Am I the only one who absolutely DESPISES non-liscensed baseball cards?

[rsmath]

I just HATE cards without team logos.
(...)
Any people like minded?

sorta. My favorite non-MLBP licensed set is 2010 UD - felt like a MLBP licensed set without technically being one. Of course that may have been the main reason they got in trouble.

Panini - rather disappointed. They said when they got into baseball they would be doing things differently or thinking outside the box on their releases, and who would have thought they meant decapitation or lobotomy?
You'd hope it would be more like pics from batting practice, interaction with fans, maybe even studio shots with fake hitting, fake pitching, fake fielding - easier situations to come up with photos of athletes when they would be more likely not to be wearing logo'ed apparel since it's hard to find game shots where there would be a logo to have to be airbrushed or blurred out.

 

[rsmath]

It would be amazing if someone in MLB's licensing department would read this post, and realize that's how a lot of collectors feel.

doesn't matter. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ talks. As long as MLB is rolling in the dough from their Topps exclusive, it won't matter how collectors feel. It would only matter if we stop buying topps products and MLB's $$$$ from royalties on Topps products gets reduced due to decreased sales of product.


.

 

[gracecollector]

Lots of misinformation in this thread. For one many of the brands that people here think aren't licensed are indeed licensed.

Lots of people here are funny... they don't like airbrushing and cards not licensed by MLB... but like MLB uniforms airbrushed on minor league players.

People don't stop to think... do they really know what they want or do they want what people who sell cards want them to like?? Why does it seem that people who sell cards like to seed these kinds of discussions?

NT was a tremendous product. The way they showed players was truly refreshing. And the product was licensed.

If you want logos, there are plenty of fleer stickers to quench your thirst.

Bush League:

Big League:

To me, it's as simple as that. I want to collect cards of major league players. Major league players should be pictured in their major league uniforms, with the name of their major league team on the card. NT was a nice attempt to skirt the limitations of the licensing issues, but it saddens me that such a nice product just doesn't seem complete without the integral and instantly recognizable aspect of team logos on hats and jerseys.

Part of the reason I collect baseball cards is to learn about the game's history and heroes. To me, unlicensed cards feel like someone is censoring parts of that legacy.

 

[jbhofmann]

One of the most iconic cards of my childhood has no logos, no team reference or even a MLB uniform...

and the most collected set in history has cards that carry no logos

Just some thoughts.

 

[MansGame]

^^ So are you saying if they had a release today with all players with their shirts off, then we'd all be accepting of the product with no logos, etc.? Come on, that's an iconic card but it's because of the way it was presented... I don't remember another card similar to it but maybe Canseco or someone had a similar type card at one point. Also, just to be clear, that was a liscensed product correct?

Also, the Ty Cobb is a good point but wasn't that before liscensing? I mean throwing in a card 100 years old doesn't seem like a good comparison to this situation but whatever... who am I lol

 

[sheetskout]

I don't absolutely despise them, but I'm not a big fan.

This.

 

[BBCgalaxee]

So basically, everyone who NEEDS logos on the cards is saying that the logo is more important than the player pictured?

So you all would be cool with a griffey 2012 sp sig card as long as the middle design is a team logo?

But you don't like this panini auto (sans button) because theres no logo?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Bush League:

Big League:

To me, it's as simple as that. I want to collect cards of major league players. Major league players should be pictured in their major league uniforms, with the name of their major league team on the card. NT was a nice attempt to skirt the limitations of the licensing issues, but it saddens me that such a nice product just doesn't seem complete without the integral and instantly recognizable aspect of team logos on hats and jerseys.

Part of the reason I collect baseball cards is to learn about the game's history and heroes. To me, unlicensed cards feel like someone is censoring parts of that legacy.

Yes, NT is more player-specific instead of league- or team-specific. While I see what you're saying, one thing that's great about NT is that its easy to see the person on the card for a change. If the second image were clearly used, the cap would've taken a portion of the card that could've been used for something else - design elements, or in this case a close-up of the Cronin's face.

Its nice to have player-centric cards in addition to team-centric or league-centric cards.

 

[MansGame]

NT was clearly a fan favorite... I was one as well by the nearly 10 breaks I was in lol... Let's keep in mind this was an extremely high end product and didn't even have any base cards right? Like every single card was a hit, so I think most people, including myself, are tired of productions which are unliscensed with stupid base cards, etc. This NT product was very well done and done in a way where you almost forgot it was non-liscensed.

