Panini opens a box of Pinnacle - This saved me some money

BBCgalaxee said:

I'll never understand the NEED for logos as long as it's done "well"

Now don't get me wrong, I totally understand how people wouldn't like the "cereal" cards from the 80s or the first cards issued by Panini showing guys in all white uniforms in a studio pose.

But the majority of cards Panini are issuing now do a great job of "hiding" the logos.

Click to expand...

One aspect/niche of the hobby seemingly exists only because of logos... thus the hoopla from this group who try to apply it to niches beyond their own in order to emphasize its importance.

I like photos of players while competing in MLB games. A card without an MLB license generally cannot give an accurate photo of in game action on the card.

Funny thing is, there's plenty, plenty of logo'd photos on past cards which, with very little tweaking, could also be used on an mlbpa card.

Perfect example is that Dawson dufex card above and this 2005 Topps Victor Martinez card I randomly picked from a stack

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Personally, I wouldn't mind Panini or Leaf bringing back something similar to those MSA discs with different ads on the back from the mid to late 1970s. A dufex, cracked ice or autographed disc would make nice inserts as well. Finding these discs in bags of chips, cans of nuts, soft drink cases, cereal or cracker boxes would make completing a set challenging too.

I like the use of acetate in some of the inserts but other than that, pretty bland. The base cards need a bit of foil or something.

Have they posted a checklist yet?

Looks cool. I love the acetate cards!

I like the Hamels "Select Ace" but the base are just so bland. They look like something I came up with in the 5th grade. The team 2020 have nothing going for them and, to me, there just seems to be no real design to the base and a lot of wasted space.

uniquebaseballcards said:

One aspect/niche of the hobby seemingly exists only because of logos... thus the hoopla from this group who try to apply it to niches beyond their own in order to emphasize its importance.

Click to expand...

If by "niche", you mean the largest manufacturer in the industry who ONLY succeeds because of the logos and the backing that MLB gives them; then, yeah, "niche"...

hive17 said:

If by "niche", you mean the largest manufacturer in the industry who ONLY succeeds because of the logos and the backing that MLB gives them; then, yeah, "niche"...

Click to expand...

No, some niches - no matter the manufacturer making them - would exist today on anything resembling a meaningful scale without MLB logos and licensing.

However baseball cards would certainly exist and be collected on a meaningful scale if MLB decided not to award logos to any manufacturer.

uniquebaseballcards said:

No, some niches - no matter the manufacturer making them - would exist today on anything resembling a meaningful scale without MLB logos and licensing.

However baseball cards would certainly exist and be collected on a meaningful scale if MLB decided not to award logos to any manufacturer.

Click to expand...

That would be an interesting poll, because I really disagree. The evidence is that there are other manufacturers making the same cards, and they don't have 1/10th the exposure that Topps does. Topps base releases, I, II and Update, probably out-sell every other baseball release by every other baseball manufacturer combined. All the manufacturers that lost their MLB backing have withered away to 1/100th their former glory.

BiggioBrooks755 said:

More ugly non logo crap

Click to expand...

And if They added Biggio to the heading for the hall set, you would still get it, Logo or not. If Bagwells in it, i know i will get it.

True...but wouldn't be my favorite card I know that

hive17 said:

That would be an interesting poll, because I really disagree. The evidence is that there are other manufacturers making the same cards, and they don't have 1/10th the exposure that Topps does. Topps base releases, I, II and Update, probably out-sell every other baseball release by every other baseball manufacturer combined. All the manufacturers that lost their MLB backing have withered away to 1/100th their former glory.

Click to expand...

Interesting you say poll... as a poll is a marketing tool (like a logo). Like logos, marketing is also indispensable to some hobby niches but not all. Naturally, people who are disproportionately affected by MLB logos and marketing are more likely to think (consciously or not) said logos and marketing are necessary and more likely to be in certain niches.

But sure, how many manufacturers either went bankrupt or were unable to continue operations even *with* MLB licensing? Five? Seven?

Every manufacturer not named Topps was unable to remain viable or continue operations even with MLB licensing. One could reasonably say the last remaining competitor of Topps was mercifully put out of its misery by the MLB in the baseball market before collapsing on its own. This shows licensing doesn't affect manufacturers.

Flagship Topps survives without licensing and logos; logos and licensing here really only serves as insurance against competition.

P_Manning 18 said:

This looks pretty bad..

Click to expand...

the base is fairly bland, the inserts look decent and the autos were okay but the box is not worth $65/box IMHO.

If the boxes drop to $40-45 each, I might bust two for the fun of the hobby.

uniquebaseballcards said:

Interesting you say poll... as a poll is a marketing tool (like a logo). Like logos, marketing is also indispensable to some hobby niches but not all. Naturally, people who are disproportionately affected by MLB logos and marketing are more likely to think (consciously or not) said logos and marketing are necessary and more likely to be in certain niches.

But sure, how many manufacturers either went bankrupt or were unable to continue operations even *with* MLB licensing? Five? Seven?

Every manufacturer not named Topps was unable to remain viable or continue operations even with MLB licensing. One could reasonably say the last remaining competitor of Topps was mercifully put out of its misery by the MLB in the baseball market before collapsing on its own. This shows licensing doesn't affect manufacturers.

