|
Gum damaged back PSA 10?
What on earth is this.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2015-Topps-H...cAAOSwvjdZVBPw |
I believe it is the card collecting equivalent of when people would by new jeans with pre-torn holes.
Topps wants to help you relive that nostalgia of pulling a star card and finding gum stains on the back so in Topps Heritage you have.....factory generated faux gum stains! Doesn't it make you feel like a kid again? Enjoy! |
Next will be a card with solid color borders, but faux corner wear.
|
LOL, it is pretty creative, but I won't be impressed until they put the faux gum stains on the front of the card. :D
|
They call those cards "gum stained" or something like that out of the factory and therefore, the card is exactly as it came out of the pack. Guess what, nothing wrong with that grade as a 10. That is provided, all other aspects of a PSA 10 are met.
Rich |
That's the stupidest thing I've seen
Like paying extra for a bruised apple. |
Aside from the "gum stain" variation, they pay homage to printing errors of the past like "green tints," "photo variations," "Milton Bradley backs," etc in the Heritage series of cards. When they remade the 1962 set, they added a Jackie Robinson series for the cards where Babe Ruth was featured in the real Topps set.
Think of the gum stain cards like a colored refractor, because it's a base card parallel made in limited numbers. https://www.comc.com/Cards,sr,i100,=gum+heritage+2015 |
Quote:
|
https://www.comc.com/Cards,sc,=2011+...update,ot,i100
Most Topps cards made today have multiple parallels. They have the base flagship cards (nicknamed "paper" since they're not chrome) and then the chrome, refractor (rainbow effect tilted in light), and then multiple colored refractors. For 2016 Bowman Draft, here is the list: Parallels All 200 base cards are available in the following parallels. Silver (/499) Blue (/150) Green (/99) Gold (/50) Orange (serial-numbered to 25 copies) Red (serial-numbered to five) Black (one-of-one) Chrome As usual, the entire 200 card base set is also available in a Chrome version, which is also available in the following Refractor parallels. Refractor Sky Blue Refractor Purple Refractor (/250) Blue Refractor (/150) Green Refractor (/99) Gold Refractor (/50) Orange Refractor (serial-numbered to 25 copies) Red Refractor (serial-numbered to five) SuperFractor (one-of-one) http://www.baseballcardpedia.com/ind...raft#Parallels If you collect every refractor version of a single card, you have "completed the rainbow". I got a red refractor of 2015 bowman draft prospect Jordy Lara and I currently have like 20 versions of the same card. Missing the two 1/1s (superfractor and metallic paper), and a 1/5 red paper. To make it even more confusing/difficult, some of the parallels are only released in Japan. |
Quote:
I do absolutely love the look of all the different shiny cards. I just choose to not buy them. Instead I make my own new shiny cards based off of vintage cards I like. |
That's why I posted on the Heritage thread -- I preferred the early days when they kept the sets mucho simpler. This is too confusing/
Also, according to my LCS -- the 2017 wax boxes are over $125 wholesale if I recall correctly. It was some number which floored me. Rich |
Current wax prices is all because of Aaron Judge cards blowing up.
http://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1127517 ALLRISE is a reference to prices increasing because of Judge RC cards. |
I still think his 2016 topps now, issued after he was playing in the majors, should be a rookie card. I thought all the xrc crap from the 80 s was rejected.
|
The problem with Topps Now as a RC is that everyone is clued into Topps Now and not in a pack or a set. Perhaps we'll evolve on that someday but for now, the 2017 are rookie cards
I know, and if this situation was 25 years ago and this came up, we'd be having very serious discussions at Beckett about a possible RC definition change. There is no right answer as in 20 years your belief might be the accepted one so if you believe the 2016 Topps Now is the RC, an investment in that card would be a good gamble Rich |
Quote:
I guess you learn something new every day.... :p |
|
Quote:
|
I completely don't get the new artificial Topps and MLB mandated "RC" designations. I don't understand why the hobby wanted/let/or went along with being told what is and isn't a rookie card.
