cutting a card to make a card!

[pigskincardboard]

I'm not sure if it's amazing tunnel-vision or just a ridiculous attempt to remain on-point that allowed you to create that response, ignoring the other comments I had made. Or more correctly, it just went to prove my point, that you had no interest in the subject matter and were just trying to steer it towards what Topps was doing with the Beckham card.

Interesting way to announce a legal inquiry to the hobby. I knew that it would eventually come to this, I'm just surprised it took this long. Next time, cut the dog an pony show about soliciting opinions about cutting up cards. It insults us all.

[quote="Sean_C":1g2tot3n]1). If you are referring to the Cut AFLAC Tim Beckham that they are supposedly putting out, I'd certainly have preferred them to be able to release the whole card rather than cutting it up, but it looks like they weren't able to do that.
2). That is a bit of a different situation than going out and buying a bunch of LeBron James (or Kobe Bryant, take your pick) in person "cuts", and making cut signature cards. In this case, they had already made the cards and had him sign them with the intention of releasing them at some point in the future. I'm guessing that they aren't able to due to your contract with him, so they've resorted to a pretty dumb plan B I'd have preferred that they wait a few years, then release the whole card as an insert in some other product, but that's just my opinion.

Finally we agree!!!!!! This card should be kept in tact and placed in 2011 Bowman Draft. It would be worth MUCH more then than it will be in a minor league product.

My question's focus was does the situation matter or is cutting cards to make cards a collecting sin?

Thanks for the intelligent post Sean!..
BG

p.s.- I wouldn't assume that the autographs were obtained without violating my agreements. If they were truly signed in 2007, I see no problems. HOWEVER, if they were signed later, that would NOT be a smart choice on their part. Regardless, we have launched a legal inquiry into this today, but cannot discuss this further at this time until all is clear.
BG

[/quote:1g2tot3n]


Haha, have fun. Topps will make you their bitch. There's absolutely no way you can win in the long-run. Proving that topps conspired will be impossible, and you'll only recourse will be to sue the player. You're pretty bound by privity of the contract.

What would be COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY AWESOME, like AWESOME, would be calling Topps' bluff on the 2007 -- where Beckham's age would invalidate any contract, unless he was emancipated or the contract was co-signed by the 'rents.

Personally, i'd lay down some style points for that route, but you'd obviously need the player on your side.

But basically, if you take the traditional route, you're wasting money and will be totes *******.

 

[All The Hype]

I don't have a problem with it, but I think a key to making a successful "card from a card" is to make sure it is almost impossible to tell that the cut is from what used to be another card. For example, make sure the previous brand and any text from the card part is cut out to make the new card. Looks extremely tacky otherwise, in my opinion.

 

[Fandruw25]

1. its ugly as hell
2. its is like batking a cake then taking it apart and making it worse it makes no sense.
3. you are destroying a piece of history to make some dumb cut.
4. if you want to kake a card why destory something with historical importance
5. i would rather have the original card.

thats about it

How is it a piece of history? I don't think of an auto'd card as a piece of history especially when there are thousands of auto's out there. Now, if someone had cut up a Goudey or T206 that had been auto'd, I'd agree with the history part but something that was signed in last 20 years, to me, doesn't scream history.

 

[rookieaddict]

What if they cut up their own cards to make new cards, rather than releasing them as originally designed?
BG

If you're talking about cutting up razor metal cards, or any others that have a solid background; I think you could pull it off without it looking bad. The problem comes when the background of the autograph doesn't mesh well with the rest of the card.

 

[jeff550]

1. its ugly as hell
2. its is like batking a cake then taking it apart and making it worse it makes no sense.
3. you are destroying a piece of history to make some dumb cut.
4. if you want to kake a card why destory something with historical importance
5. i would rather have the original card.

thats about it

How is it a piece of history? I don't think of an auto'd card as a piece of history especially when there are thousands of auto's out there. Now, if someone had cut up a Goudey or T206 that had been auto'd, I'd agree with the history part but something that was signed in last 20 years, to me, doesn't scream history.

ive seen some nice 59 topps cards cut up and used when i would rather have the original. same with any vintage card

 

[Erich]

I think it is an all around bad idea.

