[Dub24rollin]

Doesn't really bother me; Panini designs some gorgeous looking stuff.

And like Jared said, what I dislike, is Topps using the same photos of players over and over again. Example: In 2015 Museum, I've seen a Sonny Gray picture they were using in 2013 Bowman, and that's not the first time I've seen that very same picture used in a different product. Honestly, Topps sucks, but what are we gonna do.

I don't really mind the editing players into their new uniforms though.

Yes! It's very disappointing when you notice the same picture on the different products. Is there a reason that anybody knows of as to why they use such few pictures? It doesn't seem like it would be very hard to throw together and few extra pictures. I've heard things like the photo has to be taken by a Topps representative or something like that to do with more licensing issues but I don't know how true any of that is.

[crossada]

So does Panini own the Donruss brand or is that a separate company?

[zeprock]

As a player collector I don't care what the uniform looks like as long as it looks like the player I collect. I prefer logos over airbrushed logos but would be happy to add either to my collection.

I also wish Topps would break out some different photos and not keep reusing the old ones. I have a theory as to why they do that. I think they are just lazy. It takes time to PhotoShop out the background of a photo and isolate just the player. Once they've done this they can then take the image of the player and superimpose him over any photo/image/design. That is a lot quicker and easier than putting a second photo into PhotoShop and recreating the process.

[natejeffries]

Best response I have ever read zeprock.

"Lazy"

That sums up Topps for me in every sense.

As a player collector I don't care what the uniform looks like as long as it looks like the player I collect. I prefer logos over airbrushed logos but would be happy to add either to my collection.

I also wish Topps would break out some different photos and not keep reusing the old ones. I have a theory as to why they do that. I think they are just lazy. It takes time to PhotoShop out the background of a photo and isolate just the player. Once they've done this they can then take the image of the player and superimpose him over any photo/image/design. That is a lot quicker and easier than putting a second photo into PhotoShop and recreating the process.

[wickercat]

There are some cards that are airbrushed? I hadn't noticed, it is all about the players and prospecting, and in that regard, Panini is waaaayyyyyy better than Topps. When Donruss lost their license ten years ago I contemplated quitting the hobby. Topps, IMO, is horrible. You buy a box of bowman draft to get one color card? It speaks volumes about the over production and lack of value. Panini may not have logos, but it is a fun break.

[jeremy7269]

One word..

Hideous-maximus

[bbcgalaxee]

Let's get real here, panini is NOT unlicensed.

They have a MLBPA license which allows them to use players, but not team logos.

"Unlicensed" means that a company or person produced cards without paying the player or team. In other words, illegal.

As for me, I love panini products and along with leaf, think they produce the most value loaded products.

[franciscomarina]

I don't like buying cards without the logo, but if Panini gets the license I will be buying so much of their products. They do have some great designs. I will stick with bowman but there will be a few less products that I will buy from topps

[KPRROK]

I don't mind the lack of logos on some of their cards. Some look great even without the logos, they would probably look even better with logos! I would definitely buy more if they looked more "official" with all the logos and full names (Kansas City Baseball Club...funny!).

[Dub24rollin]

I may just have to buy a box of Panini to experience it and just see how I feel about it. There seems to be a lot of people who like and even prefer them.