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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[G1911]

Disagreeing with something and not understanding why a company does that thing at all are two completely different things. We are well aware Topps does it to try and manufacture value and scarcity by altering a card to get people to think it’s special. That’s exactly what we’re objecting too. Good luck in your buy back investing.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by G1911

Disagreeing with something and not understanding why a company does that thing at all are two completely different things. We are well aware Topps does it to try and manufacture value and scarcity by altering a card to get people to think it’s special. That’s exactly what we’re objecting too. Good luck in your buy back investing.

I call it playing because I don't spend silly money on these -- LOL

And that's why they need to put the stamp on the card and yes we can disagree on if it's something which should be done. But as I pointed out, if you pulled a 1989 common, which my friend did, in a 1991 pack and there was not stamp all he had was a nice memory and a 2 cent card. With a stamp he would have had a card worth something.

And yes stamping on the player's face is kind of annoying

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!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 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!

And that's another example of how the card manufacturers have harmed the collector aspect of the hobby. So more often than not it isn't about the collectibility of the card or player anymore, it seems to be more about hitting the rare cards that can be flipped for more money.

[homerunderby]

Originally Posted by 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!

Don't forget the blue and red versions, I think that was 2018? I collect Yankees and I have a respectable number of these in my collection (25-30). I get them when they are less than $1, usually in dime/quarter boxes at shows.

I don't bother trying to get them all because who even knows what the checklist is? As the years get older and as the originals get more valuable who even knows if all the players are covered, and then, in all the variations.

I'd guess that the 80's and later, they covered most/all of each set, but then again I haven't seen some of the keys like Mattingly RC, Ichiro RC, or Jeter RC covered in these sets. They might exist, but I haven't found them for sale. I do find stuff like 1987 Topps Paul Zuvella is pretty plentiful.

They are fun to collect and when I see them in a dime or quarter box I grab them (regardless of team) but I don't take them too seriously.

[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?

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by BobC

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?

Yeah I've only recently started going through names and looking up cards. Obviously, some don't have cards at all while others only have one card ever made. Where my project helps with the bigger names, like Ted Williams, is it really doesn't matter which card I get as long as I get a card of them, so I can keep this project affordable. With that said I'd love to get his '41 Play Ball.

In regards to Berg, I'll likely include him. While he was never in the military, he did work with them some and help them out prior to going into the OSS.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by BCauley

Yeah I've only recently started going through names and looking up cards. Obviously, some don't have cards at all while others only have one card ever made. Where my project helps with the bigger names, like Ted Williams, is it really doesn't matter which card I get as long as I get a card of them, so I can keep this project affordable. With that said I'd love to get his '41 Play Ball.

In regards to Berg, I'll likely include him. While he was never in the military, he did work with them some and help them out prior to going into the OSS.

That's why I was asking. He definitely played a part in both the Pacific and European theaters, yet was never formally in any specific branch of the military. I think it is a good call to include him. Good luck on your project.

[G1911]

Another fantastic one I saw today.... great going, Topps.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by G1911

Another fantastic one I saw today.... great going, Topps.

This HAS to be a gag, no? I can't believe even Topps would do this...but, then again, I can.

[egri]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

This HAS to be a gag, no? I can't believe even Topps would do this...but, then again, I can.

If The Onion ever did a spoof about the hobby these days, I imagine that is what they would come up with. They didn't even put the stamp right side up.

[rjackson44]

horrible

[G1911]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

This HAS to be a gag, no? I can't believe even Topps would do this...but, then again, I can.

Sadly, not a joke. Topps is going to, well, Topps

[G1911]

Another 1971 comically butchered by putting the stamp in the worst possible location. Sorry Yaz

[GasHouseGang]

That's terrible. Can't they figure out a better spot than right over his face?

[G1911]

I kind of want to collect these travesties. Tom Terrific ain't so terrific.

[Exhibitman]

We are all collectors and investors. An investor is a collector who has been offered a lot of money for a card he owns. It's just cardboard, just stuff. Not only would I sell my collection, for the right price I will carry it out to your car.

