Tim Beckham in 09 Tri-star Obak set

[David Campos]

I thought Beckham was a Razor exclusive or is that just for autos or did they sell his rights to Tri-star?

http://beta.beckett.com/item/7078157/?t ... iewArticle

 

[FortyFour]

Re: Tri-star Tim Beckham in 09 Obak set

Tristar has a MILB license they can print as many cards of beckham while he is in the minors as they want.

 

[predatorkj]

Which leads to the whole fiasco as outlined before...none of these guys are really exclusive.Last time I brought this up I was almost sentenced to hang so lets mum the word.Apparently exclusive is as exclusive does.

 

[Wes]

Which leads to the whole fiasco as outlined before...none of these guys are really exclusive.Last time I brought this up I was almost sentenced to hang so lets mum the word.Apparently exclusive is as exclusive does.

Their certified autographs are.

 

[predatorkj]

Which leads to the whole fiasco as outlined before...none of these guys are really exclusive.Last time I brought this up I was almost sentenced to hang so lets mum the word.Apparently exclusive is as exclusive does.

Their certified autographs are.

I really don't want to open a can of worms over this so I will tread very very carefully.To me...exclusive means exclusive.To my knowledge there were autos of some of these exclusive players not only in Donruss but also in Tristar.How many and which players matters nothing to me.The fact that they were supposed to be something they ended up not being is what does matter.So the word exclusive has been thrown around too much and in too many contexts lately.You either are or your not.There is no in between.For that very simple reason...I purchased my two autos I needed from Razor and thats it for me.

 

[Wes]

Which leads to the whole fiasco as outlined before...none of these guys are really exclusive.Last time I brought this up I was almost sentenced to hang so lets mum the word.Apparently exclusive is as exclusive does.

Their certified autographs are.

I really don't want to open a can of worms over this so I will tread very very carefully.To me...exclusive means exclusive.To my knowledge there were autos of some of these exclusive players not only in Donruss but also in Tristar.How many and which players matters nothing to me.The fact that they were supposed to be something they ended up not being is what does matter.So the word exclusive has been thrown around too much and in too many contexts lately.You either are or your not.There is no in between.For that very simple reason...I purchased my two autos I needed from Razor and thats it for me.

The only one in Donruss was released by accident and was removed from the print run. Tristar clipped index cards and did not have the players' permission to use the autographs.

 

[predatorkj]

Which leads to the whole fiasco as outlined before...none of these guys are really exclusive.Last time I brought this up I was almost sentenced to hang so lets mum the word.Apparently exclusive is as exclusive does.

Their certified autographs are.

I really don't want to open a can of worms over this so I will tread very very carefully.To me...exclusive means exclusive.To my knowledge there were autos of some of these exclusive players not only in Donruss but also in Tristar.How many and which players matters nothing to me.The fact that they were supposed to be something they ended up not being is what does matter.So the word exclusive has been thrown around too much and in too many contexts lately.You either are or your not.There is no in between.For that very simple reason...I purchased my two autos I needed from Razor and thats it for me.

The only one in Donruss was released by accident and was removed from the print run. Tristar clipped index cards and did not have the players' permission to use the autographs.

No no.I fully understand that and thats why I wanted to try to be clear as day about what I was saying.I am not big into rookie cards or anything.I actually prefer Tristar and Bowman chrome myself but either way...I just don't think anyone in the hobby can claim these players are as exclusive as they were first made out to be.With or without the players consent or even after pulling a card from production(which if I remember correctly there are still some floating around out there) these players autos were not exclusive in the true meaning of what i believe exclusive to mean.So while there may have been a few slips...the fact still stands for me.As far as I am concerned...the exclusivity has been breached.If I were collecting these guys I would not only be upset about the situation but I would also feel that no one card could be said to be a true exclusive rookie auto(at least the players released in other sets).

 

[cgilmo]

Which leads to the whole fiasco as outlined before...none of these guys are really exclusive.Last time I brought this up I was almost sentenced to hang so lets mum the word.Apparently exclusive is as exclusive does.

sigh, sometimes i feel like i am talking to a brick wall.

