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
Quote:
Originally Posted by the 'stache
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.
 |