Some of these buybacks are a bit silly

[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.

[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]

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.