 

[predatorkj]

Which leads to the whole fiasco as outlined before...none of these guys are really exclusive.Last time I brought this up I was almost sentenced to hang so lets mum the word.Apparently exclusive is as exclusive does.

sigh, sometimes i feel like i am talking to a brick wall.

I think your problem is this:You do not believe I understand the circumstances or what is going on.And that is wrong.In fact its about as wrong as you can get.If you can just get past that I think you won't feel your talking to a brick wall at all.

My opinion is based on all of the facts as they are.We already hashed this out in the other thread.Its also why I said I didn't want to open a can of worms.This particular can seems to be hard to put a lid on.But after everything you and others have told me it still leads to the fact that there are other autos from other companies out there.Whatever the circumstances of their existence or how they came to be...DOES NOT MATTER!They still exist.No matter what you say...I would find it hard to believe you could argue this.If you want to get into the debate again...feel free.I will stay out of it though.Because arguing over this is really like beating your head against a brick wall.They exist...what more can you say other than why they exist which still doesn't matter because they, in fact, do exist.

And if they exist...the word exclusive means nothing.Zilch.Zip.Nada.Exclusive means exclusive.You guys just seem to want to quivel over why and how but like I said it doesn't matter.

My biggest kick out of the whole thing is I am not a prospector or even a big rookie card collector.I just find it odd that you guys would swear up and down something is exclusive yet we have circumstances where they aren't.

I truly understand your irritation over the matter and like I said...I don't feel the need to irritate you but I am not sure what you want me to do.I can't agree with you if your stance is what it is.

 

[kentuckyderby]

Predator, I understand what you mean. I too thought exclusive meant absolutely no where else. I assumed (and I guess I was wrong for assuming) that exclusivity meant there wouldn't be any other way any other company could package auto cards. I am NOT saying I was misled. I am saying I assumed.

Whether the player sat there and signed on the card or not may or may not make a difference for some. For some that say they only want on-card and cut autos (ie Beckham for TriStar) are garbage because cut autos blow, my only response would be --------- why the love for cut autos in Oval Office? (thought cut autos blow?)


Also, are we 100% positive we know where TriStars got the autos? I know initially the popular answer was that they cut up UD USA cards (which would be a wrong accusation) T

To anyone who gets upset at OP for asking question ------One must keep in mind that questions like this will come up from newbies. Just like they say on radio, you have a new listener every few minutes so don't assume all understand what the conversation is about.

Totally totally totally not trying to cause problems here. I just wanted to say that I see both sides (one side that predator not crazy, other side that Razor has exclusivity on on cards with some)

 

[cgilmo]

Predator, I understand what you mean. I too thought exclusive meant absolutely no where else. I assumed (and I guess I was wrong for assuming) that exclusivity meant there wouldn't be any other way any other company could package auto cards. I am NOT saying I was misled. I am saying I assumed.

Whether the player sat there and signed on the card or not may or may not make a difference for some. For some that say they only want on-card and cut autos (ie Beckham for TriStar) are garbage because cut autos blow, my only response would be --------- why the love for cut autos in Oval Office? (thought cut autos blow?)


Also, are we 100% positive we know where TriStars got the autos? I know initially the popular answer was that they cut up UD USA cards (which would be a wrong accusation) T

To anyone who gets upset at OP for asking question ------One must keep in mind that questions like this will come up from newbies. Just like they say on radio, you have a new listener every few minutes so don't assume all understand what the conversation is about.

Totally totally totally not trying to cause problems here. I just wanted to say that I see both sides (one side that predator not crazy, other side that Razor has exclusivity on on cards with some)

Trapped sigs blow. But in the case of oval office there are no other options. It isn't like you can get a george washington on card.

Exclusivity does not stop people from obtaining sigs and putting them in their product. If donruss wanted to they could buy index card sigs of anyone and stick them in thier product. Although without image rights they couldn't use a picture of the player at all. Tristar a special in with minor league baseball where they can use the images and there isn't a thing anyone can do about that.

