`
 (Toll Free)

Readers Write: What about the unlabeled Topps Relic cards?

Topps detailed the Relics that use stadium seats within days of this publishing. See that story here.

We know that Readers Write is an immensely popular department in Beckett’s magazines, so every once in a while we’ll post letters that are pertinent and relate to issues that being talked about. Here’s one …

The Question …

Long-time reader of Beckett and always enjoy your box breaks.

Question: I may have missed it, but is Beckett going to address the issue where Topps is misleading collectors with the Relic pieces that what I believe most collectors thought were bat pieces that are actually pieces of some seat or bench? I know I purchased a T206  Ty Cobb bat card off eBay that I thought was a bat but yesterday when I spoke to Topps they would not confirm if it was a bat or a seat/bench.

I also purchased several packs of Topps Tribute at Nick’s Sports Cards in the hunt for old players that I collect, hoping to pull one of the Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, or Ty Cobb cards. It now appears that the wood on these cards are not game used bats but again pieces of a seat or bench. I pulled two Duke Snider cards and again I questioned Topps about the piece but the customer service person to whom I spoke did not know if it was a game used bat or a seat. He placed me on hold and checked with his brand manager.   The brand manager would not confirm the wood piece.  Which told me it was not a game-used bat piece.

Several collectors to whom I have spoken all feel that we believe Topps is deceiving the hobby. I would like to know what will be Beckett’s take on this and I would very much appreciate hearing from you. I have been a collector for over 50 years, so I have seen the good and the bad of the hobby but Topps’ action is some of the very worst I have seen.

Thank you and I look forward to your reply.
– Ron Firestone

Get our answer after the jump …

—–


Our reply…

You’re not the first collector to ask us this — but we’ll tell you what we know and present a case for what may have happened.

A Topps official has been contacted  on the subject – and Beckett Media has yet to get a response asking whether there is a list of “other” Relics used in the product. (You can read a message from the company’s customer service department below.)

I personally believe that their failure to note the type of memorabilia on cards in Topps 206 and Topps Tribute was likely a decision to help get the cards made faster so each single card template didn’t have to be tweaked during production (time equals money) — not an attempt at sneaking “other” Relics past collectors in the case of the Ruth card (or others).

Why? Because many of the Relics in Topps Tribute are flat-out wrong or mislabeled if they say anything specific beyond just “memorabilia,” which is what the Ruth cards in question say. Case in point, out of 18 Tribute cards I have in front of me as I type this have the following notations on the backs:

Three of the cards say “This is an Autographed Dual Relic Card of … ”
All three cards are Autographed Dual Relics, but one of these cards has a wood chip and a material swatch, while the other two are dual-material swatches. So, in this case Topps did not note the types of Relics on these cards but they are otherwise correct.

Six of the cards say “This is an Autographed Jersey Relic Card of … ”
Just two of these cards has a material (jersey) swatch, while four of them incorrectly have wood chips. All but one is of a current MLB player who all have readily available memorabilia pieces in plenty of sets. So, in this case Topps used specific notations — but a majority of the cards were wrong. I bet that’s consistent with examination of more cards from this set.

Nine of the cards say “This is a Memorabilia Card of … ”
Four of them are cards with two-or-more pieces — a dual Duke Snider wood (bat) card, a dual Tommy Hanson material (jersey) card, a Ryan Braun wood/material card and a Mickey Mantle triple that has two pieces of wood and a piece of material. The remainder of these cards — all with just one Relic piece — includes a Babe Ruth wood card, a Thurman Munson wood card, a Whitey Ford material card, a Nolan Ryan material card and a Roy Campanella material card. In this case, Topps labeled nothing specific for any of these cards.

So what you have out of the equivalent of three boxes of hits and there are just three types of blurbage for five different sets — and of those cards that attempt to be specific there are a lot of flat-out wrong. The fact that many of these cards were wrong was something we noted in our Box Busters video (which unfortunately suffered from technical difficulties).

