Wow... explain THIS Topps!

[poppudaimadochi]

Why not just put "PENDING" next to the name of a player on the preliminary checklist who has yet to send back the cards at the time the preliminary list is sent out? I can't imagine that would be too difficult for them to do. At least that way people will have an idea of whose cards may not actually be in there. Either that, or just don't put the name on the list at all and if they happen to come in, then just pack them in anyway and/or update people via their website/email/twitter/etc.

The cards would have to be produced and ready to ship so much in advance that people would complain that it takes too much time to make a product. By your rule, they would have to put "pending" next to every name on the checklist; instead, they write that the checklist is preliminary and subject to change...

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

The cards would have to be produced and ready to ship so much in advance that people would complain that it takes too much time to make a product. By your rule, they would have to put "pending" next to every name on the checklist; instead, they write that the checklist is preliminary and subject to change...

Well, it's not a rule, just an off the cuff idea. Ultimately, as far as I can tell in this hobby anyway, it doesn't really matter what happens as people are going to complain regardless of what happens.

 

[predatorkj]

Generally redemptions have language that says a suitable replacement will be sent, yada yada yada... which will usually be another auto.

Interestingly this is an area - the legalese - where manufacturers are very business-like and professional! Its just that redemption holders normally don't get it and don't understand what a redemption really is.

Yeah but that's only half the issue. What about sell sheets that say an athletes auto will be in the product and you preorder like six cases, and instead of pulling his auto, you pull a redemption for his auto that eventually never gets made. How is that not screwed up? Add to that that topps is now giving away these generic unaffiliated autos of players as replacements. Now topps really has zero incentive to create a card, even if the athlete returns the stickers. What I'm saying is there is now the ability to put a card or an auto on the sell sheet with no intention of it ever being made, yet at the same time, using said card or auto to lure in preorders.

I'm not going to accuse topps of actually putting cards or autos on the sell sheet they don't "intend" to make. But the ability is there. Thats scary. And nobody seems bothered by it.

As far as redemptions themselves go and what a person is entitled to, to me that is debatable. On one hand they do reserve the right for a replacement. On the other hand value is rarely considered. And no, I'm not talking about these folks that want a Albert Pujols or Harper auto as a replacement for their Delwyn Young auto. I'm talking about people who get a Pujols or Harper redemption and topps wants to send them a David Justice auto from a product that doesn't even exist...

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Yeah but that's only half the issue. What about sell sheets that say an athletes auto will be in the product and you preorder like six cases, and instead of pulling his auto, you pull a redemption for his auto that eventually never gets made. How is that not screwed up? Add to that that topps is now giving away these generic unaffiliated autos of players as replacements. Now topps really has zero incentive to create a card, even if the athlete returns the stickers. What I'm saying is there is now the ability to put a card or an auto on the sell sheet with no intention of it ever being made, yet at the same time, using said card or auto to lure in preorders.

I'm not going to accuse topps of actually putting cards or autos on the sell sheet they don't "intend" to make. But the ability is there. Thats scary. And nobody seems bothered by it.

As far as redemptions themselves go and what a person is entitled to, to me that is debatable. On one hand they do reserve the right for a replacement. On the other hand value is rarely considered. And no, I'm not talking about these folks that want a Albert Pujols or Harper auto as a replacement for their Delwyn Young auto. I'm talking about people who get a Pujols or Harper redemption and topps wants to send them a David Justice auto from a product that doesn't even exist...

In the end we're talking about chump change - how much are the vast majority of these autos worth? Less than $20? $30? Someone who's really that upset could simply take the manufacturer to court to let a judge decide if the terms of the redemption 'contract' have been broken... but there's little incentive to do so because court fees usually exceed the value of the auto itself.

Frankly is it worth complaining about a few bucks difference if you knew the redemption terms and what others have experienced?

Redemptions are just another way in which manufacturers give people cards they want - before what people want has even been created. But this is a theme in cards - consider minor league players wearing major league jerseys on cards before the players reach the major leagues

 

[RStadlerASU22]

Generally redemptions have language that says a suitable replacement will be sent, yada yada yada... which will usually be another auto.

Interestingly this is an area - the legalese - where manufacturers are very business-like and professional! Its just that redemption holders normally don't get it and don't understand what a redemption really is.

If they handled the substitution and time it takes to get said substitution there would be less complaining about them. If redemptions are here to stay (I am sure they are) there should be a max time to receive an item. It's been a while since I had a big redemption issue as I stay away, but as some state here they have been waiting years. That shouldn't be legal for a company to hold it hostage. They should have for example 3 months from date of release to fill it with the card that it was supposed to be for. Then after 3 months of the product being out and they don't have that item, they should 1. Post it somewhere that that item is not going to be filled with that card so people may be able to avoid buying the redemption 2. Immediately start filling in w replacements after that 3 months and forward from that point
3. There shouldn't be an expiration on redemptions
4. This would help sell wax that has redemptions in 10 years etc, as long as the company is in business the redemptions should be filled either w the card it should have been or a replacement




Ryan

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

If they handled the substitution and time it takes to get said substitution there would be less complaining about them. If redemptions are here to stay (I am sure they are) there should be a max time to receive an item. It's been a while since I had a big redemption issue as I stay away, but as some state here they have been waiting years. That shouldn't be legal for a company to hold it hostage. They should have for example 3 months from date of release to fill it with the card that it was supposed to be for. Then after 3 months of the product being out and they don't have that item, they should 1. Post it somewhere that that item is not going to be filled with that card so people may be able to avoid buying the redemption 2. Immediately start filling in w replacements after that 3 months and forward from that point
3. There shouldn't be an expiration on redemptions
4. This would help sell wax that has redemptions in 10 years etc, as long as the company is in business the redemptions should be filled either w the card it should have been or a replacement

Ryan

This is certainly reasonable (although there have to be expirations) - I'd think the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) should provide guidance here.

