2011 Leaf Metal FOOTBALL

[pigskincardboard]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

uhh...just about everything that's out there rips something else off. The current companies aren't being creative either.

Also, what the **** else are you going to call colored refractors, other than by their color? Here lets call the 1/1 The MegaUberp3wnagefractor. That work better? Or the blue prismatic...lets change it to 'the royal rainbow.' After all the card is royal blue and a rainbow is a prism.

At least this is a new product that is TRYING to bring collectors what they want. Not just shatting out 100,000 no name autos at $120/box.

Blue is Blue. Unfortunately, Super is not a colour. I'm just throwing it out there, no need to get your ******* in a knot.

And yes, everyone copies everyone else. I'm saying that's great, it ensures the good ideas survive. They are creating what collectors want, that's awesome. Does that mean they should be congratulated for creating a product that looks like the entire 2010 Topps Print Run? Of course not.

 

[seahawks4ever]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

uhh...just about everything that's out there rips something else off. The current companies aren't being creative either.

Also, what the **** else are you going to call colored refractors, other than by their color? Here lets call the 1/1 The MegaUberp3wnagefractor. That work better? Or the blue prismatic...lets change it to 'the royal rainbow.' After all the card is royal blue and a rainbow is a prism.

At least this is a new product that is TRYING to bring collectors what they want. Not just shatting out 100,000 no name autos at $120/box.

Blue is Blue. Unfortunately, Super is not a colour. I'm just throwing it out there, no need to get your ******* in a knot.

And yes, everyone copies everyone else. I'm saying that's great, it ensures the good ideas survive. They are creating what collectors want, that's awesome. Does that mean they should be congratulated for creating a product that looks like the entire 2010 Topps Print Run? Of course not.

allrighty then sir.

 

[Sweetness]

I think these cards look fantastic.

Any $ that leaf gets instead of topps will be a good thing. Competition will lead to a better product from everybody. Leaf getting in on the pre-draft stuff will force press pass to improve or lose money. Nice early high end auto's will give an early fix to football fans and should hopefully put a dent in the early topps releases forcing them to improve as well.

If leaf can have prove that they succeed($$$) without a license it the NFL will take notice. If the NFL see's the potential for more profits they will give licenses to more companies.

 

[Sweetness]

I like that the cards don't have the topps patent pending, no fans in the seats, backround. I hate that shat. Topps can't even photoshop in a few fans or even blur the backround enough to hide the empty seats, lazy fbuckers.

 

[deceptikon1978]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

uhh...just about everything that's out there rips something else off. The current companies aren't being creative either.

Also, what the **** else are you going to call colored refractors, other than by their color? Here lets call the 1/1 The MegaUberp3wnagefractor. That work better? Or the blue prismatic...lets change it to 'the royal rainbow.' After all the card is royal blue and a rainbow is a prism.

At least this is a new product that is TRYING to bring collectors what they want. Not just shatting out 100,000 no name autos at $120/box.

Blue is Blue. Unfortunately, Super is not a colour. I'm just throwing it out there, no need to get your ******* in a knot.

And yes, everyone copies everyone else. I'm saying that's great, it ensures the good ideas survive. They are creating what collectors want, that's awesome. Does that mean they should be congratulated for creating a product that looks like the entire 2010 Topps Print Run? Of course not.

unnessessary -mod edit

 

[pigskincardboard]

Definitely uncalled for and I assume appropriate action will be taken.

 

[deceptikon1978]

I'm just throwing it out there, no need to get your ******* in a knot.

 

[JPsFinest]

A very nice looking set. They have a Topps Finest flavor to them.

They are the same technology commonly called "chrome" by other companies...
These cards totally POP... BG

I certainly see that chrome aspect of it. More than the "chrome" look, the design itself looks like something a Finest set would look like. I'm not bashing it, I like the look of it.

 

[Juddy]

It's another product option for collectors and that is never a bad thing.

 

[f2tornado]

Great design. Main negative is all the school logos and names were removed since Upper Deck has those rights.

 

[Leaf]

The cards are nice and anything shiny is liked by most. However, let's face it these are not long-term investment cards like other chromium products. This is a high-end press pass, that is not a slight at you BG, just saying when the "real" NFL cards come out won't these drop like a rock in value, ie press pass? I will probably get in a group break just to have on in collection.

But isnt that every rookie single card released in a year, except National Treausures, Exquisite, etc?
The good news is that a CAM NEWTON auto will hold a certain value just becuase its cam.. BG

 

[Leaf]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

Actually, NO... Topps DOES NOT have any patent or trademark on this technology...
You are completely incorrect....

