Razor Metal Blue/Gold Auto Print Runs

[Jaypers]

I've been keeping track of the print runs of the parallels from Razor Metal since they were first listed on eBay.

Obviously not all of these were actually sold, but these were the stated print runs.

Player ----- Blue -- Gold
Aaron Crow 53 30
Aaron Hicks 54 26
Anthony Gose 52 25
Brad Holt 50 27
Brett Devall 53 28
Brett Hunter 52 28
Brett Lawrie 50 26
Brett Marshall 52 27
Brett Wallace 50 27
Brian Matusz 50 27
Bryan Price 54 28
Buster Posey 50 28
Carlos Gutierrez 54 28
Carlos Santana 52 14
Casey Kelly 53 28
Casper Wells 51 27
Charlie Blackmon 53 28
Che Hsuan Lin 52 27
Chris Smith 49 18
Collin Cowgill 52 27
Cord Phelps 49 23
Cutter Dykstra 51 28
D.J. Mitchell 48 26
David Adams 54 30
David Cooper 51 27
Dennis Raben 53 28
Derrik Gibson 52 27
Destin Hood 52 26
Dexter Carter 42 28
Edgar Olmos 50 27
Eric Hosmer 53 27
Ethan Martin 48 27
Garrison Lassiter 50 28
Gordon Beckham 50 26
Isaac Galloway 51 26
Jake Odorizzi 51 26
James Darnell 53 27
Jason Castro 54 27
Jemile Weeks 53 28
Jeremy Beckham 50 26
Jeremy Bleich 51 28
Jordan Danks 53 28
Jordan Lyles 51 26
Justin Smoak 49 27
Kevin Pucetas 54 12
Kyle Lobstein 53 28
Kyle Skipworth 51 29
Kyle Weiland 55 16
Matt Wieters 49 28
Michel Inoa 39 13
Mike Stanton 47 18
Pedro Alvarez 50 25
Pete Hissey 55 16
Reese Havens 52 28
Robbie Grossman 49 24
Robbie Ross 48 26
Robbie Weinhardt 54 28
Ross Seaton 54 29
Ryan Flaherty 61 26
Ryan Westmoreland52 26
Seth Lintz 53 26
Stephen Fife 52 27
Tanner Scheppers 51 26
Tim Beckham 54 30
Tim Melville 49 30
Trey Haley 54 30
Tyler Ladendorf 52 28
Tyler Stovall 52 22
Vance Worley 51 26
Wade Miley 54 30
Will Smith 47 20
Xavier Avery 54 29
Yonder Alonso 35 23
Zach Collier 51 28

 

[mredsox89]

Alonso was the lowest blue at 35 and Pucetas the lowest gold at 12.

 

[rookies_plus]

This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

 

[Jaypers]

This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.

 

[beefycheddar]

[quote="rookies_plus":2dq625sd]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.[/quote:2dq625sd]

Does Contenders scream second rate then, or would them keeping the same print run and sending out smudged autographs be better?

 

[EricInCT]

[quote="rookies_plus":13iqnvm4]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.

Does Contenders scream second rate then, or would them keeping the same print run and sending out smudged autographs be better?[/quote:13iqnvm4]


You are comparing apples to oranges :?


Wilmer Flores ~ HUGE prospect.....make him a SP 75.
Brad Hand ~ Eh, ok pitcher...might be something.....SP /314.

These are examples. The print run is based on the quality of the prospect and how many cards he has and if he is a SP in a different product (EEE for example)........Rashun Dixon in EEE will be SPed to /199 and in Contenders it will not have a stated print run.

The above scenario is WAY different then "oh crap, that one is damaged.....well, alter the print run then".

 

[Jaypers]

You are comparing apples to oranges :?


Wilmer Flores ~ HUGE prospect.....make him a SP 75.
Brad Hand ~ Eh, ok pitcher...might be something.....SP /314.

These are examples. The print run is based on the quality of the prospect and how many cards he has and if he is a SP in a different product (EEE for example)........Rashun Dixon in EEE will be SPed to /199 and in Contenders it will not have a stated print run.

The above scenario is WAY different then "oh crap, that one is damaged.....well, alter the print run then".

So, does this preclude Donruss from producing badly damaged cards and/or getting back smudged autos from players?

 

[cgilmo]

[quote="rookies_plus":694gifd3]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.

Does Contenders scream second rate then, or would them keeping the same print run and sending out smudged autographs be better?

You are comparing apples to oranges :?


Wilmer Flores ~ HUGE prospect.....make him a SP 75.
Brad Hand ~ Eh, ok pitcher...might be something.....SP /314.

These are examples. The print run is based on the quality of the prospect and how many cards he has and if he is a SP in a different product (EEE for example)........Rashun Dixon in EEE will be SPed to /199 and in Contenders it will not have a stated print run.