Now players who have had cards produced for years, the first year cards are not considered "Rookie Cards" by some modern collectors. I just don't get it. To me no 2017 Aaron Judge card is a rookie card. Only 2013 issues are. Why people pay more for 2017's than they do his earlier base issues from 2014, 2015, 2016 etc... doesn't make any sense to me. Just because it's been stamped with the RC mark. I admit that I think the RC logo is kinda cool looking and I wanted a 2017 Judge just because he's having an incredible year this year, but to me the 2013's are the RC's. Not to mention Judge debuted in 2016, and has lots of cards from 2016. For years the first cards pictured in a major league uniform or issued in sets with major leaguers were always considered by all to be rookies. By the new definition/rules all of Derek Jeters classic and iconic issues such as the SP, Stadium club, Topps etc... would not be Rookie cards. Should collectors really be paying more for his 1996 issues for his first full rookie season or his 1995 debut year? That's just silly. (There's tons of other players that fit into this situation too, but Jeter came to mind first). Rant over, I just don't get it. To me the Judge cards to get are the 2013's for sure. I have nothing against the RC logo, and like the look of it and have no issue with putting it on a players rookie year card. However, this does not make it a rookie card when a player has cards from earlier years. Rant over....curious how others view the subject. |
Rant continued (sorry)...
One more point: I actually think it's strictly a marketing ploy by Topps and MLB to generate more revenue and interest in cards. Now collectors can buy products to chase not only first year issue "RC"s but then one or several years later they can chase that players hot new issue with the official RC stamp on it! Genius! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yea makes no sense and wasn't that way until MLB and Topps created this RC logo, I believe. Which again, to me shows it's just a marketing tool. I feel that collectors should recognize their first cards as RC's as has been done forever. The 1992 Rivera, the 1993 Jeters, the 1985 Olympic McGwire, 1991 Chipper Jones, 1995 Vladimir Guerreros, 1999 Josh Hamiltons (debut 2007!) etc... There is a long and widely accepted view as those players first cards constituting their rookie cards. Why do collectors now discount cards issued years before to a players RC logo card, which often doesn't even coincide with their MLB debut year. Makes no sense at all. Arron Judge has tons of issues from 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Four full years of cards produced by major card producers with major leaguers in the sets. Now everyone has to flock to the 2017 (5th year!) issues to get a "Rookie" because it's been stamped with the logo? Successful marketing for sure I guess! Again, it's his 5th year of having major baseball card releases...that's half a decade of cards already! |
1 Attachment(s)
I could understand saying anything issued before his ML Debut is now considered a prerookie. That would at least be a new, consistent rule. But that isn't the case.
|
And it bring this back into the original point of the thread, the RC Logo is as much of an artificial manufactured marketing ploy as the "Faux gum damaged back".
I think over time collectors will hopefully sort out the true genuinely significant cards more as opposed to all the manufactured and contrived silliness that permeates the current hobby. |
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
And to complicate this mess a little more... check this out... ( think this could be a sleeper card, btw, I already bought a few so I'm good. I'd rather the N54 community buy up a couple first if I'm right.) The only 2016 Judge issued by Topps Stadium Club with the fabled and sought after RC Logo! I'm not sure how many people even realize this card exists. It was part of a limited 3 card Yankee team set as a prize for Yankees Legacy Club members. I think only certain season ticket holders could get it. There's also a Gary Sanchez and the other card is Ellsbury. |
Too bad his face is obscured though.
|
Yea, would definitely be better if it was a solo card with better photo. Still cool being from the big back to back homer moment of debut game.
|
It is simply not possible to have a 2016 and a 2017 RC. LOL.
|
Yeah I know. They created this RC logo to be specific to a certain year, I thought anyways? Then they have this obscure Judge 2016 RC, but every 2017 is also supposedly a RC.
I can't make any sense of it. I'll take the 2013 first year cards as Rookies myself. But I'm interested to see how everyone else views that 2016 with the RC logo and also the Topps nows as they were made on debut and post debut. |
1 Attachment(s)
This meets my criteria for an RC in the modern age -- ML uniform, post big league debut, major manufacturer.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:48 AM. |