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

[predatorkj]

1. It CLEARLY states they are the 1984 USA Baseball Team... 2. The players are from various cities in the USA.... 3. They were playing for the USA in the Olympics, which is not a league, but an organization. See the links of posted of Carlos Correa...No logos anywhere on that card besides the Leaf logo

First of all, it's MLB logo-less. Secondly, RIZE as a whole, sucked. Thirdly, those Leaf Crusades are cool and I have several spanning football and baseball. They are usually affordable, and I love the look.

As for NT, throw it out. So what! I buy sage, press pass, and UD stuff to get my football fix and it's nice to be able to have sets that I can find affordable autos from without paying an extra amount of money because something is "licensed". Like, if I want the guy's auto and I want the card to look decent but not pay out the rear, I get a few choices. And UD even shows college jersey's which is cool. Sage and Press Pass used to as well. But sadly no more. For baseball, I love Leaf Crusades out of Valiant and will continue to buy them. Plus, I even complimented Brian on his Pete Rose set. I mean really, you guy's will gripe about anything if you can gripe about being able to go to Walmart and buy a single blaster for $30 that has a complete base set of 100 cards in it and a Pete Rose auto. All for $30. Not bad.

See, I look for the positive things with products like these. I'm not expecting more from them than they can be. I think a lot of you are. Really, Leaf or Panini could create a card worthy of the Gods and whats it matter? All you'll do is whine and cry about it. Oh, it doesn't have this or that. You really would. Hell...you don't even like licensed stuff. Things like Topps Triple threads weren't enough. Allen and Ginter, Gypsy queen, etc. etc..Some of the inventive and cool things topps does you guys seem to hate. Same with Panini for other sports. I mean, really, what the hell do you guys want? The answer is either you don't know or "I want on card autos and 150% return on every box". Yeah. That makes a ton of sense. I mean, really people are griping about a product that they are not forced to buy and doesn't really affect them. It'd be one thing if you casually said, "Hey, I'm not too hip on this product". But some of you have taken up personal crusades against Leaf and Panini. How's that going for you? Are you getting anywhere? Has it made the hobby better for you? Are you happier?

 

[cgilmo]

Are you happier is a hell of a question.

 

[jrinne]

no, they have no contract with the MLBPA

I thought the MLBPA only gave out 1 license a year? Was Topps grandfathered in?

 

[MansGame]

Its a city located in Ōita Prefecture, Japan. Products made in this town and exported to the US in the 1960s carried the label "MADE IN USA", for it to appear as if the product was made in the United States.

You beat me too it...

 

[jbhofmann]

1. It CLEARLY states they are the 1984 USA Baseball Team... 2. The players are from various cities in the USA.... 3. They were playing for the USA in the Olympics, which is not a league, but an organization. See the links of posted of Carlos Correa...No logos anywhere on that card besides the Leaf logo

Brilliant.

 

[MansGame]

1. It CLEARLY states they are the 1984 USA Baseball Team... 2. The players are from various cities in the USA.... 3. They were playing for the USA in the Olympics, which is not a league, but an organization. See the links of posted of Carlos Correa...No logos anywhere on that card besides the Leaf logo

Brilliant.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I thought the MLBPA only gave out 1 license a year? Was Topps grandfathered in?

Topps has traditionally signed individual players to contracts, but I think they have the MLBPA license now. MLBPA isn't exclusive to a single manufacturer.

 

[predatorkj]

Are you happier is a hell of a question.

I didn't mean happier with the choices or products. I mean "are you happier by spending your time ranting and raving about a product for not having an MLB license and thus no logos". Totally ignoring the fact that its like being mad at a kitten because it's orange instead of white with black spots. As if it could help that.

Here's another thought. Could it be that Leaf and Panini haven't exposed their full hand because they realize they are non-licensed and they figure if they insert stuff into their products that bump the srp up to an arm and a leg, people might not pay it? I think NT was more of a test than anything but certainly not indicative of their true potential. Given a license, and being able to really amp up the cost associated with a product would probably make for some nice stuff to be had.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I didn't mean happier with the choices or products. I mean "are you happier by spending your time ranting and raving about a product for not having an MLB license and thus no logos". Totally ignoring the fact that its like being mad at a kitten because it's orange instead of white with black spots. As if it could help that.

Here's another thought. Could it be that Leaf and Panini haven't exposed their full hand because they realize they are non-licensed and they figure if they insert stuff into their products that bump the srp up to an arm and a leg, people might not pay it? I think NT was more of a test than anything but certainly not indicative of their true potential. Given a license, and being able to really amp up the cost associated with a product would probably make for some nice stuff to be had.

Truth is that many (most?) of the same people wouldn't be happy even if Leaf, Panini, Upper Deck or anyone else received their own MLB license anyway - some people just like to complain, its just the nature of things. Another reality is that many people couldn't afford to buy a meaningful amount of licensed cards from another manufacturer to begin with... although some clearly could.

This isn't to say another licensee wouldn't make some people legitimately happy. But in the end there's just no specific evidence that another licensee would do anything to change the hobby in a meaningful way except, perhaps, to make some more people lighter in the wallet.

 

[autocut]

I think if card companies are unable to use logos, limit the photos to headshots (example, 1980 Topps Pete Rose, or 1952 Topps cards). Only hat logo would be airbrushed. Airbrushed jerseys look terrible. Reminds me on the 1993-94 Upper Deck Chris Mills RC in basketball. For some reason, his jersey was airbrushed.