Can one absolutely call them all bat and jersey cards? No, because one of the players in the group, Ruth, does apparently have a stadium seat Relic pieces used in Tribute (those cards definitely aren’t bats because they have different colors of paint on the Relic pieces). We know that much. But had there not been any cards with paint on them? We’d likely never know — though the triples that have two pieces of wood do at times appear to have different types of wood in them. (Ash has a wide thick grain, while maple has a small somewhat dotted grain and the pieces that could be stadium seats look more like plywood than maple or ash.)

And that’s what rightfully plants the seeds of doubt for many. And that’s the unfortunate drawback of Topps not specifically labeling all cards and including different types of Relics like stadium seats — obviously something that they have done in the past. (Those cards were labeled accordingly.)

However, it’s worth noting that the blurb on the Ruth we pulled was consistent with all of the other cards of its type (single-piece Relics) — and is consistent with the other Ruth cards available from the product.  That, to me, reinforces to me a cut-corners approach moreso than an intent to deceive by being vague. If only Ruth’s cards said “memorabilia” then I would wonder a lot more. Either way, they are Ruth “Relic” cards whether they are a bat or a stadium seat, etc. That can’t be argued. However, the difference in those two types of cards’ appeal would be something collectors could spend hours discussing.

But don’t get us wrong — this remains a case where Topps botched it. A decision to not specifically label the pieces in a high-end product that relies heavily on Relics has us where we are today — a lot of collectors’ knee-jerk reactions (not necessarily from you) that all of the Relics in the product are somehow bad and plenty of well-fueled conspiracy theories convinced of something worse.

You can bet Topps didn’t want that. And you can bet that the feedback they have received might lead them to not do it again — however, I’d also be willing to bet that the company was working on those two products at around the same time (and that there could be others with similar issues to come).

However, just because Topps has not replied to our questions doesn’t mean that they are avoiding the topic overall. (The fact of the matter is that they may not be able to tell you what went into your card — a lot of things change during the production of a product, particularly when more than one product is being worked on simultaneously.) Below is the reply to the question one collector received via email from Topps’ customer service:

Hello,

Thank you for your inquiry, please be advised these are memorabilia pieces and may not necessarily be bat or jersey relics, however the majority of the items are indeed jersey and bat pieces. Some of the items including the Ruth relics are seat relics from that era.

Thank you for your interest in Topps.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Service team (By Phone: 800-489-9149, or by Email:support@etopps.com) if you ever have any other questions, comments or suggestions. A customer service representative will be available to answer your questions between the hours of 8:30am-4:30pm (EST), Monday through Friday.

Sincerely, Consumer Relations The Topps Company, Inc.


I do firmly believe that the pieces with paint on them are obviously not bats — and it should be obvious to most collectors that is the case. However, it’s disappointing that the pieces are included alongside what could be bats and the labeling is not there. If the seats are cut where no paint is showing, they’ll mostly look like any other bat piece — aka a piece of wood. But it’s that discrepancy that does lead to questions that many a collector has had.

And it’s a fair question.

Hopefully, Topps will get back to us with some answers on the matter.

– Chris Olds
Editor, Beckett Baseball

48 Comments

Why are people cutting up Ruth jerseys? It’s insane.

Make a hit the entire jersey, redemption style. I feel like 50 years from now there won’t be any more jerseys of old players left and what good are the pieces?

Posted January 22, 2010 at 11:16 am | Permalink
Benny T.

Can someone help me out with something??? What genius came up with the ‘manufactured patch’, and why did they think that it might be a good idea? There is nothing more dumb in the entire hobby, then when you bust open a pack and get a patch card for let’s say Reggie Jackson, and the letter you get it a “Y”…where is there a “Y” in R E G G I E or J A C K S O N??? Topps and UD both do this, and it drives me up the wall…Don’t get me wrong, if they used an actual game worn jersey and it was the size of a manufactured patch, that would be amazing, but a fake patch…Cards in a can was a smarter idea that this…

Posted January 22, 2010 at 11:32 am | Permalink

This was my logic behind generic “disclaimers”, too. It’s easier, cheaper, and far less time consuming for them to keep it as vague as possible. Of course, it’s aggravating, especially in high end product, but it’s life. I produce commercials for a living and we keep our disclaimers as open-ended as possible too. We’re not trying to “trick” anyone, it’s just the only way to cover ourself. Otherwise, Topps could (essentially) be sued because their jersey relic was actually a piece of pant.