We don't know how tristar got the autographs, we think they were done at private signings. It wouldn't benefit razor at all to sell them autographs, and if they did sell surely there would be more autographs in then they have. This theory just is not believable to me.

predatorkj

The players in question did not sign any autographs knowingly for tristar, that much is clear. This is a loop hole that is unique to tristar and companies without that milb license could not do this in the same manner. The contracts are exclusive in that no other company can sign any of thier players to an autograph or image rights contract. That fact has been tested and proven in the case of Wade Miley.

 

[kentuckyderby]

Predator, I understand what you mean. I too thought exclusive meant absolutely no where else. I assumed (and I guess I was wrong for assuming) that exclusivity meant there wouldn't be any other way any other company could package auto cards. I am NOT saying I was misled. I am saying I assumed.

Whether the player sat there and signed on the card or not may or may not make a difference for some. For some that say they only want on-card and cut autos (ie Beckham for TriStar) are garbage because cut autos blow, my only response would be --------- why the love for cut autos in Oval Office? (thought cut autos blow?)


Also, are we 100% positive we know where TriStars got the autos? I know initially the popular answer was that they cut up UD USA cards (which would be a wrong accusation) T

To anyone who gets upset at OP for asking question ------One must keep in mind that questions like this will come up from newbies. Just like they say on radio, you have a new listener every few minutes so don't assume all understand what the conversation is about.

Totally totally totally not trying to cause problems here. I just wanted to say that I see both sides (one side that predator not crazy, other side that Razor has exclusivity on on cards with some)

Trapped sigs blow. But in the case of oval office there are no other options. It isn't like you can get a george washington on card.

No doubt about not being able to get on-card for Oval. That is obvious. I guess my comment was more towards those that easily rip on trapped autos in other products but then drool when they see cut auto in Oval. I enjoy wtaching the Oval breaks. History teacher here

Exclusivity does not stop people from obtaining sigs and putting them in their product. If donruss wanted to they could buy index card sigs of anyone and stick them in thier product. Although without image rights they couldn't use a picture of the player at all. Tristar a special in with minor league baseball where they can use the images and there isn't a thing anyone can do about that.


Understand that now. I guess when I committed to the 17 boxes I ASSUMED exclusive meant total exclusive. Lesson learned not to research more

We don't know how tristar got the autographs, we think they were done at private signings. It wouldn't benefit razor at all to sell them autographs, and if they did sell surely there would be more autographs in then they have. This theory just is not believable to me.

I didn't even know some had a theory that Razor sold any autos. I just don't like how some immediately accused (although others say speculate) Tristar of using UD USA sigs when clearly that is not the case.


Thanks for taking the time to address in a civil way. Much appreciated

predatorkj

The players in question did not sign any autographs knowingly for tristar, that much is clear. This is a loop hole that is unique to tristar and companies without that milb license could not do this in the same manner. The contracts are exclusive in that no other company can sign any of thier players to an autograph or image rights contract. That fact has been tested and proven in the case of Wade Miley.

I hate loop holes. I also hate Flint Mich.

 

[predatorkj]

Predator, I understand what you mean. I too thought exclusive meant absolutely no where else. I assumed (and I guess I was wrong for assuming) that exclusivity meant there wouldn't be any other way any other company could package auto cards. I am NOT saying I was misled. I am saying I assumed.

Whether the player sat there and signed on the card or not may or may not make a difference for some. For some that say they only want on-card and cut autos (ie Beckham for TriStar) are garbage because cut autos blow, my only response would be --------- why the love for cut autos in Oval Office? (thought cut autos blow?)


Also, are we 100% positive we know where TriStars got the autos? I know initially the popular answer was that they cut up UD USA cards (which would be a wrong accusation) T

To anyone who gets upset at OP for asking question ------One must keep in mind that questions like this will come up from newbies. Just like they say on radio, you have a new listener every few minutes so don't assume all understand what the conversation is about.

