Some of these buybacks are a bit silly

[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.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

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.

Well, there WAS no difference between a buyback and an original in 1991 - the inserts WERE original. Just like they're originals now as buy-backs, although marred by a stamp - they're all just original cards. Their value - whether a 1989 common or 1967 SP hi number, would be the same whether you pulled it from a pack or bought it in a LCS.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Well, there WAS no difference between a buyback and an original in 1991 - the inserts WERE original. Just like they're originals now as buy-backs, although marred by a stamp - they're all just original cards. Their value - whether a 1989 common or 1967 SP hi number, would be the same whether you pulled it from a pack or bought it in a LCS.

And that's why those cards needed stamps -- and I suggested at the time a price "cap" for the stampings. On a level to get collectors interested, you had to have some way to tell the difference. That way there would be extra value out of the packs. I know, and I have never pulled a buyback from a 1991 pack, if I pulled a 1989 Tommy Herr card (for example) and there was no way to tell the difference I'd be really upset. I just pulled a very tough insert which is practically worthless when they should be worth a few dollars. You had to come up with some way, and the 2014 Topps 75 buybacks are good examples, of making it obvious this is a buy back but not have the stamp interfere with the card

[BobC]

It's kind of a bit on par with the cutting up of bats and jerseys to make limited edition cards simply for profit reasons. Many people find that practice reprehensible, as many also do the marking up of such buyback cards. Just another chapter in the ongoing saga of collectors versus investors it seems.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by BobC

It's kind of a bit on par with the cutting up of bats and jerseys to make limited edition cards simply for profit reasons. Many people find that practice reprehensible, as many also do the marking up of such buyback cards. Just another chapter in the ongoing saga of collectors versus investors it seems.

I am not an "investor" so I object to that term. I do believe the stamped cards are much scarcer than the base 1969 cards so there is some long-term value in them. But they are never got to put anyone through college it's just a $1 1969 Common might end being $5-10 with those stamps.

And for those who get really upset, I'll pay 10 cents each for any Topps buyback card with those stamps which upset you all so much

Rich

[G1911]

If our primary focus is on how to manufacture value for a 50 cent card, and being frustrated if the card is not worth more because it was bought back by a company, that seems the realm of the investor and not the collector, as this is about creating money and not enjoying the card that is damaged and altered in the effort to manufacture said scarcity.

It's scarcity manufactured decades after issue. If people want to collect that, good for them. It seems silly to me. I don't think anyone is "really upset" by it, just don't see it as reasoned.

[Rich Klein]

I will also state that for the card companies, they are doing this to add "value" to their packs and if so, then you need to come up with a way to show the value is added. That is another reason why the stamping is needed in their eyes so they can show the value.

They also purchase these cards on the secondary market, usually from a specific dealer or two or so, and again that is a cost.

For them, the stamping on the cards makes sense because it shows what product (s) the cards are included with. And frankly if you don't like the stamping, there are tons of those 1971 Leader Cards with no stamping so just get one of those

And I'm sorry for those who don't understand some of the logic from the card companies point of view (and I talked to them back in the day about that) including what was in my opinion, the debacle of the 1991 buybacks.

But if I'm a card company and I purchase some 1982 Topps Card sets to put into 2022 packs (40th anniversary) I'm going to ensure the collectors know it is a special card. I will also state that either Cal Ripken card, because of the value and possibly the 1982 Topps Traded Ozzie Smith card would NOT be stamped because of the book value. That's what I mean by a market cap on stamping the cards. But if I get a 1982 John Tudor card with a stamp, I've just added to the value and have no compunctions about putting that stamp on that card nor purchasing it as a collector

And to repeat, if you really don't like them and have some, I'm happy to pay 10 cents each to take those cards off your hands

Rich

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I am not an "investor" so I object to that term. I do believe the stamped cards are much scarcer than the base 1969 cards so there is some long-term value in them. But they are never got to put anyone through college it's just a $1 1969 Common might end being $5-10 with those stamps.

And for those who get really upset, I'll pay 10 cents each for any Topps buyback card with those stamps which upset you all so much

Rich

Rich, No one is saying you aren't a collector, but then you make the comment "I do believe the stamped cards are much scarcer than the base 1969 cards so there is some long-term value in them.", which is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect an investor to say. In the meantime, a collector actually working on a vintage 1969 set likely wouldn't want that buyback card because it now has some stamp on it. And that 1969 vintage collector wouldn't have been buying those packs in hopes of pulling one of those buyback cards to begin with either. So your comment about paying $0.10 for each stamped buyback card from such collectors makes no sense, because they aren't going to have them to begin with. But you making the sarcastic comment about buying them all for so little after saying they all could be worth $5-$10 one day, is also indicative of exactly what a card flipper or investor would say and do, not what a true collector would say or do. The true collector would rather have the original 1969 card, unaltered and unstamped, because that's what they collect.

