Yes, they have the 2013 date despite being a late 2014 release.

Anyone know for sure if predating a copyright makes it invalid or anything?

Steve B

Anyone still buying new packs of baseball cards in 2014, all I can say is the joke's on them.

Depends on the motive. I have bought packs just for my kids to open. Because of the drop in prices after newer stuff comes out I was about to get 4 boxes of 2013 topps for $25 total a few months back. Then each day I gave them a couple of packs to open. They didn't open and look through them for monetary gain, and I didn't buy them for monetary gain. It was purely for the root of the hobby, to have fun and look through the pictures. My 4 year old daughter would come up with stories for the "boys" on the front of the cards, then she would match up pictures that looked the same ("boys with bats", "boys throwing ball", "funny looking boys"). My 2 year old just liked making nice stacks after looking through them and would carry them around. My 1 year old just had fun opening up and pulling them out and then throwing them after yelling "ball".

No joke on me, it was a joyful time.

That is true - I've bought a few packs myself for my boys, 6 and 8. They have had fun with them. Cost me under $10.

What I mean is, anybody buying boxes and boxes of new cards searching for whatever chase card, autograph, or fragment of bat or jersey that might be found, that's who the joke is on.

Yes, I agree on the point that if you are buying to play the "lottery" the joke is certainly on you, because you are unearthing 1000s of low to no value cards to get one card that typically just seems to allow you to break even after all the boxes were bought.

Wow! To me thats a fake card if u will. Comes out in 14 with a 13 date???
Maybe they should print up some 1951 mantles next week. Thats aweful

I don't really understand the point of view of buying boxes for chase cards being a joke. How many people on the board would buy a pack of 100 year old cigarettes for a few hundred or even a thousand dollars because they think there might be a baseball card in it?

New Topps cards are for dummies
 

Hey, genius. You should have performed a discounted-cash-flow analysis of your newly printed BASEBALL CARDS' intrinsic value before choosing to invest. :rolleyes:

Until you open up a box of baseball cards you spent $75 on, and find a 2014 Bowman Chrome Kris Bryant red refractor auto /5, and then sell it for $7,333.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Bowman-...item5411a7a5d0

Some people actually buy the product because they enjoy it. I'll buy a few boxes of 2014 Bowman Chrome for the fun of it. I don't expect to buy any of the big name autos. In the past, I would just buy the individual top prospects. I don't know if I'm still going to do that. I might buy some of them. It gets hard trying to keep up, especially when the majority of my discretionary cash to put towards the hobby is going to go for vintage and pre-war.

Steve, here's the 2013 card. Notice how Beckett is describing it on their flip. "2013 card released in 2014 Topps products".

The 2013 card, released in 2014 products starting in June 2014, has a 2013 copyright.

http://imageshack.com/a/img743/8095/E4dALI.png

Wow, seems becket knows its not right and covering them self, so as not to look bad, good for becket very bad for topps

...

Baseball cards were sold pre WWII
This thread is about baseball cards
Therefore, this thread relates to pre WW II

...

This is a great thread for Blowout.

Sorry for coming in somewhat out of order, but I am rather stunned that the rampant speculation that nearly ruined new card collecting in the '90's is still going on! So many things can happen to a young player to derail what initially appears to be a super-stud career (or is that "stupid stud"?). The first "new Mickey Mantle" I can recall was Ron Swoboda in 1965, when, as memory serves, he had hit 10 homeruns and was batting .271 with the Mets after his first 118 at bats! He even hit two monster homers off Steve Carleton in one game. Then anyone familiar with the Mets through the '60's knows what happened--this very promising young man, capable of hitting the ball over buildings, as Casey Stengel put it at the time, had a considerable degree of difficulty in maintaining his homerun swing and still hitting breaking pitches. End result? Something like 76 career homers.

Next new Mickey Mantle--Rick Reichardt, 1966. He took off like a rocket too- hit 16 homers in what I recall was in the 300 AB range, while hitting .288, got injured, never was the same player, and had a brief major league career. Among the Yankees, Steve Whitaker, Ron Bloomberg and Bobby Murcer were also expected to uphold the Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantle tradition of true greats. Murcer was good, but how many even remember the other two?

