Topps versus non-licensed product
 

Personally, I do not collect non-licensed donruss, fleer, panani, etc.


I consider the team logos and uniforms very much a part of the 'full' product.


What's your opinion?



.

I'll on rare occasion pick up a non-licensed card on the second-hand market, especially if it's a graded rookie card of an interesting player, but generally speaking I'm with you...licensed only.

I’m in the same boat. I want to see the player and the uniform too. Unlicensed cards are crap in my book.

Butch

Thanks to Marvin Miller's invigoration of the MLBPA and the inability of Topps to get renewed players licenses many cards in the 68 and 69 sets involve old photos, capless photos and airbrushed logos.

And two pretty sought after and expensive non licensed Topps sets are the 73 Comics and Pin Ups

I could care less. Topps' monopoly probably hasn't been good. Panini has some junk, and some good stuff. Diamond Kings is a fun box. It doesn't ruin Topps football cards in the 70's, and doesn't ruin baseball now.

You stole my answer on this one. ;)

Tons of the new releases have been hideous. The framed Diamond Kings are fairly consistent in being some of my favorites every year and I want cards I enjoy.

The only modern cards I collect are those of players on my fantasy baseball team. (Odd collection choice I know, please don't judge). I'll try to nab one card of each player on my team and much prefer Topps cards over the others although in some cases there is no choice.

Glad I’m not the only one. When I can’t find anything on my vintage list, I pick up modern cards of the old timers. Panini includes a lot of the B tier pre-war players Topps doesn’t include in its retro sets (Waner, Lyons, Lefty Gomez types). The artwork style is nice, I like the framed parallels more than how Topps does it, where parallels just have a different color border. Golden Age and Cooperstown were fun when they made them. The modern player focused Panini sets don’t cover up the lack of logos quite so well with the game action photos, but they compare well with Topps base.

Competition is good. Cards changed a lot when there were multiple makers experimenting with different ideas (Pacific probably most of all) and there was something for anyone (except those grumps who will hate anything made in modernity simply because it was produced in modernity). Topps line up is basically the exact same as when they were gifted the monopoly again.

I'm not interested in Panini when it comes to baseball. I don't think their cards are all that nice and sticker autos are more common for their products than on card.

It's a double whammy for me: unlicensed cards with no logos and a sticker auto to look forward to.

I don't collect non-licensed cards, it doesn't matter if it is pre-war, post-war or modern.

National Treasures is the only set I browse because I like the booklets. I don't buy very often because I have a narrow focus of collecting. But the booklet I have for Ted Kluszewski and Jonathan India are both nicely done.

Otherwise nothing else appeals to me. Someone showed Darby Chocolates retro cards last week and I'm going to look into those.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...aa054e7720.jpg

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk