Suing topps!!!!!

Want to save the hobby? Instead of suing them over something they are covering their asses on, stop buying overpriced/over-hyped product.

If people would stop buying the crap instead of talking about how unfair it is or how much they hate it while still buying it like crazy - maybe things would change. As it is, they can retread the same tired junk WITH REDEMPTIONS THAT ARE WORDED IN A WAY TO ALLOW THE THE FREEDOM TO SCREW YOU while slapping a huge price tag on it.

People will complain about how they get screwed, and Topps will still sell out. And one person not buying - no matter how big of a "player" they think they are - isn't going to do it. Champman not buying means zilch to Topps' bottom line.

NeedChapmans said:

When I redeemed the Harper, it was a $1,500 card. Are you suggesting that Topps should be allowed to send me a replacement at anytime during this time period, and can pick the lowest value the card is/was?

Also, you say get them on social media, email reps. You should know that I've emailed their president regularly (to the point where I'm now blocked), am in contact with an MLB executive about this situation; and was mentioned on Cardboard Connection radio spot tonight. Not bad for a days work I would think.

I'm fighting for a change in the redemption process; specifically a change in the way Topps handles redemptions and redemption replacements. They theory behind the process is fine; but no one can argue Topps does an even average job at taking care of it's customers requests for replacements.

Click to expand...

As long as they sell out - they won't care. If you think making noise makes a change, I welcome you to Google "CardCop".

Pro-Tip: Want to make a change? Buy [MENTION=1948]Leaf[/MENTION]. I've given him so much crap over the years, but buying his product will make a difference in the long run. Strengthen a competitor, and you'll see things change.

A_Pharis said:

People will complain about how they get screwed, and Topps will still sell out. And one person not buying - no matter how big of a "player" they think they are - isn't going to do it. Champman not buying means zilch to Topps' bottom line.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say zilch. I did open (and am holding) more than 200 cases of Bowman Chrome and Draft from '12.

But I understand your point. Reality however would suggest that boycotting Topps is not going to happen. If you and I did it, someone else would step in our place and pick up the slack. I think however there is an opportunity here to change things for the better; even if it's just in one aspect of what Topps does (redemption replacements). It will not fix all Topps issues, but I feel this is an opportunity to start somewhere.

A_Pharis said:

Pro-Tip: Want to make a change? Buy @Leaf. I've given him so much crap over the years, but buying his product will make a difference in the long run. Strengthen a competitor, and you'll see things change.

Click to expand...

Hey, I bought two cases of Leaf Metal ... pulled two beautiful Pujols patches (but not a single Cingrani damnit).

NeedChapmans said:

I wouldn't say zilch. I did open (and am holding) more than 200 cases of Bowman Chrome and Draft from '12.

But I understand your point. Reality however would suggest that boycotting Topps is not going to happen. If you and I did it, someone else would step in our place and pick up the slack. I think however there is an opportunity here to change things for the better; even if it's just in one aspect of what Topps does (redemption replacements). It will not fix all Topps issues, but I feel this is an opportunity to start somewhere.

Click to expand...

You really wanna screw em? Post that stuff up online in any sort of store front at a LOW price and sell like 3 boxes a day. That will cause the market to collapse on that one product and send it into a tailspin. It will make distribs XXXXX, and that topps DOES care about.

Screw with products and they listen.

I love how people bash Chapmans but do nothing themselves. So what if you don't like how he's going about it? He's doing more than any of the people saying that his methods are wrong.

A_Pharis said:

Want to save the hobby? Instead of suing them over something they are covering their asses on, stop buying overpriced/over-hyped product.

If people would stop buying the crap instead of talking about how unfair it is or how much they hate it while still buying it like crazy - maybe things would change. As it is, they can retread the same tired junk WITH REDEMPTIONS THAT ARE WORDED IN A WAY TO ALLOW THE THE FREEDOM TO SCREW YOU while slapping a huge price tag on it.

People will complain about how they get screwed, and Topps will still sell out. And one person not buying - no matter how big of a "player" they think they are - isn't going to do it. Champman not buying means zilch to Topps' bottom line.

Click to expand...