 

[trademhigh]

It really depends on the product.
I hate when Tristar took cards with autos on them and turned them into horrible looking cuts in Signa Cuts. Heck, they weren't even placed in straight :lol: ::facepalm::
However, I really liked the Prime Cuts Joe Dimaggio card where they cut up the Joe Dimaggio Pinnacle Autos into Cut Autos. I personally love the look of those cards.
I think an even cooler concept is a rip card, which is in certain aspects very similar.
1998 Donruss Zenith Dare to Tear is an AWESOME product. I like how you can either keep the jumbo card, or cut it up and hopefully get a better regular sized card (or parallel).
I also think that A&G rip cards are very successful, too, but in a different way. You can keep the normal rip card, which sells for a decent amount unripped (could be a lot of $$$ depending on the player), or you can rip it and hope to get an SP, or a high end autograph mini card.

 

[cmixer]

If you are talking about buying a "certified" auto on the aftermarkt to make a new "certified" card - I am against it (for the most part). Especially if I can recognize the old card and say, "Hey - that was a 2001 Greats of the Game." Cause if I wanted an '01 GOTG, I'd buy an '01 GOTG ... now some players have passed (RIP), an this is a way to reintroduce a quality auto to the market > okay, I give you a little credit. Cause it'd be nice to pull a Kirby Pucket, even if it's an old card ... and some people/companies have no way to obtain a contracted player - so if RAZOR can get an UD Jordan or Tiger Woods ... I'm for that as well.

 

[JackLondon]

I am not a fan of using an autographed card to make another autographed card.

I would prefer either a redemption for the whole autographed card, or maybe just insert the whole autographed card in the packs.

Not sure most collectors would like this idea, but how about taking an original, whole autographed card, and putting it in an oversized frame? These would have to be redemptions, but at least the integrity of the signed card would be intact.

 

[shark442]

Unless its a cut or the guy does not sign anymore, it is kinda confusing, like why is my joe nathan card cut up and put into another card. just maximize the new card and cover hte old card otherwise it ends up bad... unless its for celebs.,

 

[Razor]

pigskin,

Actually, if the autos were signed during my agreement, then Topps would be guilty of Tortious interference. This occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).


Cannot speak about it more now.

BUT, I think they are crazy for cutting what would be HUGE cards in 2-3 years to ruin them to try to make a category out of minor league cards which are a shrinking market at present (hopefully not for long).

BG

 

[Sean_C]

Well then Brian, if that is the case, I hope that you'll be pursing legal action against Mr. Beckham for breech of contract as well if he signed for Topps in violation of your contract with him. If you don't, your actions will look might suspicious.

pigskin,

Actually, if the autos were signed during my agreement, then Topps would be guilty of Tortious interference. This occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).


Cannot speak about it more now.

BUT, I think they are crazy for cutting what would be HUGE cards in 2-3 years to ruin them to try to make a category out of minor league cards which are a shrinking market at present (hopefully not for long).

BG

 

[Razor]

Well then Brian, if that is the case, I hope that you'll be pursing legal action against Mr. Beckham for breech of contract as well if he signed for Topps in violation of your contract with him. If you don't, your actions will look might suspicious.

pigskin,

Actually, if the autos were signed during my agreement, then Topps would be guilty of Tortious interference. This occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).


Cannot speak about it more now.

BUT, I think they are crazy for cutting what would be HUGE cards in 2-3 years to ruin them to try to make a category out of minor league cards which are a shrinking market at present (hopefully not for long).

BG

We will absolutely make the decisions that are best for our company.
THIS you can count on.
BG

 

[Sean_C]

You really are amazing, Brian. I've seen some pretty crappy things and even worse people in my 20 years in this hobby, but you're really starting to reach the top of that list (move over Mr. Flatt).

Editing to expand on the thought:

If what you allege is true (and I'm seriously doubting it is, unless you have some kind of firsthand knowledge which will make the discovery portion of the case even more interesting) and you fail to go after both parties, then even if you win a decision, you'll lose in the court of public opinion. You'll have confirmed what many in the hobby have thought all along, and ruin your reputation even further. If you go after both, then it'll be highly unlikely you'll ever get any major players to sign another contract with you again. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

BTW, thanks for dropping the pretense about this being about other card companies cutting up cards. It was unseemly to have to be talking in circles like that.

Well then Brian, if that is the case, I hope that you'll be pursing legal action against Mr. Beckham for breech of contract as well if he signed for Topps in violation of your contract with him. If you don't, your actions will look might suspicious.

pigskin,

Actually, if the autos were signed during my agreement, then Topps would be guilty of Tortious interference. This occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).


Cannot speak about it more now.

