Are unlicensed cards/sets the future of the hobby?

[mfw13]

Was looking at my own spending patterns recently, and started wondering if there might be some truth to this.

Over the past twelve months, my spending looks like this:

Approximately 30% on inserts from previous years' licensed sets
Approximately 20% on unlicensed sets (Helmar/Sporting Life/Sportkings)
Approximately 15% on "art cards (Goal Line Art/Perez-Steele/Leaf/Edward Vela)
Approximately 15% on custom cards I've commissioned
Approximately 15% on vintage singles
Approximately 5% on current year licensed products (2013 GQ, 2014 Heritage BB)

Thoughts?

[free2131]

In a word, no. Most people (myself included) would never spend any serious money on cards with players in airbrushed, blank uniforms.

[Bob Loblaw]

Originally Posted by free2131

In a word, no. Most people (myself included) would never spend any serious money on cards with players in airbrushed, blank uniforms.

Yup.

Look at the value of autographs of those unlicensed cards vs. when their Bowman card comes out.

Like Wile E. Coyote off of a cliff....

[Ephland]

what sort of custom cards do you commission?

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Ephland

what sort of custom cards do you commission?

I've commissioned a whole series of 1956 Topps-style cards of various baseball, basketball, football, hockey, tennis, and soccer players, as well as of Star Wars and Star Trek characters (will post images on another thread).

Also have commissioned some 1976-77 Topps Hockey-style cards...

[jmscoggin]

Originally Posted by free2131

In a word, no. Most people (myself included) would never spend any serious money on cards with players in airbrushed, blank uniforms.

This, I spend very little on non licensed items. If it wasn't for Stanton pc cards, I would spend zero.

[duwal]

Originally Posted by free2131

In a word, no. Most people (myself included) would never spend any serious money on cards with players in airbrushed, blank uniforms.

exactly, people should be fans of the team as well as that player. Would we really like to pick up a really nice Mickey Mantle that had no Yankees insignia on the card over one showing him in his true playing uniform? Think not

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by duwal

exactly, people should be fans of the team as well as that player. Would we really like to pick up a really nice Mickey Mantle that had no Yankees insignia on the card over one showing him in his true playing uniform? Think not

Hmmm....

How about Babe Ruth?





Top or bottom card...which would YOU rather have?

- Top card has no MLB logo, no team logo, no team name and is in much worse condition than the bottom card.

- Bottom card is from Topps and has a large MLB logo, team name, team logo and is in much better condition than the top card.

So which is it? Top or bottom card for your collection?

I'll say it again: I can buy team names and team logos all day long at Wal-Mart, if I want, for next to nothing. But some of the authentic, quality stuff I prefer comes without logos, and I can't get it at Wal-Mart.

[duwal]

Originally Posted by mwheeler27

Hmmm....

How about Babe Ruth?





Top or bottom card...which would YOU rather have?

- Top card has no MLB logo, no team logo, no team name and is in much worse condition than the bottom card.

- Bottom card is from Topps and has a large MLB logo, team name, team logo and is in much better condition than the top card.

So which is it? Top or bottom card for your collection?

I'll say it again: I can buy team names and team logos all day long at Wal-Mart, if I want, for next to nothing. But some of the authentic, quality stuff I prefer comes without logos, and I can't get it at Wal-Mart.

we're talking about current and future cards in the hobby. Its a mute point for the vintage cards like the 1933 Goudey since there were no other options other than that set. We're talking about today's cards where if there were two at the same value, one was completely void of logos/team name and one had everything to look like a regular uniform, which would collectors rather prefer?

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by duwal

we're talking about current and future cards in the hobby. Its a mute point for the vintage cards like the 1933 Goudey since there were no other options other than that set. We're talking about today's cards where if there were two at the same value, one was completely void of logos/team name and one had everything to look like a regular uniform, which would collectors rather prefer?

Sounds to me like you're trying to split hairs. Just because something is preferred today, doesn't mean it will be superior in the future. History tells us so over and over again.