We are actually relying on the fact that you wish to see a player's body on the card to sell product.
What we make the card out of is secondary...

Was Topps the first to make a trading card out of the cardboard material 1952 Topps was printed on? Why didnt they innovate and print on something different...
You may not know this, but Topps did not have the first signed cards or game used in packs. Does the same apply to them since they rely on this to sell products?
BG

 

[mstng99tim]

Brian - do you have a checklist for this yet? Or, can you tell me if any Pitt players are in the set (Dion Lewis, Jon Baldwin, Jason Pinkston)?

 

[Leaf]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

uhh...just about everything that's out there rips something else off. The current companies aren't being creative either.

Also, what the **** else are you going to call colored refractors, other than by their color? Here lets call the 1/1 The MegaUberp3wnagefractor. That work better? Or the blue prismatic...lets change it to 'the royal rainbow.' After all the card is royal blue and a rainbow is a prism.

At least this is a new product that is TRYING to bring collectors what they want. Not just shatting out 100,000 no name autos at $120/box.

Blue is Blue. Unfortunately, Super is not a colour. I'm just throwing it out there, no need to get your ******* in a knot.

And yes, everyone copies everyone else. I'm saying that's great, it ensures the good ideas survive. They are creating what collectors want, that's awesome. Does that mean they should be congratulated for creating a product that looks like the entire 2010 Topps Print Run? Of course not.

My job is to bring people what they want.
If that doesnt win me an award, thats fine.
BG

 

[mstng99tim]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

Actually, NO... Topps DOES NOT have any patent or trademark on this technology...
You are completely incorrect....

We are actually relying on the fact that you wish to see a player's body on the card to sell product.
What we make the card out of is secondary...

Was Topps the first to make a trading card out of the cardboard material 1952 Topps was printed on? Why didnt they innovate and print on something different...
You may not know this, but Topps did not have the first signed cards or game used in packs. Does the same apply to them since they rely on this to sell products?
BG

Come to think of it, Topps wasn't even the first company to use the "chrome" technology, if I remember correctly, wasn't it Classic?

 

[Leaf]

Brian - do you have a checklist for this yet? Or, can you tell me if any Pitt players are in the set (Dion Lewis, Jon Baldwin, Jason Pinkston)?

Lewis and Baldwin are IN!
BG

 

[Leaf]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

Actually, NO... Topps DOES NOT have any patent or trademark on this technology...
You are completely incorrect....

We are actually relying on the fact that you wish to see a player's body on the card to sell product.
What we make the card out of is secondary...

Was Topps the first to make a trading card out of the cardboard material 1952 Topps was printed on? Why didnt they innovate and print on something different...
You may not know this, but Topps did not have the first signed cards or game used in packs. Does the same apply to them since they rely on this to sell products?
BG

Come to think of it, Topps wasn't even the first company to use the "chrome" technology, if I remember correctly, wasn't it Classic?

I think Topps and Classic used it simultaneously in 1992.

I will say that our cards have MASSIVE amount of etching (possibly the most ever on a "metal" card)... These will not be confused with Topps.... BG

 

[mstng99tim]

Brian - do you have a checklist for this yet? Or, can you tell me if any Pitt players are in the set (Dion Lewis, Jon Baldwin, Jason Pinkston)?

Lewis and Baldwin are IN!
BG

NICE!!!! I can't wait to get one of each.

 

[mstng99tim]

Business Plan: B+
Originality/Creativity: F-

You're using someone else's trademark to sell someone else's technology. People do it all the time and it works, but I don't think it deserves any kind of recognition.

Actually, NO... Topps DOES NOT have any patent or trademark on this technology...
You are completely incorrect....

We are actually relying on the fact that you wish to see a player's body on the card to sell product.
What we make the card out of is secondary...

Was Topps the first to make a trading card out of the cardboard material 1952 Topps was printed on? Why didnt they innovate and print on something different...
You may not know this, but Topps did not have the first signed cards or game used in packs. Does the same apply to them since they rely on this to sell products?
BG

Come to think of it, Topps wasn't even the first company to use the "chrome" technology, if I remember correctly, wasn't it Classic?

I think Topps and Classic used it simultaneously in 1992.

I will say that our cards have MASSIVE amount of etching (possibly the most ever on a "metal" card)... These will not be confused with Topps.... BG

Yeah, I'm not sure which one did it first, but they were both out around the same time.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Definitely uncalled for and I assume appropriate action will be taken.

Hey crybaby, stop playing FCB police.

Wild Card held the first chromium patent, I believe. Classic first produced chrome cards in 1993 Four Sport. Topps first produced them with that 45 card 1992 Finest test set