PDA

View Full Version : I don't understand it - It doesn't make sense!



3arod13
07-02-2007, 04:09 PM
I realize this isn't the autograph forum, but there's no action there. However, I know you will all agree, whether autographs or game used.

I don't get the prices receivd for cut auto's on cards. Upperdeck takes a Mickey Mantle 8x10 and cuts the signature. Does the same for Alex Rodriguez. Paste them to a card from 2007, and it sells for thousands.

I just don't get it. Does anyone else think this is insane?

Tony

3arod13
07-02-2007, 04:09 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/1-1-MICKEY-MANTLE-ALEX-RODRIGUEZ-TOPPS-CUTS-AUTO-CUT-7_W0QQitemZ230146714369QQihZ013QQcategoryZ149906QQ rdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

David
07-02-2007, 05:57 PM
I agree with you. A piece clipped off of a player's personal check (and pasted to a baseball card) should not be worth multiples more than the entire check. It's nonsensical.

3arod13
07-02-2007, 06:15 PM
I agree with you. A piece clipped off of a player's personal check (and pasted to a baseball card) should not be worth multiples more than the entire check. It's nonsensical.

I agree. I just don't get it. A Mickey Mantle signed 8x10 is work $125. Cut the signature from that 8x10 and paste it to a card from 2007, and now it's worth $1,500. Very odd to me.

3arod13
07-02-2007, 06:16 PM
I agree. I just don't get it. A Mickey Mantle signed 8x10 is work $125. Cut the signature from that 8x10 and paste it to a card from 2007, and now it's worth $1,500. Very odd to me.


Sorry, is worth $125

kingjammy24
07-02-2007, 06:25 PM
that price isn't simply for the autos. it's for the "1/7" bs. the manufacturing of the perception of rarity. if the card would've been labelled 1/250, the price wouldn't be as high.

rudy.

33bird
07-03-2007, 09:07 AM
It's a scam. Pure and simple. They get a cut signature of Foxx and Williams, stick em' on some worthless card, number it a 1/1, and it sells for 5000.00+. You could get the Williams cut for 75.00, the foxx for 400.00, and it would be the same thing, but since upper deck puts 1/1 on it collectors go crazy. Ignorance.
Greg

89ASMVPBats
07-03-2007, 10:18 AM
Greg, I couldn't agree more. I won't even get into how much I dislike bat and jersey cards. This whole numbered card concept is one of the many reasons that I stopped collecting baseball cards.

David
07-03-2007, 11:28 AM
I'm not for cutting up a game used jersey or check for a card (obviously, if a current player specifically wore a jersey for two innings so it could cut up for a Topps card, that's not the end of the world). However, there is a difference. With a jersey, you can get, say, hundreds of jersey cards from a jersey, but you can extract only one signature from a single signed check. If you cut up a Honus Wagner check into 10 pieces, you can still only get one autograph insert card from it. And, the funny thing is there is no actual need to cut up a check. UD could issue a whole Wagner check mounted on a card if they wished. UD has many send away redemption cards.

I should add that I do like the modern insert cards the players are paid to sign directly onto. They are often nicely designed and can be a safe way to buy autographs of Hall of Famers like Brooks Robinson and Willie Mays. As the players were under contract with the card company, authenticity is rarely an issue.

REDS1999
07-03-2007, 11:30 AM
I can't agree more on the issue of cutting up perfectly good autographed pieces and placing them in cards. I am a Perez Steele collector and it makes me sick to see signatures from these beautiful Great Moments cards (already numbered out of 5,000) and Post Cards / Celebration Cards (already numbered out of 10,000) cut up for the autographs and then placed in a new numbered card. The card manufacturer really thinks they have something special! I don't think so. The signature was something special before it went under the operation of the scissors.

Greg

David
07-03-2007, 11:46 AM
Greg, you have a good point. I've seen autograph cards with cut pieces from Perez-Steele cards, postcards, Topps cards, magaine pages, etc. One of the problems is the card looks ugly and, in fact, rather silly. And they often do this with folks like Luis Aparicio and Brooks Robinson, where getting a regular attractive signature on a white background wouldn't be difficult.

David
07-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Upper Deck has a few authenticity issues with some of their cut signature cards. In one or two cases, they had a genuine autograph but of the wrong player. I believe in one case they accidentally used the 1970s common player Ed Plank autograph instead of what was supposed to be the Pre-War Hall of Famer Eddie Plank (Oops!).

Anyway, they recently hired James Spence Authentication to approve all the autographs, and you'll notice the JSA sticker on the back of the recent cards.

kingjammy24
07-03-2007, 05:39 PM
It's a scam. Pure and simple. ..since upper deck puts 1/1 on it collectors go crazy. Ignorance.
Greg

trying to artificially create this perception of rarity is the last hope for a marketing dept whose jobs hinge on reviving a dying product. while many other products have been released in deliberate "limited editions", those products typically have substantial differences from their counterparts. with trading cards however, the only difference between one "limited edition" arod card and another is simply some insipid photo. in the 90s, the manufacturers saturated the market and consequently killed it because the oversupply meant card values wouldn't rise. collectors had no interest in collecting cards that would never rise above $5. by devising these bs "limited edition" sets, the manufacturers are able to maintain huge production run totals while (artificially) appeasing collector's needs for scarcity and appreciation. ultimately, i say they'll kill the market again from the massive glut of all the different "limited edition" sets. cards were great a long, long time ago when production runs really were small. the products these days are nothing more than quick cashgrabs devised by crass businessmen. i'd wager that real card collectors these days focus solely on cards from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that are genuinely limited and thus have
longterm value.

it reminds me of the current game used market. many say the real value is in the older stuff and i agree. it's gone from a genuine limited supply when players would wear only 2 or 3 jerseys in an entire season to them wearing 20 or 30 now and saturating the market. howard recently commented on how the thrill of the chase is gone. it reminds me of a scene in a movie that took place during the indian removal act. it showed a displaced native american, living in a white settlement, and to make the native americans
"feel more at home", they'd allow them to "hunt" buffalo inside a small corral. they'd sound a noise, release a buffalo, and the indian would ride around until he shot it. just like an upper deck limited edition set, it was artificial and ultimately, unfulfilling.

in the 90s, card manufacturers thought they were simply responding to demand and saw an opportunity to increase profits. apparently, they were unaware of how collecting worked and that it depends on the notion of scarcity and appreciation. upon flooding the market, they promptly killed it. similarly, mlb/teams are also responding to demand and they also seem ignorant of how collecting inherantly works and the consequences of flooding the market. i don't see how the current gamer market is going to somehow avoid the same fate that befell the trading card industry. the thrills and profits are short lived when you realize your gamer isn't all that special because everyone else has the same one and they all hardly show any use. personally, i think it's going to get worse before it gets better. i can see players wearing a new jersey every single game just so the team/mlb can quadruple its game-used profits. they've discovered a license to print money and have no clue about collecting. it's hard not to see a massive flood coming.

rudy.