 

[predatorkj]

I think if card companies are unable to use logos, limit the photos to headshots (example, 1980 Topps Pete Rose, or 1952 Topps cards). Only hat logo would be airbrushed. Airbrushed jerseys look terrible. Reminds me on the 1993-94 Upper Deck Chris Mills RC in basketball. For some reason, his jersey was airbrushed.

To me, airbrushed hats or jerseys suck. But yeah, I do think the more they try to limit what they have to "cover up", the better. I really feel like the side view shots of the players succeed very well with nothing having to really be covered up.

I'd also like to see a return to good photography. The 92 bowman set, 91 and 92 stidio sets, as well as the early stadium club stuff(91-93) looks good and proves that if done right, a photo can make a card go above and beyond. If I were leaf or panini, I'd really focus on this aspect.

 

[Ghumbs]

To me, airbrushed hats or jerseys suck. But yeah, I do think the more they try to limit what they have to "cover up", the better. I really feel like the side view shots of the players succeed very well with nothing having to really be covered up.

I'd also like to see a return to good photography. The 92 bowman set, 91 and 92 stidio sets, as well as the early stadium club stuff(91-93) looks good and proves that if done right, a photo can make a card go above and beyond. If I were leaf or panini, I'd really focus on this aspect.

eh?

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

We have had the "Topps has a monopoly" vs. "no they don't" discussion before. Some of us want to be careful using the term monopoly because that implies something unethical or even illegal. Topps is not using its size and muscle to buy up or overpower competitors, e.g. Microsoft in the 90s. Topps has an exclusive contract, which is quite different. Just like individual players decide if they want to sell the rights to their image to Topps (and can do so exclusively if they desire), MLB can sell the rights to its logos to whomever they desire. In this case, they have done so exclusively. No monopolistic practices there.

and I think Topps does have a small, token contract with the MLBPA which allows them to put that logo on card backs. Unlike the contract with other companies, it does not provide them blanket rights to individual members of the PA.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

We have had the "Topps has a monopoly" vs. "no they don't" discussion before. Some of us want to be careful using the term monopoly because that implies something unethical or even illegal. Topps is not using its size and muscle to buy up or overpower competitors, e.g. Microsoft in the 90s. Topps has an exclusive contract, which is quite different. Just like individual players decide if they want to sell the rights to their image to Topps (and can do so exclusively if they desire), MLB can sell the rights to its logos to whomever they desire. In this case, they have done so exclusively. No monopolistic practices there.

and I think Topps does have a small, token contract with the MLBPA which allows them to put that logo on card backs. Unlike the contract with other companies, it does not provide them blanket rights to individual members of the PA.

Agreed. The appropriate term is indeed EXCLUSIVE, as Topps has an exclusive license to showcase MLB logos. Using the term 'monopoly' is simple rhetoric meant to imply something entirely different.

Exclusive Noun
An item or story published or broadcast by only one source

 

[Johnny G]

Yeah it stinks not having team logo on card. Just give Topps, Upper Deck, and Panini each the ability to produce maybe 5 products per year. They could all do a prospect, veteran, throwback, mixed, and super high end each. Not 12 products each year per sport.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Yeah it stinks not having team logo on card. Just give Topps, Upper Deck, and Panini each the ability to produce maybe 5 products per year. They could all do a prospect, veteran, throwback, mixed, and super high end each. Not 12 products each year per sport.

I like this idea better than exclusivity. If each company knew they only got one shot per year at a licensed high-end product, we would potentially see some fantastic cards.

 

[Johnny G]

I like this idea better than exclusivity. If each company knew they only got one shot per year at a licensed high-end product, we would potentially see some fantastic cards.

Exactly. And maybe all the other products would have a semi-affordable price tag.

 

[predatorkj]

eh?

Or...

Or, my favorite..

 

[predatorkj]

On some of the Bowman's as well as the stadium clubs I'm posting, they could airbrush out what little of the logo remains. Or, if enough of it is obscured, they may not need to worry about it at all. But the photo is what counts. A little airbrushing wouldn't kill the image IMO...

Point is, a lot can be done without logos. In fact, anything with a baseball park backdrop looks cool. PNC, Minute Maid, Wrigley, as well as a handful of others have very beautiful baseball parks where a backdrop would look great even if the player is just in street clothes. I've also always thought this was a cool card just because of the picture and it seeming to represent a fresh new baseball season and I don't think it was taken at a MLB park. It may have been at a Spring training facility but theoretically it could be done at any park or high school...

A few others(that may even be from the same photo shoot):

Now crop out some of the logos or just have them wear baseball pants/cleats and a workout shirt. You might be losing the logo but you're still get a nice fresh, clean picture which is more than can be said of today's normal cards.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I like this idea better than exclusivity. If each company knew they only got one shot per year at a licensed high-end product, we would potentially see some fantastic cards.

And bankrupt manufacturers when we (inevitably) don't see some fantastic cards... or when fickle collectors (again, inevitably) decide to not purchase a particular manufacturer's cards because of some silly grudge.

The margins for error are too small here for manufacturers, partially because the hobby isn't big enough to support too many (MLB-licensed or otherwise) manufacturers. Licenses aren't free.

Remember all the old manufacturers went bankrupt... or as in UD's case just about bankrupt.

Not that too many people here are concerned about any of this... it would interfere with their instant gratification