I agree with some of what you said, but my post above explains it better. The quote in my sig is good for the hobby, but most people here wouldn't understand why. Funny thing is that normal people on the street understand Topps' statement better than most people here even though most people here consider themselves card 'experts' LOL. This is mostly because many people here don't think much beyond themselves and the people on this board when considering the hobby.

Then why the XXXX are you even ON this site; as it appears to represent and harbor everything you dispise about the "hobby"?

 

[hive17]

I think we all forget you know whats best for us and the hobby.

He's the Skip Bayless of FCB; you do NOT disagree with him, no matter how stupid he sounds.

 

[predatorkj]

Again, whatever you write here is completely moot as the mere presence of this thread negates whatever 'points' you think you're making. Trying to hide behind personal attacks simply makes you look small.

Its so very clear you're so focused on the business side of things, 'value' and your narrow view of the hobby that you've lost sight of the whole hobby itself. Topps, by this statement shows its not, thankfully. Its as clear as that.

The statement allows Topps to keep the hobby a hobby despite some .05% of all hobbyists who think it ought to operate like a business because of all the time and money they spend on the hobby... you know, like some people here. Like yourself.

Topps is going to do whatever they want but sure they'll help when they can... because its a hobby. In their mind this is all about simple baseball cards... and they're right.

Surely Topps would send anyone an inexpensive Gooden or Gary Carter or Don Mattingly auto for a Hendrix relic if asked, and we all know they get many requests like that because there are many good collectors out there only interested in the card and not 'value'. God knows you wouldn't make such a request. The Beckett equivalent value is used to cover the small percentage of people who are obsessed with getting equal value. Not everyone is like yourself, not many people demand equal 'value' for redemptions.

What's the 'value' of a Hendrix redemption if Topps replaces it with Gooden autos once time and Harper autos another? Topps doesn't care, but someone obsessed with 'value' would be.

You need to realize that Topps will exist well without you and the .05% of rabid collectors, and that these rabid collectors likely cause 95% of the company's troubles. You'd definitely cause trouble if you could, you're doing it here. Sure, Topps would never say any of this publicly but there it is.

Frankly you should be grateful for this statement. Any manufacturer guaranteeing future value would cut down not only the amount of fun in the hobby but your bottom line as well as Topps would surely be in a strong position to cut down your profits.

Yeah but topps doesn't even replace items by cost factor. They'll take card that cost them or would cost them $20 to make and replace it with one that cost them $2.00 to make. As a hobbyist, that can suck because chances are you go from being able to get a good card of a good player to most likely a no-namer that you don't even collect. Not to add to the problem that if you buy a redemption on the secondary market, you collect that player or team or whatever(Hendrix items). I've had topps and UD ask me what teams or players I collect and I tell them Astros, texans, rockets, and then about 5-10 players, most of whom wouldn't be considered hobby stars and I still get crap like a Juaquin Eglesias autos. Yay! I mean damn, I just gave you three sports, three teams, and multiple players. And no, none of the players were Harper, Pujols, Jeter etc..

I'm all for this staying a hobby but you and me both know topps and others charge so much that for many, it's hard to strictly be a hobby. Or a simple one at that. And I agree that many people do assume this board is indicative of the whole but a lot of us know it's not. This place is like a laboratory compared to the messiness that is the hobby on the wild. Things are much more concise and orderly here. People have a great combined knowledge here. That's hard to find at shops and shows.