Not vintage related but a neat story.
 

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p><a href="http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070524.wsptupper24/GSStory/GlobeSportsBaseball/home" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070524.wsptupper24/GSStory/GlobeSportsBaseball/home</a>

Not vintage related but a neat story.
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff D.</b><p>Not to sound rude here...but I don't know what's "neat" about that.<br /><br />Folks around here probably don't notice or care much about modern cards, but for starters, Topps and Upper Deck are the only companies that make officially licensed MLB cards (Donruss having lost the privilege last year). Taking Topps out of the game would leave only Upper Deck, a horrible prospect for many reasons. Competition, pricing and variety would be large concerns. As would the fact that Topps is considered by many to be the far superior card maker. <br />It sort of looks like Upper Deck would rather buy out the competition instead of improve their product and customer service.<br /><br /><br />I imagine that antitrust concerns will be raised that would stop this offer before it gets a chance to gain any momentum.

Not vintage related but a neat story.
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I do think the modern card market has some affect on our market. My guess is that many youngsters that start out in the newer cards eventually move to vintage (like most of us). It's a fairly natural progression. I would venture to say there is no one on this board more in tune with the new market than my good friend, Rich Klein. He and I talk frequently about the new card market over lunch. It seems as though "2" is a very good number for the number of companies producing cards. They each have something like 24 issues (could be 12, I forget) so there is a monthly new supply for the current card market. If there is only 1 new card company it could be a bad thing....I hope that doesn't happen and I agree the SEC could have something to say about it too....regards

Not vintage related but a neat story.
 

Posted By: <b>Jim Dale</b><p>Could only hope that the creation of such a monopoly would be forbidden? But I have to wonder now days what they'd say - cards is a very small part of Topps Inc., today. Its more of a candy business.

Not vintage related but a neat story.
 

Posted By: <b>Joe</b><p>Calling Marvin Miller!

Not vintage related but a neat story.
 

Posted By: <b>RIch Klein</b><p>I'm going from memory here so a number may be off by one or two:<br /><br />2004: 92 products issued (or one for every 4 days of the year)<br />2005: 70 or so (Would have been more but Fleer ceased operations in May; Donruss/Leaf/Playoff's contract expired at end of year)<br />2006: 40 (New Mandate from MLB and MLBPA) -- down to just 2 manufacturers (Topps and UD)<br />2007: Same as 2006<br />2008: 32 products (same 2 companies) -- this is, of course, dependent on the future sale of Topps to see exactly what happenns.<br /><br />Rich<br /><br />