Now, even if a guy does seem to fulfill his tremendous potential, there are other pitfalls waiting in the wings. In the '90's, A-Roid (oops--Alex Rodriguez) was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Does anyone even care about him anymore? Are his cards worth anything (I really don't know--I sold mine a few years back before the big fallout)?

I've said it before and I'll say it again--the early prices for rookie or near rookie phenom cards are fueled by speculation and other transient demand (the latter may not be purely speculative, but merely migrates to the next hot thing to come along). It is not, repeat not, comprised of true, lasting collector demand, characterized by the buyer purchasing it, treasuring it, and putting it away for many years to come! The time to buy these guys is when they are in their later thirties and well into the downslide that inevitably accompanies such advanced baseball age. By then, the speculative and transient portions of the demand for their cards is a thing of the distant past, and the lower prices will reflect that. However, the specter of being exposed as a PED user remains, even well-after their career has ended, because there is always someone other than a PED-using player who knows what he has been doing, and there is always significant money to be paid for the media scoop leading to the revelation.

I'll admit I weakened from my mid-nineties determination to refrain entirely from these kinds of purchases when Brennan Bosch came on the scene with such a splash with my Tigers in 2010--for nearly half a season, he was sensational, hitting well over .300 with substantial power. I bought a red refractor rookie if memory serves correctly, and paid something like $230 for it. I doubt that it would be easy to get 230 cents for it now--who would possibly want it, other than his girlfriend or immediate family members?

Check any good baseball encyclopedia--the sport's history is filled with great phenoms who turned out to be anything but. The average player's career is something like 3-5 years!

Now, we have even Mike Trout's stats taking a decided downturn, as pitchers have discovered he has a pronounced weakness for strikes above the belt. Last I heard, and I haven't checked his final stats, he was hitting in the .280's and on pace for nearly 200 strikeouts! [Just checked BaseballReference.com--this year, he was down from .320+ in each of the two preceding years to .287 and 184 strikeouts--might be a little hard at this point to say if his career is pointing in the Mickey Mantle or Dave Kingman direction]

Buy what you like, but for my money, patience is truly a virtue as far as all the new phenoms are concerned. Buy later if by then you still want to, and pay a lot less!

Sorry for the long-winded rant, but I am truly amazed that this kind of thing is repeating itself. Did we learn nothing from the '90's?

Best of luck,

Larry

Tony C (and a host of others).

Right on, Taylor, and Clint Hartung and a host of others that just couldn't miss!

All the best,

Larry

Sets
 

As a set collector, I do not speculate. If they are in a set I collect, they get collected. If not, they don't.

A problem is if the next Walter Johnson turns out to merely be the next Steve Carlton, his values will go down.

It's not pre-war related, but we are allowed to discuss things that are not pre-wwii here occasionally. This is pretty big news in the hobby right now.

An interesting thought came to me while replying to another thread.

How would this situation compare to the 33 Goudey Lajoie?

That's also a card issued the year following its supposed date. Not exactly the same, as it wasn't in packs but similar. - It's also slightly different since it has the 33 design, but a 34 copyright date.

Leaving it out of the 33 set couldn't have been an accident. Lots of companies have left cards out of sets for a variety of reasons. And selling more based on an impossible or nearly impossible card is certainly one of them.


Steve B

I was aware of the copyright on the card. I was wondering if they actually did a copyright a year ago, or if they're doing a bit of time machine playing around? And if they are can they get in trouble for it or invalidate the copyright?

Heck, UD got caught reprinting their own stuff once and outright faking their own product another time and basically got away with it.

I think Beckett is handling it properly, although I really can't see calling it a 2013 card in any way aside from appearance.
I'd hope that the reduction in price is a combination of his still not getting to the majors and there being more than the expected number of 2014 signed inserts. Sadly I expect that it's because some people actually think of it as a 2013 card and thus an earlier issue.
Since he hasn't made the majors yet, I'm not even seeing how it's even a "rookie card" by the usual definitions. If it is, then my Jeter signature rookies card should also be an official "rookie card" - Sold during his first year? check Part of a nationally issued set? check. Not an insert????? Yeah, that's been ignored for signed cards. Not part of a subset? check. Yeah, it really should be, but isn't. And neither should this new card or event the regular 2014 card.


Steve B