[jheringa09]

The way the card reads states they bought the card and re inserted it and doesnt say they bought had it autoed and then reinserted it. Maybe they bought the card autoed and they put the disclaimer on there because in 97 it was autoed in front of one of the execs just my opinion maybe im reading to much into it

I dont think there will be different pricing because it is a 1997 card just put in a newer box

If they bought it back, then they only spent $1-3 on it cuz that's what the '97 goes for right now on Ebay. I highly doubt the value goes up because they stamped it.
Too much time and effort involved in looking for and buying back something that was already auto'ed to begin with. I'm sticking to the fact that it was collecting dust in the UD warehouse and they got rid of them by sticking them in new products and called it a "buyback" when they didn't actually buy back anything.

[coachlew10]

If they bought it back, then they only spent $1-3 on it cuz that's what the '97 goes for right now on Ebay. I highly doubt the value goes up because they stamped it.
Too much time and effort involved in looking for and buying back something that was already auto'ed to begin with. I'm sticking to the fact that it was collecting dust in the UD warehouse and they got rid of them by sticking them in new products and called it a "buyback" when they didn't actually buy back anything.

Me too

[djohn]

Ok, so other than an autograph on the card how is this any different from what Topps has done with "Buy Back" cards in their product over the years. It isn't a new thing either, as back in 1991 Topps inserted random "buy back" vintage cards in their baseball product. The cards were inserted around 1 per case (if that) and they were mostly all commons. The cards had no distinguishing marks to identify them as coming from 1991 product.
I think the issue with Upper Deck is that rather than stamping the card with some sort of identifying mark (like Topps started doing with their buybacks in Topps Heritage) to signify that it came from a new product. While they included the buyback COA card, it didn't have the standard matching holograms that the old SP Authentic BuyBack cards used to have. Regardless of having a special identifying mark on it or not, the only way the card would have had much more value than the original is if it were serial numbered to some low number.
With all that being said, would there be any complaints if the extra "buy back" card was a 1997 Legends Autograph of Paul Hornung instead.

[mooncricket916]

Were your two actual buyback cards or extra stock items? Or did they at least have their own line in the OPG, or was it just extra from old stock? Doesn't bother me to get an extra Auto, just don't call it a buyback if it is just old stock and no different from an original auto put back in products.

No they were the same as the others, from the 97 set. Just seems like if they were going to go through the trouble of all that they would use bigger names like elway, marino, montana and hofers like that. My 2 were Gary Garrison and Jim Marshall. The marshall was cool but gary who lol?

[coachlew10]

Ok, so other than an autograph on the card how is this any different from what Topps has done with "Buy Back" cards in their product over the years. It isn't a new thing either, as back in 1991 Topps inserted random "buy back" vintage cards in their baseball product. The cards were inserted around 1 per case (if that) and they were mostly all commons. The cards had no distinguishing marks to identify them as coming from 1991 product.
I think the issue with Upper Deck is that rather than stamping the card with some sort of identifying mark (like Topps started doing with their buybacks in Topps Heritage) to signify that it came from a new product. While they included the buyback COA card, it didn't have the standard matching holograms that the old SP Authentic BuyBack cards used to have. Regardless of having a special identifying mark on it or not, the only way the card would have had much more value than the original is if it were serial numbered to some low number.
With all that being said, would there be any complaints if the extra "buy back" card was a 1997 Legends Autograph of Paul Hornung instead.

Absolutely would have the same problem if it was Hornung, Marshall Faulk or Dan Marino. I would probably be more bummed because I already have the 1997 UD Legend Auto and would be thinking I got something extra special and it turned out to be a double of a card I already own multiple copies of. Another person that misses the point with the Hornung remark. The other part of your response has validity, but messed it up with a wise crack.

[djohn]

Absolutely would have the same problem if it was Hornung, Marshall Faulk or Dan Marino. I would probably be more bummed because I already have the 1997 UD Legend Auto and would be thinking I got something extra special and it turned out to be a double of a card I already own multiple copies of. Another person that misses the point with the Hornung remark. The other part of your response has validity, but messed it up with a wise crack.

The Hornung response wasn't meant as a wise crack. I could have added a list of other superstar players in that set. I think most people would rather have a superstar autograph, even if it was a non-marked "buyback" then some specially marked buyback of a common player autograph (even it was low serial numbered).
I agree that the term BuyBack from Upper Deck has some connotations to their BuyBack program they did in SP Authentic for years, where they took non-autographed cards and had players sign them and then insert them as "BuyBacks" into packs. However as I previously pointed out, the term "buyback" relating to cards has been around since the early 90s, and hasn't always been about autographed cards.