Posted January 22, 2010 at 11:34 am | Permalink
David Johnson

I am surprised noone pointed out that they didn’t state where the memorabilia came from. Maybe it was from a game used jersey or bat that someone’s cousin used in a pick up game after school last week. Ambiguity can lead to deception.

Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:04 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

Actually, that’s the whole point. Nothing was labeled and “other” Relics were used in at least one instance.

Posted January 22, 2010 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

They didn’t label the items because they wanted to deceive the buyer. It makes absolutely no sense to have a few pieces of wood on a Babe Ruth card (or any player for that matter) that don’t really have anything to do with him. Those pieces of wood are no more Ruth relics than they would be any other player who played in the stadium. Just what we all want. Pieces of ass wood.

More garbage on the market. No wonder a lot of people like myself are turning to vintage stuff.

Posted January 22, 2010 at 8:05 pm | Permalink
Kevin

Please Chris, there is a HUGE difference in price between a Ruth bat piece and a Ruth card with a piece of a seat in it. Toppps wasn’t here to mislead us? GARBAGE. They know the difference. One is worth hundreds and the other is worth 20 bucks! This is a high end product that people were expecting game used material from Ruth NOT the endless material that topps has been using in seat cards. I guess Chris was trying to chastise topps, but I couldn’t tell. Cmon Chris, grow a pair and tell it how it is, don’t give us some, saving time garbage….this is high end product, if you can’t make it right then don’t make it at all. This is the kind of garbage that chases away collectors, no wonder kids stay away…it would be like buying the super mario for wii and opening it up and having the disc for the 8 bit Mario in it.

Posted January 22, 2010 at 9:42 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

As always, Kevin, you are on fire. Keep it coming.

Better yet, did you actually read it at all?

Posted January 22, 2010 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
Kevin

actually no, I didn’t read it all, I just read the part where you defended another card company with some off the wall story. Did I miss you blasting topps for 1) hiding from this 2) being deceptive on a high end product?? Are we really supposed to believe that topps was only thinking about the collectors and what a tragedy it would be if they had to wait a few more days for this product so they could actually put on the card what it was from, say a bat from 1920, or a seat from a scrap heap in 2008? Remember the good ole days when playoff would put a picture of the actual game used item on the back of the card? Well, who needs that level of clarity, its not like this stuff is expensive or anything.

Id like to see you get on fire Chris and light one under the card companies, you would have our full support! How about taking a stand on these issues, after all, there are NO ads on this site, so you don’t need to be nice all the time.

Thanks
Kevin

Posted January 23, 2010 at 12:03 am | Permalink
chrisolds

Apparently you didn’t read it. But that’s ok.

Posted January 23, 2010 at 10:10 am | Permalink
Steve Emerick

Well lets see if Topps is presented with other evidence that Tribute!

See below
Here is a Ruth from American heritage and I have a Jimmie Foxx one that clearly says BAT!
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/tcctrader/DSC06933.jpg

Then Lets talk about T206
Again it doesnt answer the laziness stuff but! It is consistent for old timers vs active players
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/tcctrader/DSC06935.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/tcctrader/DSC06937.jpg

Front looks like seats to me

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/tcctrader/DSC06938.jpg

and finally mr matsui that is labelled properly

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/tcctrader/DSC06939.jpg

Topps has perpetrated a great deception in my opinion!

Posted January 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
Kevin

weak reply Chris, cmon take a stand and make the hobby better for once.

Posted January 23, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

If you don’t think this is addressing the issue, you, sir, are blind.

Posted January 23, 2010 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

Good examples, Steve. I didn’t have a quantity of Topps 206 Relics on hand to examine how consistently those were labeled.