 

[gracecollector]

So basically, everyone who NEEDS logos on the cards is saying that the logo is more important than the player pictured?

So you all would be cool with a griffey 2012 sp sig card as long as the middle design is a team logo?

But you don't like this panini auto (sans button) because theres no logo?

No. That is not what we are saying at all. What many of us are saying is that logos and team names enhance our enjoyment of our cards. Of course a player image is more important, but logos and team names are also important to some of us, albeit to a lesser extent than a photo. The degree of importance varies by collector. There is no absolute value you can put on it. For some, it's a minor preference that cards include them. And for some, inclusion or exclusion of team logos and team names is a dividing line between how they choose to spend their money.

It's a fairly nice Griffey card, but I would enjoy it more with a helmet logo and the words "Seattle Mariners" instead of "Seattle National League" on it.

 

[MojoDan]

I didn't know that you were still in the hobby Sam. National Treasures is product of the year IMHO.

 

[phillyfan0417]

I didn't know that you were still in the hobby Sam. National Treasures is product of the year IMHO.

Werd

and i dont think its very close.

 

[jbhofmann]

^^ So are you saying if they had a release today with all players with their shirts off, then we'd all be accepting of the product with no logos, etc.? Come on, that's an iconic card but it's because of the way it was presented... I don't remember another card similar to it but maybe Canseco or someone had a similar type card at one point. Also, just to be clear, that was a liscensed product correct?

Also, the Ty Cobb is a good point but wasn't that before liscensing? I mean throwing in a card 100 years old doesn't seem like a good comparison to this situation but whatever... who am I lol

My point was that liscensing really does not matter if people like what they see. Most people here don't like non-liscensed cards because they are told to not like them. Most people here value Bowman Chrome autos more than anything because they are told they are the best.

If Topps came out with an all artistic portrait themed set that had no logos, it would still sell because its Topps and people like Topps because they were told they are the best.

The Jackson was an iconic card because of the art. t-206 set is iconic because it is art. If someone would step up and artistically create a set with no logos, I think it would work.

 

[MansGame]

My point was that liscensing really does not matter if people like what they see. Most people here don't like non-liscensed cards because they are told to not like them. Most people here value Bowman Chrome autos more than anything because they are told they are the best.

If Topps came out with an all artistic portrait themed set that had no logos, it would still sell because its Topps and people like Topps because they were told they are the best.

The Jackson was an iconic card because of the art. t-206 set is iconic because it is art. If someone would step up and artistically create a set with no logos, I think it would work.

Fair enough.

 

[Huffamaniac]

It does not matter to me. Personally I prefer Leaf over any of the other companies. By far the best customer service and best bang for your buck.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

My point was that liscensing really does not matter if people like what they see. Most people here don't like non-liscensed cards because they are told to not like them. Most people here value Bowman Chrome autos more than anything because they are told they are the best.

If Topps came out with an all artistic portrait themed set that had no logos, it would still sell because its Topps and people like Topps because they were told they are the best.

The Jackson was an iconic card because of the art. t-206 set is iconic because it is art. If someone would step up and artistically create a set with no logos, I think it would work.

Well said. People should be buying cards, not licenses. There are things that licenses provide for that non-licensed cards don't, but hopefully people think about what they like and why before summarily dismissing any option.

 

[bcubs]

I don't mind an unlicensed card. If I think the card looks good and it's something I want, I add it to my collection.

 

[JoshHamilton]

and the most collected set in history has cards that carry no logos

Just some thoughts.

It also has many that do

 

[Austin]

I agree that T206 is a poor example, since the style fits from 100 years ago.

Today, jerseys and caps without logos look like softball uniforms or pajamas.

And as Josh Hamilton pointed out, many of the T206 cards had team logos on them:

 

[BowmanChromeAddict]

It does not matter to me. Personally I prefer Leaf over any of the other companies. By far the best customer service and best bang for your buck.

I couldn't agree more, but I don't think this argument is for us. This argument seems to be about collecting, and not about prospecting, or reselling, or ripping & flipping, etc. There are plenty of unlicensed products that have great value, but this discussion seems to be more about appearance and long term collectability. For me and my piece of this hobby, Leaf is king. I get great value and the buyers are there. I'm not much of a nostalgic, stick the card on the shelf and stare at it kind of guy. If I was, I'd probably want logos, at least to some degree.