Obviously, from the examples I showed above, people do in fact still consider non-logo, non-team-name, non-team-logo cards valuable. And I think they will continue to feel that way in the future. People might buy cards today because they have logos on them, but they will likely collect them in the future because of a different reason. Again..."history".

And if two cards have the same value today, one has logos, and one doesn't, why do they have the same "value"? Or more importantly, why would you say one is preferred over the other when they "have the same value"?

[Freewheelburnin]

Originally Posted by duwal

we're talking about current and future cards in the hobby. Its a mute point for the vintage cards like the 1933 Goudey since there were no other options other than that set. We're talking about today's cards where if there were two at the same value, one was completely void of logos/team name and one had everything to look like a regular uniform, which would collectors rather prefer?

Yeah I feel ignorant after reading that users post. Complete reach of an example. It gave me a good laugh though!

[DaClyde]

Originally Posted by duwal

We're talking about today's cards where if there were two at the same value, one was completely void of logos/team name and one had everything to look like a regular uniform, which would collectors rather prefer?

If I've learned anything from this discussion, it's that all collectors are exactly the same in preferences and opinions, so clearly there must only be one answer to this, right?

[HadWayTooMuch]

Originally Posted by mwheeler27

Hmmm....

How about Babe Ruth?





Top or bottom card...which would YOU rather have?

- Top card has no MLB logo, no team logo, no team name and is in much worse condition than the bottom card.

- Bottom card is from Topps and has a large MLB logo, team name, team logo and is in much better condition than the top card.

So which is it? Top or bottom card for your collection?

I'll say it again: I can buy team names and team logos all day long at Wal-Mart, if I want, for next to nothing. But some of the authentic, quality stuff I prefer comes without logos, and I can't get it at Wal-Mart.

All I have to say is..."LOL!"

Great comparison. A 1933 card when there were no licensed cards made and a 2010 or so worthless HTA card.

Brilliant!

[slash13]

Originally Posted by HadWayTooMuch

All I have to say is..."LOL!"

Great comparison. A 1933 card when there were no licensed cards made and a 2010 or so worthless HTA card.

Brilliant!

Regardless of the vintage, in my opinion anyone who collects or admires any baseball card devoid of a team name/logo while being harshly critical of an unlicensed card solely because it lacks a team name/logo is being hypocritical.

I only have 1 unlicensed Babe Ruth card and I'm absolutely ecstatic about it! I wish I had some of the other amazing (unlicensed) Babe Ruth cards that were produced, that are in Matt's collection. As long as the product is of high quality, I could care less about seeing the team name / logo on the card.

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by HadWayTooMuch

All I have to say is..."LOL!"

Great comparison. A 1933 card when there were no licensed cards made and a 2010 or so worthless HTA card.

Brilliant!

Seriously? That's what you're laughing at?

You're calling a modern-day, licensed, with full MLB logo, team logo, player picture and legendary player card "worthless"? Yet you agree that the 1933 BASE CARD picturing no MLB logo, no team logo, no team name, in not great condition and with a print run of at least THOUSANDS of cards, is worth more?

Let me try to wrap my head around your, (and others), hypocrisy. According to you:

- It's okay to not have sport or team logos and/or names as long as no other cards at that time had them?

Well...Neither Topps, Upper Deck, Panini or any other major manufacturer has produced these, ever:









So, according to you, these should do well in the future.

And, according to you, this card is "worthless":



What makes it "worthless"?

- The print run? (1933 Goudey cards had a much, MUCH larger print run than today's Sportkings)

- Lots of other similar cards on the market? (Today's Sportkings are not only much rarer than other similar cards on the market, in many cases, they are the ONLY cards in the hobby from any manufacturer)

- Other reasons???

I'm happy to see you call my comparison "Brilliant". I'll have to agree with you, and thank you for helping me prove my point.

[Bruin7]

Originally Posted by free2131

In a word, no. Most people (myself included) would never spend any serious money on cards with players in airbrushed, blank uniforms.