BUT, I think they are crazy for cutting what would be HUGE cards in 2-3 years to ruin them to try to make a category out of minor league cards which are a shrinking market at present (hopefully not for long).

BG

We will absolutely make the decisions that are best for our company.
THIS you can count on.
BG

 

[Razor]

Sean,
Not sure why you are so sour, but rest assured we are working hard to do the right thing in the hobby.
If you are in any business (or this one by chance), surely you would protect your business if threatened?
Or, does this make me crappy for wanting to make a fair living and protecting my assets?
BG

p.s.- YES, we will pursue ANY party that violates or causes someone to violate any Razor agreements.

p.s. #2- I have the right to post a board asking how people feel about this. I was most curious peoples thoughts on this as its the first time Topps has resorted to this behavior and all the emails Ive gotten lately are begging companies to move away from this. If you feel like Im playing with you by posting this thread, don't join in the thread.

p.s. #3- You are out of your mind if you think a player violating his agreement and us taking action will stop a player from taking the $$$... When Topps makes players silly lowball offers the opportunity will ALWAYS be there.

You really are amazing, Brian. I've seen some pretty crappy things and even worse people in my 20 years in this hobby, but you're really starting to reach the top of that list (move over Mr. Flatt).

[quote="Sean_C":3ldzciet]Well then Brian, if that is the case, I hope that you'll be pursing legal action against Mr. Beckham for breech of contract as well if he signed for Topps in violation of your contract with him. If you don't, your actions will look might suspicious.

pigskin,

Actually, if the autos were signed during my agreement, then Topps would be guilty of Tortious interference. This occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).


Cannot speak about it more now.

BUT, I think they are crazy for cutting what would be HUGE cards in 2-3 years to ruin them to try to make a category out of minor league cards which are a shrinking market at present (hopefully not for long).

BG

We will absolutely make the decisions that are best for our company.
THIS you can count on.
BG

[/quote:3ldzciet]

 

[theplasticman]

I can't imagine any good reason or good design that this can be done. Manufacturer makes no difference here to me. Every one of these I've seen have looked... tragic.

I'm a diehard Eddie Murray collector and have seen all the Tri Star ones... haven't bought a single one and not sure I plan to.

 

[Razor]

Logging off for the night, but will be drawing thread winner tommorrow mid day for the Wieters Autograph.
Thanks for ALL the sincere opinions on a growing hobby problem.
BG

 

[rob167]

as long as the card looks professionally done, i see no problem in cutting up one card to make another. one of my pet-peeves however, is when the cut does not fill up the window (regardless if it is a cut-up card or other form of auto).

the card company that makes the cards are of little to no difference to me. i want a cut auto of a player that i want, not because it is one brand over another. it's all about eye appeal to me.

 

[pigskincardboard]

pigskin,

Actually, if the autos were signed during my agreement, then Topps would be guilty of Tortious interference. This occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).


Cannot speak about it more now.

BUT, I think they are crazy for cutting what would be HUGE cards in 2-3 years to ruin them to try to make a category out of minor league cards which are a shrinking market at present (hopefully not for long).

BG

I'll extrapolate, and you're lawyers will be able to find the majority of the case files amongst record label suits, as they're the most pertinent and will offer the juiciest loop holes, but I still don't see it flying in a cost-efficient manner. Proving that Topps conspired is going to be, as I said, absolutely a freaking mess -- a very expensive mess.

While you may get an injunction similar to what topps did to ud, it's almost certainly too late. You can't exactly prove any liability or negligence against Topps without acknowledging that Beckham made Topps fully aware of his contract situation. Obviously, if this wasn't done in contract form and topps went behind closed doors to acquire Beckham autos, you're in better standing.

If topps is caught up in a lie and the cards are indeed signed after the contract, I haven't the slightest clue that they'll throw it on Beckham's agent. In the end, you'll get your money from one of the two parties, if you can prove the cards were produced during the agreement. Proving that Topps knowingly or negligently conspired against you is just going to be tough.

The way it stands, Tim Beckham would be the big loser and justifiably so. Either way, Beckham misrepresented himself to you guys or topps.

Seeing the BS that is Topps' 2007 agreement should be well worth it though. I just hope to high hell that you faxed your agreement to the major companies the day the ink dried.

I hate Topps and think they should rot in hell for their sketchy-as-hell practices, so I hope they get nailed.

 

[Y4NK335]

If it is done right it looks alright.

Not really a fan of cutting up a card from the previous year's product though. What is the point?