UPDATE ON AFLAC FIASCO IN 2011 BDPP

[uniquebaseballcards]

Lots of people collect and prospect because they enjoy cards, not just for 'income'. Topps started to serial number their cards because people PREFERED them that way. Its nice to know that my Bryce Harper Aflac auto is more likely genuinely autographed BY Bryce Harper because of the serial numbering. As a baseball fan, that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. It's not a guarantee, but its nice. Not so i can sell it, but so i can have a cool card and believe in its legitimacy.

Now if i want an older Jason Heyward Aflac auto to go along with that, Topps didn't serialize those, so i have no idea if the auto i'm looking at was from a pack, or from the game, or from some pizza hut employee with a lumicolor pen. There's no warm fuzzy feeling with that card and Topps realized that and made it better in 2010.

To not do so in 2011 after setting the quality bar higher in 2010 is a dissappointment to people who enjoy their cards. It's a step down in quality. Topps doesn't HAVE to maintain the quality level they set in 2010, but as a customer its dissappointing.

Please stop assuming every prospect collector is only in it for the cash. Its insulting, it's old, its tired, it's played out.

Where did I say that? However its not hard to say that at least the majority of the time its true for prospectors.

Edit: Topps isn't solely limited to authenticating autos by serialization, no? Holos are often used.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Clearly uniquebaseballcards is clueless. The point here is that we've been down this road before and last year Topps promised that moving forward all AFLACs and NFL Rookie Premiere autos would be serial-numbered. So, yes they messed up. For anyone to stick up for Topps and say that they bear no responsibility for this debacle is delusional. There's no way they can fix this without screwing over a lot of people.

Isn't the primary issue people are concerned about is the authentication of autographs?

 

[Mudcatsfan]

Lots of people collect and prospect because they enjoy cards, not just for 'income'. Topps started to serial number their cards because people PREFERED them that way. Its nice to know that my Bryce Harper Aflac auto is more likely genuinely autographed BY Bryce Harper because of the serial numbering. As a baseball fan, that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. It's not a guarantee, but its nice. Not so i can sell it, but so i can have a cool card and believe in its legitimacy.

Now if i want an older Jason Heyward Aflac auto to go along with that, Topps didn't serialize those, so i have no idea if the auto i'm looking at was from a pack, or from the game, or from some pizza hut employee with a lumicolor pen. There's no warm fuzzy feeling with that card and Topps realized that and made it better in 2010.

To not do so in 2011 after setting the quality bar higher in 2010 is a dissappointment to people who enjoy their cards. It's a step down in quality. Topps doesn't HAVE to maintain the quality level they set in 2010, but as a customer its dissappointing.

Please stop assuming every prospect collector is only in it for the cash. Its insulting, it's old, its tired, it's played out.

Where did I say that? However its not hard to say that at least the majority of the time its true for prospectors.

Edit: Topps isn't solely limited to authenticating autos by serialization, no? Holos are often used.

I believe they've stopped using stickers all together in bowman chrome products. Haven't seen one in a while, but cant speak to the 2011 aflacs as i havent seen them in hand.

Do your question of "where did i say that",,,,,every post you make in a prospect topic reinforces this view, its soooo negative. What is the impetus for this negativity???

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I believe they've stopped using stickers all together in bowman chrome products. Haven't seen one in a while, but cant speak to the 2011 aflacs as i havent seen them in hand.

Do your question of "where did i say that",,,,,every post you make in a prospect topic reinforces this view, its soooo negative. What is the impetus for this negativity???

Where? Kindly provide an example.

My view is prospecting and investing makes cards more expensive...but we're getting off topic here.

 

[D-Lite]

The only "mistake" they made from your point of view was to not support the secondary market against dishonest sellers...but that's not their job. Their job is to make baseball cards...