Posted January 23, 2010 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
Kevin

no you address the issue, but you gave topps no motivation to correct the issue in the future. Beckett has a chance here to side with collectors, and by the way I have talked with many on this issue and they all feel the same way. Topps is trying to pull the wool over their eyes on this. We all know it had nothing to do with getting the cards made faster. Stop giving topps 3 or 4 ways out, you slap them on the wrist in one paragraph and then in the next you ask to be their friend. I think collectors are tired of this, especially at the high pack price point of Tribute. I have always felt that beckett’s reviews and editorials have a conflict of intrest to them…1) they give you free wax and 2) they pay you to run ads in the magazine. What do you say to that? Thanks
Kevin

Posted January 23, 2010 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

Your replies are on fire. Keep them coming.

Topps doesn’t get its motivation from Beckett. It gets it from collectors — and its bottom line financially. If you don’t like its products (or those from ANY company) or what the company does, tell them and speak the way hardest way a consumer should — by not buying the product. (The customer service contacts are in the reply above.)

All too often we hear collectors complain about this, that or the other — and they’re complaining about something they’ve bought over and over. Talk about irony. (By the way, I’m shocked you haven’t yet mentioned another obvious fact — that this product uses stickers.)

Tribute was a sloppy execution. Period. That’s said and backed up above more than once. It’s also said in the magazines where the product’s review will appear (if you bother to read them).

Any company that advertises in a magazine pays for the space that it takes up. Period.

Topps has no influence upon what Beckett chooses to write editorially — I think this item is one of many that attests to that. Will they be happy about it? Nope. Will they reply on the issue? Hopefully, and that’s *just one* of the reasons that the item was written.

What do I say to that? You really need to inform yourself about what nearly any and all companies do when it comes to marketing and publicity when dealing with media outlets and other trade publications. (Oh, and you could read up on advertising’s role as well.)

Posted January 23, 2010 at 10:39 pm | Permalink
Kevin

Actually I didn’t buy any of this stuff, but that doesn’t make the “mistake” any worse or better. Beckett has NEVER said anything negative about an act by topps or upper deck, you have chosen to slap them on the wrist and then back peddle and make up an excuse. I believe that your reviews are biased because you are getting free product. If you had bought a few packs of Sterling and got taken on a Ruth GU, then I’m SURE you would feel a different way, but of course you don’t buy high end product, actually do you buy any products? The emotions of the paying public are different than you guys, that isn’t fair reporting, you only have to stick your head outside the window there to hear collectors everywhere saying they got screwed by topps on this product. Ruth Relic means game used,not some seat from the stadium. Maybe beckett needs to make some clarification on the term relic!

I can think of many times where you all have just not given fair reviews on products. You should of blasted Upper Deck for putting out that garbage SP GU product and you should blast topps for deceiving collectors with Ruth “relic” cards in the high end Sterling baseball.

I actually believe that you and T Hack are very fair men, lesser people would of just banned me long ago and swept all this under the rug, but here we are talking about it. You, from your end and mine from my end…..and that includes talking to a lot of collectors and seeing the writings on the message boards. I would love to see beckett have more edge to their articles, especially in regards to 1) sticker autos on high ends products 2)poor redemption customer service 3) poor quality control and 4) general lying and deceit. Many collectors look up to you guys at beckett, if they see you accepting these faults, then they will too, but if they see you saying its not ok to do this, then they will feel they have a voice! Its no longer fine to just say don’t buy it, the hobby shops don’t have that option, and where are we all with hobby shops?

Don’t we all want to make this hobby better for our kids and their kids? Let get on the same team and go for the big win!
Kevin

Posted January 24, 2010 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
Kevin

…and if this doesn’t make you mad, make sure you check out the manufactored logomen cards coming out of 2010 topps baseball.

Posted January 24, 2010 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

Kevin, your second sentence is absolutely wrong based on this thread’s presence alone.

And “Its no longer fine to just say don’t buy it, the hobby shops don’t have that option”

… Um, yes. They do have that option.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 9:35 am | Permalink
Scott Naecker

Chris,
I actually have to agree with Kevin a bit, maybe not as strongly or harshly but I do indeed feel you took it to Topps a but lightly. It would be like me mildly punishing my kids with no TV if they stole something. You and I both know that the two “relic” cards have much different price values depending on the relic itself. But they are being described by Topps (and now Beckett) as the same thing. I don’t expect you to call for a ban of Topps or anything but as a journalist I expect you to get on the phone with the marketing and brand managers for an interview as a podcast or something. This reeks of those Bud Light commercials where you are too light and Kevin is too hard.

