Revival Brainstorming

[barrysloate]

Yes, those Topps retro sets leave a lot to be desired. But how would you get the equipment to take your printing up to the next level? My favorite printing style was the chromolithography that was widely used in the 1880's, but I doubt there is any way to duplicate that today. Same with the 1910 style of printing. You would have to find something finer than the glossy mass produced designs used by Topps, even if it wasn't exactly the style of a century ago. Maybe we need a print expert to come on and explain what can be done with our current technology.

[abothebear]

This is me writing out of ignorance, but I wonder how a multi-pass, thicker ink, on a textured card stock (maybe like a linen postcard style stock) would look? I think it would be awesome to duplicate the old litho process, but if it is extremely cost prohibitive then maybe something like what I described would give it the same degree of eye-appeal if not exactly the same kind.

Here is an example from the 2007 Upper Deck Masterpieces set (I incorrectly referred to it as a Topps set above). I would make them smaller and still do something refining with the printing but I think it at least conveys the potential of alternate card stocks for adding texture and depth.

[ullmandds]

Sadly...I think the only way to create a beautiful...cost effective bb card today...would be to have it made in china...or india...where labor is so cheap.

[jp1216]

When I was 8 - I didn't collect cards for their future value. It was cheap & fun. Topps or whoever, needs to get back to 50 cent packs without all the autos, 1/1s, pre-war stuff etc. Let kids be kids and let them enjoy the basic, common cards. My best memories were picking up 7 packs a week of 1980 Topps for about $2. Trading with friends and building sets. Not looking for 1/1s and throwing the rest away. Most kids that enjoy collecting today, will enjoy collecting tomorrow.
Cost effective? Probably not....
Unfortunately in 20 years, Pokemon PSA 10s will be all the rage...

[steve B]

The technology is still around. There are places doing fine art prints from stones. So the process wouldn't be the problem.

What would be the problem is the licensing. The license for current players would be hard to get, and pretty expensive. Probably expensive enough that you'd be forced to overproduce somewhat, or have a very expensive set.

Steve B

[veloce]

I think cereal boxes are a natural fit. I know this has been tried in recent years, but mostly with small sets. The 200 card Post sets of the '60s appeal more to the right personality type to become serious collectors, in part because they would be more difficult to complete. I also think of breakfast as a perfect time to capture a kid's attention... you sit there for 10 minutes eating your cereal and admiring the cards.

Other than that, why not make them secondary to the gum again? Take a package of extra, and throw in a couple baseball cards. Kids will always love candy.

I wish MLB and the player's association would give Topps a cheap or free license to distribute kid friendly sets. No inserts, errors, short prints. It would probably be worth something to Topps and MLB in terms of promoting love of the sport and the hobby. Unfortunately, I don't think of MLB or card companies as thinking long term.

[barrysloate]

How many kids today, say under the age of 12, try to piece together complete Topps sets by opening packs? Does anybody do that anymore?

[abothebear]

Barry, I would doubt any kid would. It would cost a fortune, and you can go to Target and buy a factory set for $50. Or wait a year and get one cheaper from ebay. or you can buy base card lots of already opened packs for much cheaper. But I can't imagine anyone trying to do it the old fashion way.

The whole system discourages set collecting and thereby discourages any real demand for base cards. commons used to be have a minimal value because of set collecting. Not anymore. Any attempts at reintroducing the set collecting element to the hobby needs to begin with creating a demand for the common card. No facgtory sets. No inserts. Affordable access to the cards' entry point.

[mawitzi]

I don't think that there would be that much interest in these cards. I might like them, but I don't think many other people would. Modern card collectors would not want them. Anything that it does not have large memorabilia pieces or autos is considered junk. I also don't think that vintage collectors would buy them. We complain about new cards because we simply don't like new cards. Vintage collectors buy old cards because they like old cards. It doesn't matter what the new cards look like or how they are distributed, they will still be new. Vintage collectors will not buy new cards.

Don't let me stop you. I am wrong a lot.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mawitzi

I don't think that there would be that much interest in these cards. I might like them, but I don't think many other people would. Modern card collectors would not want them. Anything that it does not have large memorabilia pieces or autos is considered junk. I also don't think that vintage collectors would buy them. We complain about new cards because we simply don't like new cards. Vintage collectors buy old cards because they like old cards. It doesn't matter what the new cards look like or how they are distributed, they will still be new. Vintage collectors will not buy new cards.

Don't let me stop you. I am wrong a lot.

If it's a piece of art, some vintage collectors might want it - look at the paintings shown on the memorabilia sub-forum. Also, some of the Perez-Steele issues were/are collected by vintage collectors.

If I had the means to duplicate the process used to create the late 1800's lithos, or even T206's, the first art might be a bit larger - maybe postcard or cabinet-size color recreations of famous Conlon, Van Oeyen and Frances Burke action photos. You could include an ordering list in a product, perhaps a Sports publication.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by abothebear

Barry, I would doubt any kid would. It would cost a fortune, and you can go to Target and buy a factory set for $50. Or wait a year and get one cheaper from ebay. or you can buy base card lots of already opened packs for much cheaper. But I can't imagine anyone trying to do it the old fashion way.

The whole system discourages set collecting and thereby discourages any real demand for base cards. commons used to be have a minimal value because of set collecting. Not anymore. Any attempts at reintroducing the set collecting element to the hobby needs to begin with creating a demand for the common card. No facgtory sets. No inserts. Affordable access to the cards' entry point.

And for an insane idea, maybe make the set with "common" stars and rookies, and make the commons the tough cards. Maybe hand numbered to the players homerun total or something silly like that. So print a million Pujols cards and only 4 J.D. Drew.

There's a blog with a lot of great direct info about the licensing.
http://blog.heritagesportsart.com/20...-to-world.html

For an inexpensive pack/box you'd need to sell around 500 thousand packs just to cover licensing fees, AND apparently most licensors want you to be the manufacturer. Which means the expense of equipment and people to run it.

Steve B

[abothebear]

Thanks for the info, Steve. Interesting stuff.

Anyone know where the line in the sand is for what constitutes using MLB club marks and logos? I wonder if a card with the kind of lack of team detail like a T206 could get away with only a mlbpa license.