No, their job is to make money. They make baseball cards to do so. And f'ing up a key product makes them less money in the future. I know, people will still buy this and always will, especially with their monopoly. But, when the day comes that MLB wakes up and allows other licenses in these poor QC issues will definitely impact Topps.

No, Topps is not a publicly traded company, and thus we only know their primary purpose is to make baseball cards and to abide by the terms of the MLB license when producing MLB cards; besides AFLAC doesn't have anything to do with MLB if I'm not mistaken. Licensing makes no difference - as we know all products sell out even with additional manufacturers anyway.

I don't think you read what you type.

The purpose of any business other than charity is to make money. Or else there is no business. I don't care how noble the cause. I'm an organic chemist, designing drugs that hopefully will help mankind. I hope something I worked on one day cures someone of something, no doubt. But I have this job because I'm good at it and thus it gives me the best chance to make the most money so I can buy the things I want which includes 3 en-route cases of BDP which are apparently loaded with screw ups that hurt the value of the item that I spent a good chunk of change that I worked hard to earn money to spend on (deliberate run-on to illustrate my point of cyclic economy of the the product and work).

I hemmed and hawed on this purchase, this vs buying singles of "my guys", thinking I'd branch out into some other players to collect. But because Topps f'd it up I not only lose some of the enjoyment of the cards (not the biggest deal in the world, given) and also some of the value is definitely lost should I pull a questionable card such as the "AFLAC".

And for the record, my company is not publicly traded. But if we didn't try to make money we'd all be out of a job.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

[quote="D-Lite":6ospirk7]

The only "mistake" they made from your point of view was to not support the secondary market against dishonest sellers...but that's not their job. Their job is to make baseball cards...

No, their job is to make money. They make baseball cards to do so. And f'ing up a key product makes them less money in the future. I know, people will still buy this and always will, especially with their monopoly. But, when the day comes that MLB wakes up and allows other licenses in these poor QC issues will definitely impact Topps.

No, Topps is not a publicly traded company, and thus we only know their primary purpose is to make baseball cards and to abide by the terms of the MLB license when producing MLB cards; besides AFLAC doesn't have anything to do with MLB if I'm not mistaken. Licensing makes no difference - as we know all products sell out even with additional manufacturers anyway.

I don't think you read what you type.

The purpose of any business other than charity is to make money. Or else there is no business. I don't care how noble the cause. I'm an organic chemist, designing drugs that hopefully will help mankind. I hope something I worked on one day cures someone of something, no doubt. But I have this job because I'm good at it and thus it gives me the best chance to make the most money so I can buy the things I want which includes 3 en-route cases of BDP which are apparently loaded with screw ups that hurt the value of the item that I spent a good chunk of change that I worked hard to earn money to spend on (deliberate run-on to illustrate my point of cyclic economy of the the product and work).

I hemmed and hawed on this purchase, this vs buying singles of "my guys", thinking I'd branch out into some other players to collect. But because Topps f'd it up I not only lose some of the enjoyment of the cards (not the biggest deal in the world, given) and also some of the value is definitely lost should I pull a questionable card such as the "AFLAC".

And for the record, my company is not publicly traded. But if we didn't try to make money we'd all be out of a job.[/quote:6ospirk7]

I understand what you wrote, which is why I said 'primary purpose' for the very reasons you cited

In any event perhaps you'd be more inclined to keep autos you pull instead of selling them? Sometimes there's a method to the madness out there.

 

[D-Lite]

[quote="D-Lite":1jdc5qf7]

The only "mistake" they made from your point of view was to not support the secondary market against dishonest sellers...but that's not their job. Their job is to make baseball cards...

No, their job is to make money. They make baseball cards to do so. And f'ing up a key product makes them less money in the future. I know, people will still buy this and always will, especially with their monopoly. But, when the day comes that MLB wakes up and allows other licenses in these poor QC issues will definitely impact Topps.