All I’m saying Chris is go the extra mile to fetter this matter out before someone gets wise and calls the BBB on Topps.

Scott

Posted January 25, 2010 at 10:42 am | Permalink
chrisolds

“A Topps official has been contacted on the subject – and Beckett Media has yet to get a response asking whether there is a list of “other” Relics used in the product.”

Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it?

Posted January 25, 2010 at 10:45 am | Permalink
Scott Naecker

Maybe a little more pressure from the hobby’s Leader? Maybe contacting more than one official?? Not trying to sound harsh Chris but sometimes “no comment” is not good enough.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 10:47 am | Permalink
Paul

Kudos to Beckett for asking the question and not letting it die. Boos to Topps for ducking the question and doing it in the first place.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
aarne13

I’d be surprised if Topps addressed the issue. If anything the only answer you (Beckett) will get is a vague canned response.

BBB will do nothing about it, the product description is so vague that it is hard to prove any wrongdoing.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

Since I am the one that wrote Chris and Tracy about this. I would like to be on record that I believe Topps set out to deceive the hobby with their wood pieces.

Topps is not dumb, they know that when we see a piece of wood in a baseball card, we will think it is a game used bat unless marked different.

Topps has in the past even issued cards that clearly say this is a seat from such places as Yankee Stadium, Ebbetts Field, Memorial Stadium and even Joe Louis Arena. I know they did this because I have the cards in my collection. When I pulled them I liked them for what they were, seat cards. It was and is cool to have a piece of Yankee Stadium I knew what the piece on the card was and I was okay with that.

Topps Tribute and T206 clearly took another path by not saying this is a seat and or bench by saying relic or memorabilia they knew we could be fooled.

Just last week I was back in the card store and a guy bought a pack of Tribute and pulled a single wood piece Ruth. He was very, very happy about pulling his very first Ruth game used bat card. When the other collectors in the store told him it might not be a bat, the guy left the store feeling let down.

Topps has let us down by their deceit.

Just to let you know, I have called Major League Baseball three times to discuss this with them and surprise, Laura Bishop of MLB has yet to return my calls.

Does MLB care about us collectors? I don’t think so, they already have cashed Topps check.

Ron

Posted January 25, 2010 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
Kevin

please Chris, I could email Clay Luraschi right now and have a response in 2 minutes. Are you trying to tell us that you can’t pick up a phone and have an answer on this before lunch? It is obvious that topps told you to be quiet on this, you only have to be a part time collector to be mad at this. Your protecting topps because they buy ads in your magazine, that only benifits beckett not the collectors. The ONLY thing that will change topps mind on this is bad press by you guys. They deserve it this time, but you all are playing the same game as you always do.

Ruth “relic” cards first, then manufactored
logomen cards the next, is this the future of topps and their baseball exclusive deal? How about getting behind the people who keep this hobby alive before they are all gone.

Thanks
Kevin

Posted January 25, 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

Comedy gold, Kevin. Comedy gold.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
Kevin

There is nothing funny about long time collectors who spent hundreds of dollars on topps sterling, only to pull Ruth seat cards. Not to mention the many people who bought them on ebay thinking they were game used (as most relics are). I’m sorry that you feel this is all funny, I guess that is why everyone left the beckett site long ago.

Kevin

Posted January 25, 2010 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

The comedy gold part is your incessant attacking this direction and your insistence that you can do the job rather than taking the time to voice your displeasure to Topps.

Who do you think hasn’t returned emails on the topic? (And is it unreasonable to presume that they’re still trying to figure it all out?)

By the way, 2009 Topps Sterling comes out later this week.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
Kevin

please Chris, do your job and pick up the phone. Do you need Clay’s phone number also? Do you want me to dial?

Posted January 25, 2010 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

Sorry, I was on the phone, sir.

Question… do YOU work the night shift?