[G1911]

Many are collectors who become investors when the price is right. Many are pure investors (see the modern world especially) and some are pure collectors. I will not sell most of my items for any price. I would not sell my boxing T collection for 20x it's value. I only sell my dupes or random pickups I find and don't really want but recognize are an easy flip. I give away for free more than I have sold. Some things are just for fun, and hobby land is a lot more enjoyable when it's not run as a $$ game. Cards are a break from the cash race for some. Collectors tend to rail at investors, investors tend to deny collectors really exist. Collecting isn't better than half/half or pure investing, but it is an extant thing.


Regardless of which of the 3 we all are, this card sucks for everyone. Right on Wright's face. It's odd because Topps did pay attention to the stamping on plenty leader/manager and standard design base cards. Most base cards have the stamps on the left or right bottom where it interferes with the picture less depending on the players pose. Some of the leaders like this McDowell/Lolich/Johnson have it placed in a spot clearly intended to not totally ruin the card, so they didn't blindly stamp everything.

[G1911]

Pulled one of these hunks of crap myself. Topps got lazy as hell in 2021 and didn't even put the in a wrapper, or pay attention whatsoever to where they stamp the card. You'd think they'd stamp the left side, and not the right here....

[G1911]

Pulled last week. Wrong orientation and poor placement. Sometimes the stamps are found oriented properly for a horizontal card, so Topps is capable of it. They often just don't. Kind of ruins what is otherwise a cool card. Bryant hit .165, so a batting pose is an odd choice for him in action

[ALBB]

I see the point of " ruining " the insert card..but If I collected new cards ( I dont) , I would find it " underwhelming " if my scarce insert pull was a VGEX shape 72 T common

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALBB

I see the point of " ruining " the insert card..but If I collected new cards ( I dont) , I would find it " underwhelming " if my scarce insert pull was a VGEX shape 72 T common

The disappointing part is that the box topper insert is no longer even wrapped - it's literally just thrown in loose to bang around and get all the corners dinged. You can get oversized cards (I got a cool Hank Aaron out of this case) and poster inserts too instead of a buyback. I much prefer those to .10 cards we all already have and they stamped lazily.

My box before this had Bill Bonham, so I counted Bryant, as an SF native, a win.

I have never pulled a player better than Johnny Callison after a few cases worth...

[Exhibitman]

They should do what they did with that T206 deal: put the card into some sort of toploader so the card is not ruined in the process. But I agree that these are a silly insert. I don't want a 1972 Topps Bryant and especially not as a chase card. That's like getting dental floss for a birthday present.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

They should do what they did with that T206 deal: put the card into some sort of toploader so the card is not ruined in the process. But I agree that these are a silly insert. I don't want a 1972 Topps Bryant and especially not as a chase card. That's like getting dental floss for a birthday present.

I like how Topps 206 and 205 did it. The Mini-Framed Relics using the same frames are really nice cards too.

Boxes without a buyback as the topper are better. It can't cost Topps any less to buy stacks of old base, ship them to the packing building, and run them through the stamper, than to just print some more posters and 5x7's.

[deweyinthehall]

I've been scouring eBay lately looking for miscuts to try to piece together older sheets, and it is simply depressing the number of these older cards that now bear the "Buy Back" stamp...all they are now is ruined.

[mrmopar]

I don't get the point of a buyback card that isn't marked in a special way to differentiate it from the same cards issued in the year they were made. Clearly some people collect them and some do not, but I'd hardly consider it ruined. Topps printed way too many cards to say stamping a handful each year has ruined them, especially when they are not pristine originals. There are plenty more unmarked cards where those came from.

Again, is a unmolested 1973 Tim Foli going to make anyone happy, pulling it from a 2023 pack? I highly doubt one single person would really care with the price of packs sitting at $3-5 and more. Because of what they have become though, I would bet multiple people would welcome a foil embossed 1973 Tim Foli from a 2023 pack.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

Topps printed way too many cards to say stamping a handful each year has ruined them, especially when they are not pristine originals. There are plenty more unmarked cards where those came from.

I agree except for print freaks like this, I wish it didn't have the stamp. I remember seeing a stamped 1978 Topps Bump Wills with the black circle print flaw that ruined the card.