No, Topps is not a publicly traded company, and thus we only know their primary purpose is to make baseball cards and to abide by the terms of the MLB license when producing MLB cards; besides AFLAC doesn't have anything to do with MLB if I'm not mistaken. Licensing makes no difference - as we know all products sell out even with additional manufacturers anyway.

I don't think you read what you type.

The purpose of any business other than charity is to make money. Or else there is no business. I don't care how noble the cause. I'm an organic chemist, designing drugs that hopefully will help mankind. I hope something I worked on one day cures someone of something, no doubt. But I have this job because I'm good at it and thus it gives me the best chance to make the most money so I can buy the things I want which includes 3 en-route cases of BDP which are apparently loaded with screw ups that hurt the value of the item that I spent a good chunk of change that I worked hard to earn money to spend on (deliberate run-on to illustrate my point of cyclic economy of the the product and work).

I hemmed and hawed on this purchase, this vs buying singles of "my guys", thinking I'd branch out into some other players to collect. But because Topps f'd it up I not only lose some of the enjoyment of the cards (not the biggest deal in the world, given) and also some of the value is definitely lost should I pull a questionable card such as the "AFLAC".

And for the record, my company is not publicly traded. But if we didn't try to make money we'd all be out of a job.

I understand what you wrote, which is why I said 'primary purpose' for the very reasons you cited

In any event perhaps you'd be more inclined to keep autos you pull instead of selling them? Sometimes there's a method to the madness out there.[/quote:1jdc5qf7]
And I can't agree that it's their 'primary purpose'. It's a means to an end for them, as with any business.

I keep everything, unfortunately. To this date have yet to sell a single card via eBay or on the forums. That will change soon since I'll be inundated with the stuff, but I'm a collector above all. Which is why it pisses me off that Topps holds out players for the way-too-many releases they do and do too quickly to do right. No Bichette auto is really pissing me off, as are other tops draft guys that they're obviously withholding to MAKE MONEY NEXT YEAR. There is no other defensible reason they would withhold Rendon and Cole and the Yank's first pick from Draft. If their 'primary purpose' was to make baseball cards that matched the product they released, you know, DRAFT, wouldn't they include said players?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

[quote="D-Lite":3vi2rr9s]

[quote="D-Lite":3vi2rr9s]

The only "mistake" they made from your point of view was to not support the secondary market against dishonest sellers...but that's not their job. Their job is to make baseball cards...

No, their job is to make money. They make baseball cards to do so. And f'ing up a key product makes them less money in the future. I know, people will still buy this and always will, especially with their monopoly. But, when the day comes that MLB wakes up and allows other licenses in these poor QC issues will definitely impact Topps.

No, Topps is not a publicly traded company, and thus we only know their primary purpose is to make baseball cards and to abide by the terms of the MLB license when producing MLB cards; besides AFLAC doesn't have anything to do with MLB if I'm not mistaken. Licensing makes no difference - as we know all products sell out even with additional manufacturers anyway.

I don't think you read what you type.

The purpose of any business other than charity is to make money. Or else there is no business. I don't care how noble the cause. I'm an organic chemist, designing drugs that hopefully will help mankind. I hope something I worked on one day cures someone of something, no doubt. But I have this job because I'm good at it and thus it gives me the best chance to make the most money so I can buy the things I want which includes 3 en-route cases of BDP which are apparently loaded with screw ups that hurt the value of the item that I spent a good chunk of change that I worked hard to earn money to spend on (deliberate run-on to illustrate my point of cyclic economy of the the product and work).

I hemmed and hawed on this purchase, this vs buying singles of "my guys", thinking I'd branch out into some other players to collect. But because Topps f'd it up I not only lose some of the enjoyment of the cards (not the biggest deal in the world, given) and also some of the value is definitely lost should I pull a questionable card such as the "AFLAC".

And for the record, my company is not publicly traded. But if we didn't try to make money we'd all be out of a job.