Posted January 25, 2010 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

Kevin schmidtfan20, Topps isn’t gonna talk about this beyond what they already have. Trust me, I have been calling and emailing about this before it was even pointed out as an issue.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
Kevin

cmon Chris, reducing yourself to personal attacks now? Did topps threaten to cut your
assortment of hot boxes for the live rips?

Posted January 25, 2010 at 2:44 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

My bad, I was wondering whether you were doing YOUR job while telling me to do mine. I figured you must work nights if you spend your days on our site. (If you are at work, though, I won’t tell.)

As for personal attacks, that, too, is comedy gold. What have you been doing with comments on this site for some time now?

Posted January 25, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
Benny T.

I have been thoroughly enjoying this back and forth all day…I agree…comedy gold on all parties involved. This has been hysterical. I will say this…I felt UD cleaned Topps’ clock last year. Chris, you might remember I have brought this up before, but it’s embarrassing for Topps to put out any update or high end product, but NOT include Matt Wieters, the hobby’s #1 rookie of 2009. Topps needed to do anything and everything to get him signed, and they didn’t (does Topps not remember the whole A-Rod fiasco for the first 5 years of his career???). That’s a total embarrassment. Wanna know what else is a total embarrassment? The fact Topps is releasing 2010 series 1 cards in January, with players in the wrong uniform. As a Tigers fan, I find it hysterical that Jarrod Washburn and Aubrey Huff are in series 1 as Tigers. You’ve got to be kidding me, right? The Tigers informed both players that they wouldn’t be offered contracts for 2010, yet here they both are in a Tigers uniform in Topps series 1. What a joke. Why cant they just keep all free agents out of series 1 and put them all in series 2??? Let’s settle this once and for all…Topps doesn’t care. They have put out lousy product after lousy product out for 2 years now (the last genius move Topps made was 2007 Series 1, Jeter w/ Mantle & Bush…awesome card)…they are cutting corners, and until now…no one has said anything. Congrats Ron Firestone, Kevin and the rest of you for bringing the cat out of the bag. Topps…WAKE UP!!!

Posted January 25, 2010 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

One thing is for sure, Beckett should buy their own samples of product if they don’t want people to thing that they are biased; like Consumer Reports does.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

Or, it could buy CDs like Rolling Stone (or any newspaper in the country) does.

Or, it could buy video games like [insert mag name here] does and just like any newspaper in the country, too.

Or, it could buy books like The New York Times Book review does along with any newspaper in the country.

Oh, wait … none of them buy anything.

Or, it could buy boxes for reviews like a handful of beloved bloggers and other websites (do I need to list them?) do …

Posted January 25, 2010 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
Kevin

Lets just face it, beckett needs free products so they can hold their Friday giveaway and justify even having a site, I don’t think anyone actually uses it other than to try to win stuff on Friday’s. Beckett’s cost for all these free products……silence of course!

Posted January 25, 2010 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

You’re scorching hot, Kevin. Finger’s on the pulse! Tell us all how it *really* is! Keep ‘em coming!

Posted January 25, 2010 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
Kevin

man Chris, does Beckett actually pay you for this? Did you win a drawing or something..nice
job.

Posted January 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
chrisolds

I WAS the winner after all. My prize? I get to field these awesome and insightful comments from you!

Posted January 25, 2010 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
Gordon Rubendall

Chris you made a comment about just don’t buy it earlier, Which is indeed sound advise to anybody from this point forward. But there are those of us who pre-paid for boxes or even cases remembering the Topps Tribute of old.
I for one was waiting for a case for about 4 months. When my shop called me and said it was in I could not wait for my work day to end so I could go open same. I ripped thru 2 boxes so fast I honestly don’t think I saw the back of a card, Not until another gentleman next to me pulled a Ruth “Memorabilia” card that had a green piece of wood in it,,,,, WTF is that?????? We turned it over and there was the words of this whole discussion….This is a Memorabilia card of….Upon further inspection we find single window with autographs that all say Jersey yet 60%+ have wood chips in them. So now I and this other guy are feeling pretty taken by Topps as they had my money in advance and most likely the other guys also. The shop owners feel like crap and what started out as a good day has gone down hill rapidly. I still have $450+ worth of boxes sitting in front of me,,, Do I ask the shop owners for a refund ???? Topps sure as hell isn’t giving me one, and I can’t justify asking my friends the owners for one either. So I open the rest and get more of the same CRAP. Will I buy more ???? Hell no !!!! Did I come home and start looking at all the Topps cards from other products that I purchased earlier this year? Hell yes !!! And I found the same deception on all of them, Triple Threads 4 cases, T 206 3 cases, Tribute 1 case. NO MORE FOR ME !!!!