Totally totally totally not trying to cause problems here. I just wanted to say that I see both sides (one side that predator not crazy, other side that Razor has exclusivity on on cards with some)

Trapped sigs blow. But in the case of oval office there are no other options. It isn't like you can get a george washington on card.

No doubt about not being able to get on-card for Oval. That is obvious. I guess my comment was more towards those that easily rip on trapped autos in other products but then drool when they see cut auto in Oval. I enjoy wtaching the Oval breaks. History teacher here

Exclusivity does not stop people from obtaining sigs and putting them in their product. If donruss wanted to they could buy index card sigs of anyone and stick them in thier product. Although without image rights they couldn't use a picture of the player at all. Tristar a special in with minor league baseball where they can use the images and there isn't a thing anyone can do about that.


Understand that now. I guess when I committed to the 17 boxes I ASSUMED exclusive meant total exclusive. Lesson learned not to research more

We don't know how tristar got the autographs, we think they were done at private signings. It wouldn't benefit razor at all to sell them autographs, and if they did sell surely there would be more autographs in then they have. This theory just is not believable to me.

I didn't even know some had a theory that Razor sold any autos. I just don't like how some immediately accused (although others say speculate) Tristar of using UD USA sigs when clearly that is not the case.


Thanks for taking the time to address in a civil way. Much appreciated

predatorkj

The players in question did not sign any autographs knowingly for tristar, that much is clear. This is a loop hole that is unique to tristar and companies without that milb license could not do this in the same manner. The contracts are exclusive in that no other company can sign any of thier players to an autograph or image rights contract. That fact has been tested and proven in the case of Wade Miley.

I hate loop holes. I also hate Flint Mich.

Yeah...thanks for being civil about it Chris.

I understand what Tristar did but to me that kinda killed what I thought exclusive meant and for that very reason it turned me off.I was not aware at the time that they could do this legally but apparently they can through the loopholes.But the damage in my mind is done because you still end up with two choices instead of just one.I feel bad for Razor because I am not sure if they foresaw this or not but I would like to hope it will eventually iron itself out.But...about the only way that will happen is if the players are told they cannot sign anything for anyone other than razor.Otherwise there will always be media there for Tristar to purchase and utilize.

 

[cgilmo]

there are 5 brett wallace autographs in the entire product


where is the choice there?

 

[matchpenalty]

You have to know their are always exceptions that can happen to every exclusive type deal. I'm one of the few that collects both cards and full game used stuff. I follow that stuff real close. The same debates happen in game used circles with Yankees/Red Sox game used stuff. Steiner Sports has exclusive contracts with both teams to market and sell the teams game used jerseys, bats ect. Does stuff escape the clubhouse and get sold outside of Steiner. Yes it does. It's impossible for them to watch every piece come into the clubhouse and what every player may be doing with jerseys, bats ect. The good thing is you know the stuff from Steiner is sourced straight from the team and comes with their paperwork holograms and is legit. Big debates always come up with AROD Texas Rangers jerseys. The Rangers had an exclusive deal with MeiGray at the time and AROD was backdooring stuff left and right outside that contract.

 

[predatorkj]

there are 5 brett wallace autographs in the entire product


where is the choice there?

I am not talking about Brett Wallace in particular.Anyways...wasn't he available via Upper Deck USA?

 

[cgilmo]

there are 5 brett wallace autographs in the entire product


where is the choice there?

I am not talking about Brett Wallace in particular.Anyways...wasn't he available via Upper Deck USA?

yes

there are about 40 Tim Beckhams as well

 

[predatorkj]

there are 5 brett wallace autographs in the entire product


where is the choice there?

I am not talking about Brett Wallace in particular.Anyways...wasn't he available via Upper Deck USA?

yes

there are about 40 Tim Beckhams as well

My point exactly.As long as there is a loophole...then none of these players will be totally exclusive.The only debate then is which card or cards are more preferrable.But by definition...if your exclusive...then you have no cards from any other company.If your autos are supposed to be exclusive(as was the case) then there should be no other autos.

Honestly...it doesn't bug me that much.Its not even a big deal.