I understand what you wrote, which is why I said 'primary purpose' for the very reasons you cited

In any event perhaps you'd be more inclined to keep autos you pull instead of selling them? Sometimes there's a method to the madness out there.[/quote:3vi2rr9s]
And I can't agree that it's their 'primary purpose'. It's a means to an end for them, as with any business.

I keep everything, unfortunately. To this date have yet to sell a single card via eBay or on the forums. That will change soon since I'll be inundated with the stuff, but I'm a collector above all. Which is why it pisses me off that Topps holds out players for the way-too-many releases they do and do too quickly to do right. No Bichette auto is really pissing me off, as are other tops draft guys that they're obviously withholding to MAKE MONEY NEXT YEAR. There is no other defensible reason they would withhold Rendon and Cole and the Yank's first pick from Draft. If their 'primary purpose' was to make baseball cards that matched the product they released, you know, DRAFT, wouldn't they include said players?[/quote:3vi2rr9s]

I'd certainly agree a good majority of businesses do exist primarily to make money. However there are plenty - tons - of for-profit businesses whose primary purpose and/or motivation is to perform a service or create a product and only make enough money to (hopefully) stay in business comfortably. I don't only mean mom-and-pop places, but we can visibly see the written values of these businesses listed in their mission statements.

In any case its just important for businesses (and people?) to do what they say they're going to do, ideally we'd all like for them to be transparent and honest in their going about it. One thing Topps always says is that they don't make any representations as to future value on the secondary market.

 

[JoshHamilton]

I agree with this. For those box busters that aren't part of a forum or do not following topps on facebook or twitter will be screwed on this deal. People are going to contact them to say that their card is fake because it does not have the holographic sticker on them and will severely devalue those cards.

Unfortunately Topps screwed up (again) and there really isn't anything they should do about this situation except fire their entire staff and start over.

To be fair, Topps, unlike all the sellers here, doesn't (and shouldn't) particularly care about the secondary market or think about helping sellers/investors/tertiary distributors sell in order to avoid conflicts of interest. As manufacturers, they're primary distributors and (quite literally) hold all the cards.

In general this is a good thing, from that vantage point Topps didn't screw anything up even if the tertiary distributors (aka ebay sellers, etc) don't like it.

I don't think I've ever read a competent post from you.

That's because he's never made a competent post

 

[Mudcatsfan]

To be fair, Topps, unlike all the sellers here, doesn't (and shouldn't) particularly care about the secondary market or think about helping sellers/investors/tertiary distributors sell. As manufacturers, they're primary distributors and (quite literally) hold all the cards.

In general this is a good thing, from that vantage point Topps didn't screw anything up even if the tertiary distributors (aka ebay sellers, etc) don't like it.

If Topps didn't screw up (making cards easy to forge) who did? It wasn't me. It wasn't buyers. It isn't the sellers. Topps constantly makes mistakes and this is one of them whether or not it pertains to them...because it pertains to a product they manufactured. Smell the coffee.

The only "mistake" they made from your point of view was to not support the secondary market against dishonest sellers...but that's not their job. Their job is to make baseball cards...

2010 Aflacs (serial numbered, collectors happy)

2011 Aflacs not numbered, collectors complain, TOPPS PUBLICLY SAYS THEY WILL TAKE MEASURES TO FIX THE MISTAKE

2012 Aflacs (To be realeased in May, shown online just within last day or two, clearly with serial numbering)

But you say the 2011 Aflacs were not a mistake.......because why exactly?

 

[Mudcatsfan]

[quote="uniquebaseballcards]
I'd certainly agree a good majority of businesses do exist primarily to make money. However there are plenty - tons - of for-profit businesses whose primary purpose and/or motivation is to perform a service or create a product and only make enough money to (hopefully) stay in business comfortably. I don't only mean mom-and-pop places, but we can visibly see the written values of these businesses listed in their mission statements.