So I come here to see if there is anything that Beckett has to say about this situation and find this article…. And Chris you in your own polished way are indeed defending Topps on the subject. Grow a set and one time stand up for us the collectors, With out us you, all the employees at Topps , Upper Deck, Panini would not have your jobs. You would probably be writing that paperback review. We as a whole look to you and your staff to get us the answers that we cannot get from the manufactuers.

Posted January 26, 2010 at 2:21 am | Permalink
chrisolds

Gordon, you’re starting to sound a lot like Kevin.

Do you think we’re not looking into this issue? Do you think we’ve not been in contact with Topps? We have. They are aware of the problem and will follow up soon.

Don’t mistake my toying with a borderline internet troll (you know, someone who comments only to incite negative reactions, ride an agenda or throw around personal attacks and ignore claims when they’re proven to be wrong) who has thrown around big words and conspiracies before with indifference to the issue or the interests of collectors.

Unfortunately, the Internet often allows people to say things to others they’d never say in person — and that also goes for making accusations and generating conspiracies thinking there are no repercussions.

Journalists have the responsibility of writing a fair story — positives and negatives. And by that standard this one is hardly that — it’s overwhelmingly negative. But that’s partially on Topps for not commenting. (They will remedy that, I assure you.)

Stories such as this don’t emerge overnight — or via a phone call. It takes time, patience and more to get all of the details. They are coming.

Posted January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am | Permalink
Gordon Rubendall

Chris,
First of all I don’t appreciate being compared to Kevin an obviously disturbed individual. He readily admits that he has not purchased any of this product. I on the other hand have spent several thousand dollars the past few months on Topps products, Upper Deck Products, and a few Panini products. The whole time I was totally satisfied with my purchases of Topps products until the events as described above took place. Because of this I have refrained from spending as I used to not knowing what to expect. I know that you are reading the article you penned with an authors eye and are attempting to cover all of the bases, I applaud you for that !!! I and the majority of the people reading this though are looking for answers as to why a company that we all have trusted would either ( “Cut corners” your phrase ) on one of there premier products or out right dupe us. Most of us have dealt with all of the manufacturers on redemption issues or damaged product issues, I can honestly say that Topps is by far the worst to deal with the past few years. It is as if they just don’t give a damn. Finally Chris you have contacts at Topps that I and many do not, The fact that they do not want to address the issue with you makes we the collectors think that maybe they are attempting to hide something.

Posted January 26, 2010 at 9:28 pm | Permalink
Jason Gilbright

I’m glad that this got resolved, even though it would of been nice for it to come from topps without the demand of collectors. I think the best part is that they have cleared up the future.

Posted January 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm | Permalink
Blake

Interesting. soon the jersey relics will be off a rack from sports authority. Topps having a monopoly in this industry has done terrible things.

Posted February 9, 2011 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

no matter which way you slice it topps is as close to being criminals, without actually being criminals, as you can get

Posted March 27, 2011 at 11:25 am | Permalink

4 Trackbacks

  1. [...] [...]

  2. [...] really authentic game used swatches?? You can see the article that I took this from here from the Beckett Blog. Play Ball America! [...]

  3. [...] has been noted nearly everywhere on the internet, and more specifically in a blog post by Chris Olds at Beckett, specific information as to the nature of certain relic cards in 2009 Topps Tribute [...]

  4. By 2011 Topps Tribute Baseball - Blowout Cards Forums on December 15, 2010 at 9:39 am

    [...] [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*