Again, if say for example, 100 people do the same thing and are able to win their cases, then Topps will do something about it. You keep harping on 'one person won't make a difference', but are failing to conceptualize the bigger picture. If this is a valid way for people to make up for being screwed on redemptions, then you better believe that Topps will start noticing and make changes.

cgilmo said:

You really wanna screw em? Post that stuff up online in any sort of store front at a LOW price and sell like 3 boxes a day. That will cause the market to collapse on that one product and send it into a tailspin. It will make distribs XXXXX, and that topps DOES care about.

Screw with products and they listen.

Click to expand...

But that's just it. I'm not out to "screw Topps". I want to be in this hobby a long time / I love breaking and collecting. I don't want to take down the system, I want to improve the system, so that it's more enjoyable for me in the future (and for others).

The funny thing is ya'll are talking about the value of the Harper and the case and whatnot. I could have sworn up and down that the last thread we had like this, a lot of people were going back and forth about Topps not "recognizing" secondary market values for cards. So in essence, they could send you a Josh Thole auto for that Harper and call it a day eh?

I think one day, they are going to piss off a really rich collector and he will have the means to easily take them to court and we will see a major change in redemptions. Especially if it's a very high dollar card. Could you imagine if the first Harper super had never been created or signed or whatever? Harper and Strasburg pretty much single handedly sold 2010 Bowman products. And let's say a rich dude either pulled or purchased the redemption for a 1/1 super of one of the most hyped players on earth. Topps is eventually going to bite off more than even they can chew.

Anyone ever think of speaking about any of this with Olberman? Not sure what he could personally do but if anything, it could certainly catch some airtime on television.

IMO, I will buy topps stuff here and there(a box or two a year at most) but now, any redemption I pull is immediately sold. It's sad because some of them I have actually wanted to redeem. But I refuse to bother. I'd rather take the money and turn it into an actual physical card I can own and look at than an empty promise.

But you mark my words, topps will eventually dig a hole too deep. Could you imagine if somebody like Brent and Becca got screwed over on multiple cases?

With the redemption wording, what keeps them from advertising and inserting whatever they want to sell a product and knowingly not have the ability to produce that hit and just replace it at the value they see fit just because of the wording? Didn't they do that with the Jimi Hendrix relic that was never obtained before release? Hasn't there been issues with Ginter autos (Sig Hansen) where the individuals didn't weren't approached to sign until after the product went live. These are definate cases of bait and switch.

What if they advertise a product with a guarantee of a Ruth cut in every case. When you open your case and pull the cut, it's a redemption and they say they weren't able to produce the card. So now they offer you a case of the product with the Ruth cut as a replacement. See the problem here?

NeedChapmans said:

I'm fighting for a change in the redemption process; specifically a change in the way Topps handles redemptions and redemption replacements. They theory behind the process is fine; but no one can argue Topps does an even average job at taking care of it's customers requests for replacements.

Click to expand...

Which you are doing in small claims court which in the end nothing will change or be resolved. Are you not understanding that small claims court achieves nothing? Except when they offer what YOU agreed upon and you accept. If you think the card was worth 1,500 you should have made them agree to that number not agree upon 1,000 and then get angry when they offer you MORE than that.

You can literally take the case, sell it and buy one of the orange harpers currently listed on ebay and maybe have cash left over if you haggle. Everything you want. And yet chooses this route which in the end may get you a check for the same amount..

Chapmans seems to be arguing for the principle of the thing. While a single small claims case is not going to change the way Topps does things, a victory is the sort of thing that can get people talking and eventually change things. Think about the 159 gold Jagr refractor guy. His winning a six-figure verdict (was it eventually reduced/thrown out? Can't remember) probably led directly to serial-numbering being common and few if any claims on print runs without numbering. A little research finds that another guy settled a similar case with Greg Maddux cards from 1996 Finest. Never heard of that one, probably because it was settled.

The point I'm laboriously making is that he submitted a redemption for a certain card. Being offered something else in return, even if the market value of that product is greater than the object card is besides the point. If anything, Topps should be the one to sell that case of product, go on ebay, buy a Harper, and send that to the Chapmans. Why should Chapmans have to do all that extra work to maybe eventually get the card Topps promised him?