And so what if a stamped 1969 card is going to be scarcer than a base 1969 card? What you've succeeded in doing is reducing the actual number of real vintage 1969 cards out there that a true collector could go after to complete their vintage 1969 set. If Topps wanted to create a manufactured rarity they could insert into packs to increase sales, that was based on their 1969 set, why not just create 1969 reprint cards and number them sequentially to some small amount, and create the scarce insert cards they wanted that way? Why did they have to basically destroy vintage 1969 cards to do this?

I wonder how much you'd get screamed at if you were making the same statements and comments in regards to the 2002 Topps 206 buyback inserts of T206 cards, if Topps had put some stamp or mark on them as opposed to the ingenious way they put them into those regular size card holders they came up with. Those T206 buyback cards are untouched and unaltered, and any T206 collector could easily break one out of those holders Topps put them in, and then put it with the rest of their T206 collection and have no complaints.

Now don't go telling me that it's different for 1969 Topps cards because they're worth so little compared to T206 cards. Because when you're talking about a true collector, it's not necessarily supposed to be about the money. But if that's an argument you'd try using then it would sure as heck sound like you're making it about money, which would certainly sound more like an investor than a collector to every normal person out there.

So you can go ahead and claim you're not an investor (which I never said you were), but then someone goes reading your comments where it seems to somehow keep coming back to having something to do with the money...............well, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck.............guess what?

[deweyinthehall]

Not to mention it makes life tough for those of us who collect individual players - not enough that I need a guy's 1976 and 1977 Topps cards, now I need them in their buy back version, in Gold, Bronze and Silver stamped varieties over several years....argh!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

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.

That’s precisely why I’d like them that way - it’s getting the original card without damaging stamps being added. It should just be the original card. It shouldn’t have extra value because it’s been placed in a different pack. Manufacturing fake “scarcity” I’m not a fan of. I’m sure the stamps lead to more profit, but I’d rather the original cards not be damaged and altered.

[mrmopar]

I agree that if you are packing out random older "buyback" cards, the foil or embossed stamps are the only way to go. What I don't agree with is the utter crap condition of some of the cards. Heavily creased cards do not belong in a pack, ever! I also am not a fan of some of the foil placement, but guessing those were probably fed into a machine. Poop planning for sure on some of them.

Especially with the more valuable cards, they do create a false scarcity by stamping them, as clearly there are always going to me 1000s of unstamped cards to choose from and only a handful of stamped versions. A 1975 Topps Steve Garvey might set someone back $1. Stamp it and it could sell for $40! Topps doesn't make the extra money on those resales, but it is incentive to bust more packs.

Personally, I like them. They are unique and isn't that what cards were meant for to begin with, to get you to buy something else (The Gum). Now the inserts are getting us to buy the packs, since the gum is no longer the draw (or even available any more).

Not as many folks complaining when they inserted signed 1961 Topps Hank Aaron cards instead of having him sign some see-through stickers though!

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

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.

[mrmopar]

I had not read all the comments when I responded.

"True Collector" - What is the definition of that again?

I have always considered myself a true collector. I have sold very little over the 40+ years i have been collecting cards and although value does play a role, it must, it is not the reason why I buy these collectibles. I am still debating whether or not to try to sell my stuff, because my hopes that my boys would want it is in limbo now, as neither seems to care one bit at 17 and 19.

I started in 1978 and have dabbled in a little of just about everything. I have spent a lot of money, most of it since ebay became "the place". Still, probably peanuts compared to the "true collectors" who own a PSA 10 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles and other extremely expensive cards!

At some point, I decided to collect anything Steve Garvey as a favorite focus, but still buy anything that catches my eye. Perhaps I am foolish to pay $10 for a stamped Topps buyback card, but I see the same thing as foolish when someone pays $10 for a short print common who played 1 season, when the rest of the cards in the set are $1. That doesn't make either collector any less "true". I gave up building sets, by the way, so commons are almost meaningless to me unless they are Dodgers.