The above scenario is WAY different then "oh crap, that one is damaged.....well, alter the print run then".[/quote:694gifd3]

and yet that isn't entirely the way contenders is laid out. The print run is rarely based on the quality of the prospect in that set. Often times players are short printed because they could only get so many autographs returned in time, or there was some damage to autographs.

There are many SP's from this years contenders baseball that are crappy prospects.

The scenario's are in fact very similar.

 

[masonphillip]

[quote="rookies_plus":2c2mpo0u]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.[/quote:2c2mpo0u]

So they are 2nd rate for practicing quality control? Seems like a stretch, I think if anything we'd all like to see more quality control done on all card products.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="rookies_plus":3hcl1nnt]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.

So they are 2nd rate for practicing quality control? Seems like a stretch, I think if anything we'd all like to see more quality control done on all card products.[/quote:3hcl1nnt]

For numerous reasons, but this is one of them. If the product wasn't hastily put together and rushed to get it on eBay so the 2008 product would be sold before Christmas 2009, this sort of quality control wouldn't necessary.

 

[EricInCT]

[quote="Jeff N.":17qvj2su]

[quote="rookies_plus":17qvj2su]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.

So they are 2nd rate for practicing quality control? Seems like a stretch, I think if anything we'd all like to see more quality control done on all card products.[/quote:17qvj2su]

For numerous reasons, but this is one of them. If the product wasn't hastily put together and rushed to get it on eBay so the 2008 product would be sold before Christmas 2009, this sort of quality control wouldn't necessary.[/quote:17qvj2su]


Jeff, I have already given up.....it is like arguing with the CEO of the company :? They will never see the other side of the coin in their convoluted world.

 

[rookies_plus]

First off I am glad to see they care about quality control, Topps could really care less about quality control.....2008 Heriage was a nightmare and so was the early run of 2008 Bowman Chrome. I have no patience for Topps and there production issues, as a Quality control manager myself, I know the importance of quality in relation to customer satisfaction....I believe customer satisfaction is down with Topps, hence the emergence of companies like Razor.

That being said I do have a couple concerns with Razor...

Does anyone know why they the metal were not serial numbered like the wax?

Does anyone fear that these could be backdoored eventually like some of the Inkworks autographs were? I know Razor pulled the auctions after customer complaints, but I am just bringing up a concern that I may have as a collecter / investor in Razor prospect cards.

I know most of us collect prospects because of the possible financial upside, there is financial upside to razor keeping a stash of the cards - without serial numbers do we really know the factual amount produced?

The stated production run is technically hearsay...not that Brian Gray's word is not good, but it needs to be questioned after the inkworks situation.

I will personally take his word on the print runs but I am a little weary and feel I might be doing an injustice if I do not bring up my concerns.

 

[cgilmo]

[quote="Jeff N.":2sa5w9aj]

[quote="rookies_plus":2sa5w9aj]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.

So they are 2nd rate for practicing quality control? Seems like a stretch, I think if anything we'd all like to see more quality control done on all card products.

For numerous reasons, but this is one of them. If the product wasn't hastily put together and rushed to get it on eBay so the 2008 product would be sold before Christmas 2009, this sort of quality control wouldn't necessary.[/quote:2sa5w9aj]


Jeff, I have already given up.....it is like arguing with the CEO of the company :? They will never see the other side of the coin in their convoluted world.[/quote:2sa5w9aj]


Maybe if you were right once in a while your arguments would hold a bit more weight.

Some people think of Razor as second rate, and that is fine, I get that. In a few cases it comes well earned, and I think they have a lot to learn from topps and UD. But also, they have a chance to avoid a lot of the mistakes that those companys continue to make on a daily basis.


rookies_plus, backdooring is a constant theme across all vendors, if someone that was knowledgeable about the state of the hobby wasn't concerned about the possibility of razor or another company backdooring, then they are kidding themselves.

 

[Derek2011]

First off I am glad to see they care about quality control, Topps could really care less about quality control.....2008 Heriage was a nightmare and so was the early run of 2008 Bowman Chrome. I have no patience for Topps and there production issues, as a Quality control manager myself, I know the importance of quality in relation to customer satisfaction....I believe customer satisfaction is down with Topps, hence the emergence of companies like Razor.

That being said I do have a couple concerns with Razor...

Does anyone know why they the metal were not serial numbered like the wax?

Does anyone fear that these could be backdoored eventually like some of the Inkworks autographs were? I know Razor pulled the auctions after customer complaints, but I am just bringing up a concern that I may have as a collecter / investor in Razor prospect cards.

I know most of us collect prospects because of the possible financial upside, there is financial upside to razor keeping a stash of the cards - without serial numbers do we really know the factual amount produced?

The stated production run is technically hearsay...not that Brian Gray's word is not good, but it needs to be questioned after the inkworks situation.

I will personally take his word on the print runs but I am a little weary and feel I might be doing an injustice if I do not bring up my concerns.

