Comments on: Does extra auto ink negate need for logos?

By: David

David — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:20:48 +0000

Chris – exactly who’s point are you arguing here? Every card I mentioned was “fully authorized to show what they show”. They all had the Players Association license but not the MLB Properties license. They simply weren’t considered as “legitimate” as the fully licensed products of the age whether it was Topps or anything else for that matter. Your ultimate question “Does extra ink trump no logos?” is all about “traditional collector expectation” becuase a large part of our industry is traditional collectors – which is to say, older collectors. Kids may not care as much but those of us who have collected for 30 years know the difference.

The very same issue came up in 2010 when Upper Deck lost it’s MLB Properties license and the question was really never answered because UD didn’t try to make a set based just on the players without the logos (they decided to try it with logos – even though they didn’t have a license). They could have tried but they didn’t.

In the end, these cards do look really nice, the design is solid, the production value will be high and the collecting community will buy them – but I don’t think there is any question that they would look and sell better with logos on them – extra ink or not…..

By: chrisolds

chrisolds — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:39:17 +0000

David: These cards are perfectly legit as in they are legal and fully authorized to show what they show. I’m looking at it from an authorization/legal standpoint, while you’re looking at it from the traditional collector expectation standpoint.

By: David

David — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:11:58 +0000

Chris – Unless you can explain to me the difference between this and say a Potato-chip disc (the extreme case here) from the 70′s, or any number of cereal prouct-based card sets from the 80′s and 90′s then I would disagree with you. ALL of those cards ( and many, many others over the years) have the MLPA License but not the MLB Properties license. These, if I understand correctly, are no different in that sense. In the past, “legitimate” card needed to be licensed by both parties to be considered legal.

The major difference here is availability and distribution. We can all shrug off regional issues or a food brand card but Panini has such a wide distribution that the collector base can’t really ignore it. These cards don’t look bad – but they would look so much better if they had logos on them.

By: david jones

david jones — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:22:30 +0000

the only saving grace for Panini is that the cards dont look cheap and that they are designed nicely, and its always a plus when there a little extra ink. i just wish they did have the mlb license because those are some of the nicest looking designed cards ive seen in a while

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:00:27 +0000

I think it will do OK, look at products like Leaf cuts that have no logos and yet still sell.
I think they would do better WITH the logos, but I think it can survive w/o it, at least
for a single product.

Consider 91 Studio. In its time, it was pretty popular. People like seeing their heroes
in civilian garb once in a while.

By: charles faires

charles faires — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:40:25 +0000

it’s kind of like do you like a jumbo patch card that is all one color or would you like to see the logo, i think it safe to say that you would want the colorful logo, this is an extreme example but it what helps the card sell. just like a uniform.

By: chrisolds

chrisolds — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:02:28 +0000

David: One catch. They ARE properly licensed and completely legal. They are just not licensed by MLB, allowing MLB’s property (its logos) to be shown.

By: David

David — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:54:17 +0000

We’ve certainly seen a great many cards issued by many different companies over the years that didn’t have logos on them. In almost all cases of discussing these types of cards with customers, these cards are considered inferior for two reasons: 1. People like the logos/names of the team and 2. they aren’t properly licensed.

A player collector may be into the Ken Griffey card with the extra ink on it but he probably isn’t into a whole set issued that way – no matter how good the cards look. Historically, when cards aren’t licensed properly, we, as a collector base usually don’t even consider these cards legitimate. Would you like a card autographed by Albert Pujols in his uniform or him standing in a suit somewhere?? I think the logos and team names are still critically important to the cards..

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:51:57 +0000

They just seem sort of blah…no spark (and I’m an autograph collector)

The only way they might make it more alluring is to increase the hit rate (ie success of getting star auto) vs. the competition

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:14:34 +0000

I’ve always been a huge fan of Logos and never thought I’d ever purchase a card without logos on it but this product has me thinking otherwise. I hate receiving cards with cut-off autos because the player couldn’t get it all on the sticker and with this I would get a full, clean well-written auto.

Yeah, sign me up for Prime Cuts. I’ll give it a shot.