In any case its just important for businesses (and people?) to do what they say they're going to do, ideally we'd all like for them to be transparent and honest in their going about it. One thing Topps always says is that they don't make any representations as to future value on the secondary market.[/quote]


You realize that a lawyer crafted that line to protect them against lawsuits, not because it's a 'core value' of the company.

Topps aint Google.

Do you think Topps is run by some Willy Wonka character that just wants to see the smiling faces on children?

 

[matfanofold]

I simply do not understand all this "Topps does not make any representation of market value...." nonsense. Of course they do not, they cant! But the overwhelming factor obviously being overlooked here(by some) is that their product in in FACT purchased (ecpecially their prospect products) by the majority with regards to secondary market value. Topps knows this, as does everyone here. So to assume a blunder like the Aflac fiasco is not a major blunder, one in which Topps is not pleased with, and one in which the consumers are equally put off by is fruitless. Topps knows that the inherent value of their product is perhaps the top draw to their product regardless of their legal disclaimer. Topps in in the business to make money, and to do this they have to limit the needless mistakes that take value away from their product. Do some really not understand this??

 

[Mudcatsfan]

I believe they've stopped using stickers all together in bowman chrome products. Haven't seen one in a while, but cant speak to the 2011 aflacs as i havent seen them in hand.

to your question of "where did i say that",,,,,every post you make in a prospect topic reinforces this view, its soooo negative. What is the impetus for this negativity???

Where? Kindly provide an example.

My view is prospecting and investing makes cards more expensive...but we're getting off topic here.

An example about you being negative about prospecting..........

Where can i find one......

Nothing at all against all those are are super-excited about BDP, but am I the only one who is not at all excited about this product? Of course it's a matter of personal choice and I'm not a prospector, but this product doesn't appeal to me in the least.

Am I alone?

I guess its entirely possible you'll be more excited about it after ten to fifteen or so years - after the players have developed?
Personally I prefer non-Bowman brands because I dislike MiLB players in MLB unis, but then again I don't know many people who have the time to keep up with MiLB *and* MLB players except for perhaps some people here.

Forum: Baseball Topic: Ali... Rose... Who should be next for Leaf?

uniquebaseballcards Post subject: Re: Ali... Rose... Who should be next for Leaf? Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:44 pm

A set of 'MiLB HOFers' that never played/didn't play more than a year in the MLB.


There's a common theme here, EVERY prospect thread i go into has you in it somewhere being negative.

In most cases if someone has a viewpoint i dont enjoy, its easy to avoid them. With you? You enter EVERY prospect related thread and bring negativity.

If you hate prospecting, & MILB players in MLB uniforms, JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. Let those of us who enjoy it do so.

You are like a soggy turd at the bottom of my bowl of cereal.

You even bag on rookie cards in threads about the 1990 Topps Set Variations!!!!!!



uniquebaseballcards Post subject: Re: 1990 Topps Jeff King "No White On Back" VariationPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:32 pm

Great article, what you wrote makes tons of sense and I agree with it. IMO the reason why this card may have gained some ("faux"?) prominence is because some segments of the hobby are trying to make the card "extra special" simply because it happens to be a rookie card.





Seriously though, i enjoy your posts.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

I simply do not understand all this "Topps does not make any representation of market value...." nonsense. Of course they do not, they cant! But the overwhelming factor obviously being overlooked here(by some) is that their product in in FACT purchased (ecpecially their prospect products) by the majority with regards to secondary market value. Topps knows this, as does everyone here. So to assume a blunder like the Aflac fiasco is not a major blunder, one in which Topps is not pleased with, and one in which the consumers are equally put off by is fruitless. Topps knows that the inherent value of their product is perhaps the top draw to their product regardless of their legal disclaimer. Topps in in the business to make money, and to do this they have to limit the needless mistakes that take value away from their product. Do some really not understand this??

