More evidence of the decline in value of Razor Sig Series

[All The Hype]

[quote="ALL_THE_HYPE":3pijpfy7]The reason why Topps is successful with their Bowman products is because they are all different players.

They have three releases in a year: Bowman, Bowman Chrome, Bowman Draft Picks and Prospects. Each of these is essentially the same design as the last (with minor changes), but the key is that each release features different players.

Recently I think they have become complacent and this is where you see the same player as a base card in bowman and then again as an auto in BC, but one thing you rarely see from them is the same players with more than one of the same type of card.

Not only does this keep buyers happy, but it gives their cards the most possible value, as they are refraining from flooding the market by releasing 6 different autos of the same player in the same year (like Donruss seems to have done this year).

In my opinion, the thing Razor did wrong was to include too many of their players in the first product. They could have saved some of the players for their second release and simply released "2008 Razor Signature Series 2" and included the rest of the players. Yeah, it would make their first product a little weaker overall, but it would attract lots of interest and create anticipation for the second product because people would still be searching for certain players that are Razor exclusive, but that they chose to save for this second release. I think this would make up for the inevitably weaker checklist of product number one.

It's pretty simple, just look at what works. Bowman releases basically the same product three times a year...only the checklist changes. They are successful products, consumers love them, and their cards hold value better than just about anything. It works, and people are happy.

Apparently, you are living in another world.

Topps is notorious for recycling throughout their brands, whether it's the same year or the following years. Not to mention, they also take the players from the first release and make them "futures games" or something else to get them in the product.

If you want to call Topps a saint, then you are completely ignorant to the fact that they too, feed us shat and say it's gold.

Their products work.

Actually, no they don't. For the majority, it's an utter disaster, masked by a couple obvious names that are included. They pretty much either put out an awful auto checklist w/ a great base set, or a great auto checklist w/ an awful base set. It's not until the next year that they take those good base set players and make an auto, completely frustrating the current consumer and confusing the new consumers.

I guess your hatred towards Razor is blinding the reality you just can't grasp.

Actually, they do. They put out a product, and people buy it. People like it, and buy more of it. Cards from Bowman products 5 years ago still sell very well today, and people still want them. By most people's definition, I think that that makes it a successful product.

And I do not hate Razor at all. Never have. I actually like that they came here to ask our opinions, I think that says a lot about BG.

If they released 4 different products every year, with an autograph of the same player in each of these releases, do you honestly believe that their chrome auto would be worth as much? if so, then you my friend, are the ignorant one.

Topps includes the same autos in Chrome and Sterling. What is different? Razor put out two products this year, both with different markets. The third product is essentially a parallel, not a set. It was never packed out and the product line isn't big enough overall.

Like I said, many of the players on the Sterling auto checklist are not an Auto in any Chrome product. Yes, some are repeats, but that leaves us with a maximum of two Bowman autos per year...and Bowman happens to be an established brand.

I don't think that from a new card company, releasing 3 different autos of the same player in your first year is necessarily the best way to gain support and ensure that your cards maintain value on the secondary market. Argue with that all you want, but that's my opinion and it's not gonna change.

And putting someone in the future's game set in BDP when they were an auto in Bowman is far different from what Razor's apparent concept is (similar to that of Donruss), where you cram all the same players into every single product you release in a year. This is what I am talking about.

...and you would be talking like a rambling fool. What you are saying makes no sense. Different markets for each release is much better than making a second, third, etc... of the same type of card.

It makes perfect sense. One chrome product releases a player as an autograph, and another one later in the year or the following year releases the player again, not as an auto again, but in a base set that has been around for a few years now. Releasing this card doesn't devalue the previously released auto in any way. What about that doesn't make sense?

Nice argument by the way. I'm wrong because I'm a "rambling fool"? Again, touche. Nice argument.

And Topps can't even control the FG set anyway, everyone that plays in the game has a card no matter if they have already had a Bowman card or not.

Ummm, yes they can. They make the product, they could choose to not even make them, and add more exclusive prospects to their sets instead. But, remember, they don't care what you think because they know people like you will buy their products because its so "OMGZ the bestezt!"

Based on their concept to include a future's game set, making a card for each player that plays in the game no matter who it is, they obviously don't have control over this as they are not the ones who select the players to play in the game. Of course it is their product and they can do what they want with it, but it seems that they have decided to include this set in their product, and based on that fact, they do not control what players are on the FG checklist.

And for the record, you're the only one that ever types something like '"OMGZ the bestezt!"' in your posts and I'm not exactly sure why, because it really takes a lot of legitimacy from your argument. People read that after thinking as hard as you could, the best thing you could come up with to prove what I'm saying is wrong is to type something like '"OMGZ the bestezt!"'. If that's the best argument you can make then I'm obviously right. Just grow up.

See above. I am shocked you are arguing with absolute facts presented with you.[/quote:3pijpfy7]



I honestly don't think you could be any more wrong about anything you just said in the above post, and I'm not gonna argue anymore because based on every post I have read of yours on this message board, you are too stubborn to give ideas other than your own a chance. Try it sometime, you might learn a thing or two. Good day.

 

[jdfoxtrot79]

Well that was fun.....

I think Panini, with all of their top caliber sports experience is going to do a great job in the American Card Market!!!!

What do you think!

 

[bballcardkid]

Hype, Hockey and Pilgrim are exactly right. Topps was very successful using the exact same checklist for Bowman baseball as Bowman Chrome baseball in the late 90's. We actually noticed base Bowman rookies selling for $20-$30 of certain players.

I absolutely despise the notion of holding back players for another release. This is one of the same criticisms that we all gave Topps for 2007 Draft. Holding prospects out for future releases quite frankly blows. That's probably why we will never see another 2005 Draft or a 1999 BC Series 2 because Topps will never load a product up again.