Flagship Topps survives without licensing and logos; logos and licensing here really only serves as insurance against competition.

Click to expand...

Well, for one you're mixing up the purpose of a poll and a logo as it pertains to this argument. I was saying that a poll of collectors per "logos/no-logos, which do you prefer" or "would you care if Topps cards didn't have MLB logos." I'm sorry if my point was too complex for you to follow.

And you seem to forget what happened to Donruss after 2005. They didn't know what to do and couldn't compete when MLB stripped them of their logo. It had nothing to do with what Donruss was doing at the time, just that MLB didn't want them to have access to logos. It hurt them; a lot. You always choose to remain willfully ignorant on this point though; trademark: you.

Also, how can logos be a bulwark against competition, yet no be necessary to compete? You can't even keep your argument straight.

But once again, this is all part of your M.O. and is just another transparent symptom of your hate of prospecting and money-making when it comes to this hobby. You should learn to just let these things go and not let these feelings force you to have to make snide and condescending comments whenever you feel this issue is germane. Hint: it almost never is, and you always look bitter and silly.

hive17, thanks for teaching me a new word today "germane." I was for sure he was one of The Jackson 5.

KLARNOLD said:

Personally, I wouldn't mind Panini or Leaf bringing back something similar to those MSA discs with different ads on the back from the mid to late 1970s. A dufex, cracked ice or autographed disc would make nice inserts as well. Finding these discs in bags of chips, cans of nuts, soft drink cases, cereal or cracker boxes would make completing a set challenging too.

Click to expand...

They could do a great job with the discs, since they too were unlicensed airbrushed crapola...

hive17 said:

Well, for one you're mixing up the purpose of a poll and a logo as it pertains to this argument. I was saying that a poll of collectors per "logos/no-logos, which do you prefer" or "would you care if Topps cards didn't have MLB logos." I'm sorry if my point was too complex for you to follow.

And you seem to forget what happened to Donruss after 2005. They didn't know what to do and couldn't compete when MLB stripped them of their logo. It had nothing to do with what Donruss was doing at the time, just that MLB didn't want them to have access to logos. It hurt them; a lot. You always choose to remain willfully ignorant on this point though; trademark: you.

Also, how can logos be a bulwark against competition, yet no be necessary to compete? You can't even keep your argument straight.

But once again, this is all part of your M.O. and is just another transparent symptom of your hate of prospecting and money-making when it comes to this hobby. You should learn to just let these things go and not let these feelings force you to have to make snide and condescending comments whenever you feel this issue is germane. Hint: it almost never is, and you always look bitter and silly.

Click to expand...

No, you introduced the idea of a poll which is a commonly used marketing technique necessary for specific niches, ones you're obviously immersed in. A poll is otherwise unimportant in the context of this thread simply because people would still buy cards without logos. Why did you bring up the idea of a poll? Probably because you couldn't prove whatever you're trying to prove without other people who also rely on marketing techniques.

You're also talking about the *second* time Donruss was around, or did you forget? What happened to them the first time around? They weren't strong enough to compete the second time around logos or not either and they went away... yet again. The same with UD a few years later.

Logos and marketing are necessary for niches. Logos aren't necessary for manufacturers as manufacturers with logos are still very likely to FAIL whether they have logos or not.

With regard to your final, unnecessary comment, the issue with you is that you're too far to one side of the discussion to realize that logos are indeed necessary for some niches - regardless of which manufacturers are in said niche - but not others.

Why don't you simply agree here? Let me guess: Apparently I've hit a sore spot in that your niche does happen to rely on logos (and marketing) and without them you'd be unable to participate/fund your hobby and whatever else. I don't really care, I just want to see if you'd man up and admit it simply because that's what I've said all along here.

uniquebaseballcards said:

Interesting you say poll... as a poll is a marketing tool (like a logo). Like logos, marketing is also indispensable to some hobby niches but not all. Naturally, people who are disproportionately affected by MLB logos and marketing are more likely to think (consciously or not) said logos and marketing are necessary and more likely to be in certain niches.

But sure, how many manufacturers either went bankrupt or were unable to continue operations even *with* MLB licensing? Five? Seven?

Every manufacturer not named Topps was unable to remain viable or continue operations even with MLB licensing. One could reasonably say the last remaining competitor of Topps was mercifully put out of its misery by the MLB in the baseball market before collapsing on its own. This shows licensing doesn't affect manufacturers.

Flagship Topps survives without licensing and logos; logos and licensing here really only serves as insurance against competition.

Click to expand...

I count at least three self-contradictions in your posts on this thread. Mind gathering your thoughts and figuring out what it is that you are trying to convey?

If you take the MLB logo away from Topps, I guarantee you they would struggle too. A lot. I (and hundreds of thousands of others) already don't buy much (or any) Unopened product that doesn't have an MLB licence.

According to what you've expressed here, there would be ZERO hypothetical dropoff on Chrome Auto Prospecting if Topps gets its' MLB licence revoked. The main reason that ~I choose chrome autos to collect of my PC guys is for 1 reason only- My PC guys ALL have SAN FRANCISCO across their chests, with a pretty SF on their caps, and helmets.

If Chrome had NO MLB logo rights but DEEE did, I would have 50+ DEEE autos, and 1-2 chrome autos of Susac, instead of the other way around