Yes, I can tell. Sure, Topps certainly *could* make a representation of future value...however that will bring about a serious conflict of interest I'm not sure you understand. As a result Topps says they won't make *ANY* representations of future value. As long as Topps isn't putting fake autos on cards themselves, there's really no need for them to put authentication stickers on cards. If authentication is an issue for people, the market can adjust and begin to value slabbed copies of the card. Don't people normally slab cards from this set anyway?

Frankly not authenticating these autos is great for someone who is looking to pick them up on the cheap/wouldn't have been able to pick one up before.


Also, if I'm not mistaken, was AFLAC even on the original sell sheet?

 

[Jaypers]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, was AFLAC even on the original sell sheet?

Yep, it sure was.

 

[bballcardkid]

I simply do not understand all this "Topps does not make any representation of market value...." nonsense. Of course they do not, they cant! But the overwhelming factor obviously being overlooked here(by some) is that their product in in FACT purchased (ecpecially their prospect products) by the majority with regards to secondary market value. Topps knows this, as does everyone here. So to assume a blunder like the Aflac fiasco is not a major blunder, one in which Topps is not pleased with, and one in which the consumers are equally put off by is fruitless. Topps knows that the inherent value of their product is perhaps the top draw to their product regardless of their legal disclaimer. Topps in in the business to make money, and to do this they have to limit the needless mistakes that take value away from their product. Do some really not understand this??

Everyone understands that. The point is, even if they put out ****, the sheep will buy it.

God help me, I somewhat agree with unique on this (key word is somewhat). People can get all huffy and puffy about the flaws in Topps products all they want and we can have thread after thread showcasing their shortcomings, but until people start talking with their wallets, what incentive does Topps have to correct their mistakes? None. How many years in a row now have we heard complaints about surface scratches, roller marks, creased reverse surfaces, cocaine mimicking substances? These manufacturering flaws obviously affect secondary market as no buyers to put up with these types of issues, but have they affected Topps bottom line? Nope. Status quo unchanged.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

You realize that a lawyer crafted that line to protect them against lawsuits, not because it's a 'core value' of the company.

Topps aint Google.

Do you think Topps is run by some Willy Wonka character that just wants to see the smiling faces on children?

You do realize its a conflict of interest for Topps to not have that line, don't you?

I believe they've stopped using stickers all together in bowman chrome products. Haven't seen one in a while, but cant speak to the 2011 aflacs as i havent seen them in hand.

to your question of "where did i say that",,,,,every post you make in a prospect topic reinforces this view, its soooo negative. What is the impetus for this negativity???

Where? Kindly provide an example.

My view is prospecting and investing makes cards more expensive...but we're getting off topic here.

An example about you being negative about prospecting..........

Where can i find one......

Nothing at all against all those are are super-excited about BDP, but am I the only one who is not at all excited about this product? Of course it's a matter of personal choice and I'm not a prospector, but this product doesn't appeal to me in the least.

Am I alone?

I guess its entirely possible you'll be more excited about it after ten to fifteen or so years - after the players have developed?
Personally I prefer non-Bowman brands because I dislike MiLB players in MLB unis, but then again I don't know many people who have the time to keep up with MiLB *and* MLB players except for perhaps some people here.

Forum: Baseball Topic: Ali... Rose... Who should be next for Leaf?

uniquebaseballcards Post subject: Re: Ali... Rose... Who should be next for Leaf? Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:44 pm

A set of 'MiLB HOFers' that never played/didn't play more than a year in the MLB.

There's a common theme here, EVERY prospect thread i go into has you in it somewhere being negative.

In most cases if someone has a viewpoint i dont enjoy, its easy to avoid them. With you? You enter EVERY prospect related thread and bring negativity.

If you hate prospecting, & MILB players in MLB uniforms, JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. Let those of us who enjoy it do so.

You are like a soggy turd at the bottom of my bowl of cereal.

