Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bombjack
Photos and, more importantly the rights to use them in a product for profit, cost money. Topps has rigths to some players, but not to others. They may be able to buy those (and should if they are charging this amount), but I've seen it speculated that Mathewson's card image rights are exclusive to Panini (apparently he has had cards made by them in the last few years). Again, I used to work at Topps (as baseball editor, not on contracts).
Actually, that buyer profited nicely, as Topps bought this on ebay a few months ago for $12,500 (link below). I doubt that the card made from it will garner that much, but that is beside the point. The person who won the card paid under $200 to do so, and understanding that is the whole key to understanding the overall phenomenon.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Christy-Math...cAAOSwHaBWkvgr |
I knew Topps had Mathewson cards, but after your comment I looked and they must have lost the rights after 2011 since that is the last year he was on their cards.
It still doesn't change the idea though. Because this is suppose to be an ultrahigh end product. Why not make sure you were going to have the best design possible. In this case they didn't improve it. Since there is not a photo they could have left it as a full item and just matted it and framed it. It just looks tacky cut and not having the matte frame it very well.
I understand the casebreaks and the ability to get these items at great prices (gambling for memorabilia), but there is a company called Super Break who has figured out how to give out the entire memorabilia piece. Why can't Topps figure out how to do that with these cut signatures? It isn't like a bat where they can fill multiple products these are a single signature pieces repackaged to a single card that SOMETIMES (as is the case with the Mathewson) looks worse.
Again I have no problems repackaging a cut auto, but it shouldn't look rushed and lazy.
12-14-2016, 03:18 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode