Some of these buybacks are a bit silly

[G1911]

I don't know if this belongs here or in the modern forum.... I'm not against buybacks, they might help bring more people into vintage land. I generally don't like the buyback stamp, feels like damaging a vintage card. Regardless of how one feels, this one was amusing to come across. Fergie just can't get no respect. You'd think they place it in one of the top corners.

[Gorditadogg]

That is messing up a nice card. That used to show 3 great close-up portraits of hall of fame pitchers. What a shame.

[swarmee]

Boog got hit by the foil stamp as well:


2020 Topps Heritage - 1971 Buybacks #63 - AL RBI Leaders (Frank Howard, Tony Conigliaro, Boog Powell)
Courtesy of COMC.com

[deweyinthehall]

I never understood why Topps felt they had to foil stamp them - why couldn't they, or wouldn't they, simply insert the cards raw? Sort of like they did in 1991?

Wait - I think I can answer my own question - by stamping them it makes them their own "set" and will encourage people to buy more product...does that make any sense? Because the more I think about, it really doesn't to me any more.

[JollyElm]

Yeah, it still annoys me a little when I remember pulling this one out of a pack...

1952mantlebuyback.jpg

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Yeah, it still annoys me a little when I remember pulling this one out of a pack...

Attachment 495767

Well, it was creased anyway so at best it'd be filler right??

[G1911]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I never understood why Topps felt they had to foil stamp them - why couldn't they, or wouldn't they, simply insert the cards raw? Sort of like they did in 1991?

Wait - I think I can answer my own question - by stamping them it makes them their own "set" and will encourage people to buy more product...does that make any sense? Because the more I think about, it really doesn't to me any more.

Personally, I agree. I know 1971 Topps commons aren't worth much, these Leaders aren't worth more than maybe $1, but it still doesn't feel right to damage them. I like buybacks as they did in 1991, or as they did for Topps 206 where you could easily just take the buyback out of it's frame and restore it's natural state. It's cool to insert them, but I wish they would do it without the damaging stamp. If they are going to use the stamp, just a tiny bit of attention to where they stamp it would be nice...

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

Personally, I agree. I know 1971 Topps commons aren't worth much, these Leaders aren't worth more than maybe $1, but it still doesn't feel right to damage them. I like buybacks as they did in 1991, or as they did for Topps 206 where you could easily just take the buyback out of it's frame and restore it's natural state. It's cool to insert them, but I wish they would do it without the damaging stamp. If they are going to use the stamp, just a tiny bit of attention to where they stamp it would be nice...

The 1991 Buy Backs were TERRIBLE. How could you tell the difference between a buyback and an original card?. A friend of mine pulled a 1989 common in those packs and a card which should have had value had NO VALUE. They had to do something going forward to ensure value for those cards.

I wlll agree that is not messed with (there is a thread on 54 about someone who made "fake" Topps 206 buybacks) those cards are well done.