You even bag on rookie cards in threads about the 1990 Topps Set Variations!!!!!!

uniquebaseballcards Post subject: Re: 1990 Topps Jeff King "No White On Back" VariationPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:32 pm

Great article, what you wrote makes tons of sense and I agree with it. IMO the reason why this card may have gained some ("faux"?) prominence is because some segments of the hobby are trying to make the card "extra special" simply because it happens to be a rookie card.

Seriously though, i enjoy your posts.

OK, you're more than a little weird, there's nothing negative here. To be fair however, unlike yourself apparently I don't constantly promote it or look at it through rosy-colored glasses.

Among the topics above, you really wouldn't want to see a set of MiLB HOF-type players?? It would be great to see a set of Crash Davis types who were important to their teams for long stretches of time, never have had anything more than a team-issued card and on the verge of being forgotten. Shame on you.

 

[Mudcatsfan]

You realize that a lawyer crafted that line to protect them against lawsuits, not because it's a 'core value' of the company.

Topps aint Google.

Do you think Topps is run by some Willy Wonka character that just wants to see the smiling faces on children?

You do realize its a conflict of interest for Topps to not have that line, don't you?

I believe they've stopped using stickers all together in bowman chrome products. Haven't seen one in a while, but cant speak to the 2011 aflacs as i havent seen them in hand.

to your question of "where did i say that",,,,,every post you make in a prospect topic reinforces this view, its soooo negative. What is the impetus for this negativity???

Where? Kindly provide an example.

My view is prospecting and investing makes cards more expensive...but we're getting off topic here.

An example about you being negative about prospecting..........

Where can i find one......

Nothing at all against all those are are super-excited about BDP, but am I the only one who is not at all excited about this product? Of course it's a matter of personal choice and I'm not a prospector, but this product doesn't appeal to me in the least.

Am I alone?

I guess its entirely possible you'll be more excited about it after ten to fifteen or so years - after the players have developed?
Personally I prefer non-Bowman brands because I dislike MiLB players in MLB unis, but then again I don't know many people who have the time to keep up with MiLB *and* MLB players except for perhaps some people here.

Forum: Baseball Topic: Ali... Rose... Who should be next for Leaf?

uniquebaseballcards Post subject: Re: Ali... Rose... Who should be next for Leaf? Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:44 pm

A set of 'MiLB HOFers' that never played/didn't play more than a year in the MLB.

There's a common theme here, EVERY prospect thread i go into has you in it somewhere being negative.

In most cases if someone has a viewpoint i dont enjoy, its easy to avoid them. With you? You enter EVERY prospect related thread and bring negativity.

If you hate prospecting, & MILB players in MLB uniforms, JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. Let those of us who enjoy it do so.

You are like a soggy turd at the bottom of my bowl of cereal.

You even bag on rookie cards in threads about the 1990 Topps Set Variations!!!!!!

uniquebaseballcards Post subject: Re: 1990 Topps Jeff King "No White On Back" VariationPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:32 pm

Great article, what you wrote makes tons of sense and I agree with it. IMO the reason why this card may have gained some ("faux"?) prominence is because some segments of the hobby are trying to make the card "extra special" simply because it happens to be a rookie card.

Seriously though, i enjoy your posts.

OK, you're more than a little weird, there's nothing negative here. To be fair however, unlike yourself apparently I don't constantly promote it or look at it through rosy-colored glasses.

Among the topics above, you really wouldn't want to see a set of MiLB HOF-type players?? It would be great to see a set of Crash Davis types who were important to their teams for long stretches of time, never have had anything more than a team-issued card and on the verge of being forgotten. Shame on you.

If it were a conflict of interest to not have that statement why did that used to be part of their sales pitch?

You yourself have posted about the bowman $125 guarantee posts. That's specificialy making guarantees of future value. They then decided that was a bad idea and stopped.

Do you just take contrary positions for the heck of it?

Soggy turd in my cereal.

 

[Jaypers]

Do you just take contrary positions for the heck of it?

That would be a Novell concept.