 

[notjomommasclint]

Redemptions suck *****. Posting the odds and the boilerplate on the back of the redemption cover topps ass.

The fact that they feel no need to rectify the shortcomings of the system shows they give zero XXXXs.

While I don't think there is an exact way to pin topps down for changes outside of a hobby wide boycott.. A few hundred complaints to the BBB and all the negative press that can be heaped on them will garner some attention from someone..

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Wallet. Close it.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Redemptions suck *****. Posting the odds and the boilerplate on the back of the redemption cover topps ass.

The fact that they feel no need to rectify the shortcomings of the system shows they give zero XXXXs.

While I don't think there is an exact way to pin topps down for changes outside of a hobby wide boycott.. A few hundred complaints to the BBB and all the negative press that can be heaped on them will garner some attention from someone..

Interesting, but this is what the press would make hobbyists look like as a result.

 

[Ty Hope]

This thread is completely useless - - - read the terms of the redemption on the BACK in order to see exactly what the redemption holder is entitled to.

The redemption holder agrees to abide by the terms of the redemption agreement when the redemption holder turns the redemption in.

I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for anyone who thinks they should get more than what they agree to when they submit the redemption.

Sooo.... It's OK for them to include Silva in NEW 2013 products and just say F you to those waiting on basically the same card from 3 years before? Just no...

 

[Ty Hope]

In case my argument isn't clear, I DO understand the wording on the back of redemptions and I am cool with replacements every now and then (if athletes don't sign, etc.).

The problem here is that Silva DID sign (on-card) for a newer product, and not the older one. HOW DO YOU DEFEND THAT!?

 

[BBCgalaxee]

Complaining to bbb does nothing.

Topps had an F & nothing has change.

The only way change can really happen is through full licensed competition, but that won't happen because mlb "KNOWS" what the collector wants.

 

[Ty Hope]

This is how I imagine Topps sees it:

"We already have their money for 2010, so screw them. Let's put Silva on-card in 2013 to sell more. What if they complain? Who cares! They'll eventually settle for something else and we can dump some stockroom inventory on them. WINNING!"

Someone please tell me in anyway how my logic is flawed. Anxiously awaiting answers from Topps defenders.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

This is how I imagine Topps sees it:

"We already have their money for 2010, so screw them. Let's put Silva on-card in 2013 to sell more. What if they complain? Who cares! They'll eventually settle for something else and we can dump some stockroom inventory on them. WINNING!"

Someone please tell me in anyway how my logic is flawed. Anxiously awaiting answers from Topps defenders.

Its not a defense per se, but they're not organized to handle these issues in a business-like way, rather a 'hobby-like' way.

But we all know this, so the issue with redemptions comes down to expectations about Topps and about the hobby in general.

 

[Ty Hope]

BUT THEY HAD HIM DO A SIGNING!! And instead of fulfilling what people are rightfully owed, they flat out said F THEM and had Silva sign new stuff.

It's a flat out con.

 

[matfanofold]

Sports cards is the only market that can advertise and sell a product, then insert IOU's for which you may or may not ever get. Once IOU's became the norm and not the exception, this is when the hobby somewhat spoiled for me as well. I really could care less of the logistics involved and how "it's a necessity". It's only 'necessary' if you're advertising and trying to sell a product you do not have, nor are sure you can provide. Blame the players, blame the mail, blah blah blah, at the end of the day there is only one party responsible for advertising and selling something they do not actually have. A debate here is fruitless, it's not about what I want or the state of the hobby, it's about constantly and consistently ripping off paying customers with IOU's that go unfulfilled (or unsatisfactorily replaced) routinely.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

You're assuming they even knew there were outstanding redemptions for this guy, and that the card stock still existed after 3 years. Big ifs for a card manufacturer, especially one that produces millions of different cards every year.

If they were business-like they'd know about the status of that redemption, but as we've seen they're more hobby-like. As we all know this disposition is common among all major manufacturers.

I'm not sure how much your fulfilled redemption would've been worth, but it seems many of the guy's autos go for around 20 bucks (?)

 

[Ty Hope]

If they can't keep track of owed redemptions, that is just simply embarrassing.

As for Silva, he is the greatest active MMA fighter and one of the best of all time. He does not have many on-card autos at all. Also, the one I'm waiting on is a silver ink auto from a limited sub-set that is extremely popular. #d to 99. It is worth much more than $20...

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Maybe embarrassing for a huge business enterprise, not so much for a company that makes baseball cards. But then again it comes down to expectations

I don't see his completed stuff being expensive, but I don't know what's considered expensive here.

 

[predatorkj]

Unique...come on man. Who cares what the auto goes for? The point is, the OP has a very legitimate beef and it's one we've seen a lot of times before. And it would be very easy for topps to have a computerized database of athletes and even non-athletes that they have sign cards or stickers. And every time they get on it, they should have a red dot next to guys who still have outstanding stickers/cards to return. I mean, these people are being paid for these autos. That would be like me spending thousands of dollars on ebay and not ever bothering to make sure I got what I paid for. Who does that? And your other argument is like saying, oh well, I got another card or auto of the same guy I didn't get before so it's all good.

And embarrassing? Hell yes. It's beyond embarrassing. Sportscards are still a multimillion dollar business are they not? I could care less what the media would make collectors out to be. It's a big business now and it should be taken seriously. Most of the people who think it's dorky are ignorant anyways. They have no idea about the hobby at all. Not to mention most of their money is spent on purses, shoes, at the bar, on drugs, etc. Take it with a grain of salt.