2012 National Treasures is the exception but I do agree everything else is garbage (Leaf, Panini Baseball etc).

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by Bruin7

2012 National Treasures is the exception but I do agree everything else is garbage (Leaf, Panini Baseball etc).

Not 2012 National Treasures and not "garbage":

[free2131]

Originally Posted by mwheeler27

Not 2012 National Treasures and not "garbage":

To be fair, I could make cards with cut autographs of historical figures and athletes and they would still be sought after (given that the autographs were authentic). Also, considering that Price had to sell Sportkings and Famous Fabrics to Leaf, one could say that collectors weren't beating down his door for a chance at these cards.

Regardless of the vintage...

See, though, you can't take away the vintage aspect of that Ruth without completely changing the dynamic of the comparison. If there was a 1933 Topps Ruth that featured him with the Yankee logos, I would almost guarantee that it would be the preferred card to have over the Goudey.

Also, serious question, why are Joe Jackson signatures the were signed by his wife considered a valid Jackson signature? Because she signed a lot for him? I don't see how that is any different than a secretary or a clubhouse attendant that signed for other stars and famous people.

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by free2131

To be fair, I could make cards with cut autographs of historical figures and athletes and they would still be sought after (given that the autographs were authentic).

I doubt it, but for argument's sake, let's say you could...

You could custom make a Babe Ruth cut auto card WITH full MLB logos, team logos, player pictures, etc., and that unlicensed, non-major manufactured card would sell for less than any of the Sportkings Babe Ruth cut signature cards ever will. And if you don't believe me, I'd like to see you try it.

Originally Posted by free2131

Also, considering that Price had to sell Sportkings and Famous Fabrics to Leaf, one could say that collectors weren't beating down his door for a chance at these cards.

And, "one could say", he's ready to enjoy family and wanting to retire.

Dr. Price has been in this hobby for a long time. He's not some fly-by-night manufacturer that couldn't make it.

Originally Posted by free2131

See, though, you can't take away the vintage aspect of that Ruth without completely changing the dynamic of the comparison. If there was a 1933 Topps Ruth that featured him with the Yankee logos, I would almost guarantee that it would be the preferred card to have over the Goudey.

Then you're missing my point.

That 1933 Ruth card is "vintage" because enough time has passed. Eventually more time will pass, and some, if not all, "modern-day" cards will be classified as "vintage".

Originally Posted by free2131

Also, serious question, why are Joe Jackson signatures the were signed by his wife considered a valid Jackson signature? Because she signed a lot for him? I don't see how that is any different than a secretary or a clubhouse attendant that signed for other stars and famous people.

Because Joe Jackson could not read or write. He couldn't write his own name without laboriously looking at someone else's auto of his name. Other people that can clearly and easily sign their own name, but have secretaries or club house attendants do it for them is COMPLETELY different.

[Nervo]

Definitely not the future

[asujbl]

You're spending is nothing like the spending of 99% of us - that much I can guarantee

[SDcardguy24]

Nope Nope Nope

Art cards and customs are nice once in a while but I think unlicensed cards are trash.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by SDcardguy24

Nope Nope Nope

Art cards and customs are nice once in a while but I think unlicensed cards are trash.

Really?

Sportkings isn't trash.
Helmar & Sporting Life cards are quite popular among the vintage collectors who know about them and often sell for three figures (i.e. over $100 per card).
Perez Steele and Goal Line Art have been very popular for years.
Edward Vela's art cards are very popular.
Leaf & In The Game products have a serious following.

Every other thread on this board is a complaint about Topps

Now while I readily agree that my spending patterns are atypical for this board given that I don't collect rookies, bust cases, or prospect, I think they'd be much more typical on the Net54 boards, for example.

[XL5]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Every other thread on this board is a complaint about Topps

I think the fact that everyone seems to hate Topps but still buys all their products attests to the strength of licensing. Imagine if UD had the MLB license and Topps didn't, all else remaining the same.

[iconms]

Originally Posted by XL5

I think the fact that everyone seems to hate Topps but still buys all their products attests to the strength of licensing.

+1000000 excellent point