There are plenty of money guys investing in new and vintage alike and it's all about the money. Stamping some vintage cards is harmless in my opinion, if it draws collectors to those cards. I would even go so far as to say, why cap the value? You can pretty much bet that a stamped buyback Mantle 52 Topps, if one existed, would sell for a premium when people are forking over $1000s for a partial card or one that is so heavily creased or worn that you can hardly tell what it was. Maybe that is true collecting to some, but it's foolish to many.

[BCauley]

Overall I think those stamps take away from the card itself, not a huge fan of them.

I believe it was last year when Topps put out their Topps 206 set, they inserted real T206 cards randomly in packs/boxes and at least two that I saw were serial numbered 1/1. Keep in mind that these were just common T206 cards with common backs. I don't know what they ended up selling for but one seller had his listed for $3,000 on ebay, for a T206 common, that Topps just imprinted a serial number. Made no sense to me and I would consider that a flaw on the card.

Back in 2004 or something I broke open a couple of boxes of the Topps Cracker Jack sets and was lucky enough to pull an actual Cracker Jack card though I can't remember if it was '14 or '15. There was no added stamp or anything done to it, it was just in a pack. In my opinion that's how it should be done.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

"True Collector" - What is the definition of that again?

This term boggles my mind as well and I don't understand why people put so much emphasis into it. It's usually used in comparison to an "investor" and just comes off as some sort of need for one to feel superior to the other. Why? I have no idea. Just do what you do.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BCauley

This term boggles my mind as well and I don't understand why people put so much emphasis into it. It's usually used in comparison to an "investor" and just comes off as some sort of need for one to feel superior to the other. Why? I have no idea. Just do what you do.

Bill,

I don't necessarily think it has to do with one group being or thinking they're better than another, at least it doesn't for me, but has more to do with how people view the hobby and the influence it ends up having on exactly what/how they collect.

With the recent price surges in cards, even a "true collector" now at least maybe has to start looking at the increasing value of their collection with an eye towards treating it as a type of investment after all. If for nothing more than to maybe plan what is to become of it when left to a surviving spouse, or other heirs.

I don't look down or feel superior to investors bidding on cards I need and want. I just hate them for running the prices up and outbidding me on seemingly everything I'm going after.

[G1911]

A collector and an investor are very different things, value different things (as this thread shows), and see things through different lenses. Neither is "superior" to the other; in fact me being a collector is measurably worse in that I gain no material benefit whatsoever. I lose a lot of money, an investor is here to demonstrably gain. To be cognizant that they are different things is not to say one is inferior.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by BobC

Bill,

I don't necessarily think it has to do with one group being or thinking they're better than another, at least it doesn't for me, but has more to do with how people view the hobby and the influence it ends up having on exactly what/how they collect.

With the recent price surges in cards, even a "true collector" now at least maybe has to start looking at the increasing value of their collection with an eye towards treating it as a type of investment after all. If for nothing more than to maybe plan what is to become of it when left to a surviving spouse, or other heirs.

I don't look down or feel superior to investors bidding on cards I need and want. I just hate them for running the prices up and outbidding me on seemingly everything I'm going after.

Yeah, I get that and totally understand. My reaction to the term stems from random people here and there I've seen comment on different venues of social media.

I totally get the cost frustration as well. It's definitely slowed me down in regards to buying cards. My goal coming back into the hobby about two years ago was to focus on HoFers from random sets but that's been put on the back burner for now. For a cheaper alternative, I think I'm going to go back and re-start a project I started about 10 years ago but never got really far as I left the hobby and sold everything off. The project being picking up a card of each professional baseball player that ever served in the military. Some HoFers in there but plenty of cards I can pick up on the cheap end and keep me busy until, hopefully, some stuff starts coming back down.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BCauley

Yeah, I get that and totally understand. My reaction to the term stems from random people here and there I've seen comment on different venues of social media.

I totally get the cost frustration as well. It's definitely slowed me down in regards to buying cards. My goal coming back into the hobby about two years ago was to focus on HoFers from random sets but that's been put on the back burner for now. For a cheaper alternative, I think I'm going to go back and re-start a project I started about 10 years ago but never got really far as I left the hobby and sold everything off. The project being picking up a card of each professional baseball player that ever served in the military. Some HoFers in there but plenty of cards I can pick up on the cheap end and keep me busy until, hopefully, some stuff starts coming back down.

That sounds like a really neat project. Good luck going forward with that. There will still be some big names in that collection, but should also be a lot of other lesser known players that don't otherwise get the recognition they deserve.

One question for you. Does Moe Berg get included?