And while I'm thinking of it, if you're going to buy someone off, BUY THEM OFF, don't horsetrade like a low-balling dealer at a second rate show. They own the factory so how about 5 cases? How about a fistful of good cards that actually were made, never redeemed and have now expired? How about a trip to NYC to tour the Topps vault? I was at dinner the other night, and my date and I ordered food and specifically said "no onions" on both our dishes. They both came out with onions. Rather than just remaking them, or removing those items from the bill, they comped our whole meal. It cost them a little in the short run, but we're good customers and they know the value of one meal will be worth 50 over the next few years.

[MENTION=2077]smapdi[/MENTION]

The rational logic you're trying to apply has no place in the trading card hobby.

I'll have to ask that going forward you restrict your activity to the crocheting forum only.

Dude, I know a chick who crochets and she is BSC.

nyc3 said:

BTW ignore the fact topps offered him a case worth 1,000 and he is making a scene over nothing trying to rally the troops for HIS cause.He was offered a fair deal and just wants to make a stink. I must say he is quite the drama queen.

Click to expand...

scotty216brs said:

Then I suppose I don't understand the point. Harper is not signing the cards and Topps does not have several hundred dollar card replacements so they offered him a case. I think the case is about the same value as the card in question so he can sell the case and buy whatever the frig he wants.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure the Harper Oranges were selling for 1500-2000 at one point (probably around the time the guy redeemed his). Also the Harper is one of the best cards from the entire product. Offering him unopened wax does not adequately replace the card, and certainly not when the card is at an all-time low value during the middle of winter (when he originally had asked about a replacement during the season).

sportscardtheory said:

Bologna. He is owed the Harper auto, not something he could POTENTIALLY sell for the same value as the Harper. It's a bait and switch and you and so many others' "sit on your hands and do diddly squat" attitude while mocking others for sticking up for what is right is EXACTLY why Topps does this crap and gets away with it.

Click to expand...

I agree with this post entirely. It's about the principle of promising a certain card/player is going to be in your product to help sell said product. People buy the product for a chance to pull these cards, and the chance to pull the cards adds value to the product (i.e., if Harper were not in this product, it likely would have sold for ~10%-30% less). Topps sells out, then basically changes the checklist after the fact. If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is.


I'm not sure this particular claim will change the card world, but it's definitely a nice start. It's also great that [MENTION=7824]NeedChapmans[/MENTION] is making it very public on the bigger collecting message boards so people are aware. Good luck to you.

I can't believe there are so many Topps apologists here.

"Well they offered him a case...."

So what?

They advertised a Harper Orange Refractor Auto, which he pulled, and they cannot/are not going to fulfill their obligation to give the card to him.

The Harper is way more desired than a case of Jumbo, which will more than likely yield more redemptions and crap autos.

How they are able to get away with this is beyond me. Wait, I do know, it's because the sheep keep buying everything they offer and do nothing every time they get screwed over.

HPC said:

I can't believe there are so many Topps apologists here.

"Well they offered him a case...."

So what?

They advertised a Harper Orange Refractor Auto, which he pulled, and they cannot/are not going to fulfill their obligation to give the card to him.

The Harper is way more desired than a case of Jumbo, which will more than likely yield more redemptions and crap autos.

How they are able to get away with this is beyond me. Wait, I do know, it's because the sheep keep buying everything they offer and do nothing every time they get screwed over.

Click to expand...

I rather be a realistic sheep who hates redemptions than someone who thinks taking a company to small claims court is some sort of stand against the man. You start babbling like some of these comments online have and they will toss you out of small claims court as none of them has anything to do with the case at point. A judge (small claims one at that) dont give a crap about this, and when presented with that both parties agreed on a value this will be done right there. Cut the check and move on. Meaning topps is out nothing but a check. Thats IF they even show up.

Are there problems and do they need to be addressed asap YES. But thinking small claims will do anything is a tad juvenile but so be it. But some how that makes me an apologist, I think the word you are looking for is realist. But its ok I forgive.

And I understand people think this is making a point but lets be real. Its a bunch of stomping, which I hope kicks up some dust. But knowing topps they really couldnt care less.

And people don't think that card manufacturers care about the secondary market? This is from Panini's sell sheet from 2013-14 Prizm:

hoopster3977 said:

And people don't think that card manufacturers care about the secondary market? This is from Panini's sell sheet from 2013-14 Prizm:

View attachment 27440

Click to expand...

I dont think anyone is saying they dont care about the secondary market.....I just think it is good business to not comment on market value.