Serial numbering means nothing anymore.....remember Topps M&M Red "1/1"s

 

[Bob Loblaw]

First off I am glad to see they care about quality control, Topps could really care less about quality control.....2008 Heriage was a nightmare and so was the early run of 2008 Bowman Chrome. I have no patience for Topps and there production issues, as a Quality control manager myself, I know the importance of quality in relation to customer satisfaction....I believe customer satisfaction is down with Topps, hence the emergence of companies like Razor.

That being said I do have a couple concerns with Razor...

Does anyone know why they the metal were not serial numbered like the wax?

Does anyone fear that these could be backdoored eventually like some of the Inkworks autographs were? I know Razor pulled the auctions after customer complaints, but I am just bringing up a concern that I may have as a collecter / investor in Razor prospect cards.

I know most of us collect prospects because of the possible financial upside, there is financial upside to razor keeping a stash of the cards - without serial numbers do we really know the factual amount produced?

The stated production run is technically hearsay...not that Brian Gray's word is not good, but it needs to be questioned after the inkworks situation.

I will personally take his word on the print runs but I am a little weary and feel I might be doing an injustice if I do not bring up my concerns.

Serial numbering means nothing anymore.....remember Topps M&M Red "1/1"s

And the hobby -- including this very message board -- sees those problems and points them out immediately. You think Razor wouldn't be called to the mat if they had 10 extra /50 cards out there? Serially numbering doesn't provide a rock solid cure to print run problems, but it surely adds tremendous security to the fact that there are only "xx" of a card made.

 

[masonphillip]

[quote="Jeff N.":28dk5xio]

[quote="rookies_plus":28dk5xio]This may seem like a stupid question but....Any ideas why they were not consistant?

I was told they had to throw away some of the cards that were damaged.

Just screams 2nd rate.

So they are 2nd rate for practicing quality control? Seems like a stretch, I think if anything we'd all like to see more quality control done on all card products.[/quote:28dk5xio]

For numerous reasons, but this is one of them. If the product wasn't hastily put together and rushed to get it on eBay so the 2008 product would be sold before Christmas 2009, this sort of quality control wouldn't necessary.[/quote:28dk5xio]

I am no expert on this sort of thing but I wouldn't think the printing quality would change regardless. Topps puts crap in packs from a quality perspective all the time and they do the same products every single year and yet they still have printing issues. The only difference here is more transparency.

There are reasons this prodcut is second rate.
1. Release 2008 cards in July of 2009
2. No formal communication about when autos would come out.
3. Constant changes of sales format on ebay

and the list goes on, I just don't see Q.C. as one of them.

 

[masonphillip]

[quote="rookies_plus":22du9diq]First off I am glad to see they care about quality control, Topps could really care less about quality control.....2008 Heriage was a nightmare and so was the early run of 2008 Bowman Chrome. I have no patience for Topps and there production issues, as a Quality control manager myself, I know the importance of quality in relation to customer satisfaction....I believe customer satisfaction is down with Topps, hence the emergence of companies like Razor.

That being said I do have a couple concerns with Razor...

Does anyone know why they the metal were not serial numbered like the wax?

Does anyone fear that these could be backdoored eventually like some of the Inkworks autographs were? I know Razor pulled the auctions after customer complaints, but I am just bringing up a concern that I may have as a collecter / investor in Razor prospect cards.

I know most of us collect prospects because of the possible financial upside, there is financial upside to razor keeping a stash of the cards - without serial numbers do we really know the factual amount produced?

The stated production run is technically hearsay...not that Brian Gray's word is not good, but it needs to be questioned after the inkworks situation.

I will personally take his word on the print runs but I am a little weary and feel I might be doing an injustice if I do not bring up my concerns.

Serial numbering means nothing anymore.....remember Topps M&M Red "1/1"s

And the hobby -- including this very message board -- sees those problems and points them out immediately. You think Razor wouldn't be called to the mat if they had 10 extra /50 cards out there? Serially numbering doesn't provide a rock solid cure to print run problems, but it surely adds tremendous security to the fact that there are only "xx" of a card made.[/quote:22du9diq]

Agreed, this is THE upside to serial numbering, does it prevent issues completely? No. Does it give the buyer much more security about their purchase? You bet.

 

[Jaypers]

As I understand it, Metal wasn't serial numbered so that it wouldn't steal too much of Sig Series' thunder.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

"Stated Print Run"
The "stated print run" is a valid concern that a lot of people have regarding this product.

However, it is my understanding that cost and time were the keys to not serial-numbering these cards. That said, each consumer will have to make up his own mind whether or not he believes the word of Razor and trust them to make good with their promises.


"Varying Quantities vs. 2nd rate"
In regards to the varying quantities, clearly there were some issues with the sheets when they were either printed or cut. In some cases over 50% of the expected print run was dumped...and that does indeed scream "2nd rate". No fault of Razor perhaps, but clearly their printer.

Contenders is and has always been a varied SP product. Sure, perhaps a small minority are lost due to quality, but the variance in the production numbers is established and expected for that product.