Inaugural Ask a Stupid Question Thread

[evensen_dashagua]

I'll go for one of the questions you mentioned. Why does Topps have its monopoly again? Does MLB really think this is healthier for the industry? What does MLBPA think about all this? Weren't the multiple baseball card producers supposed to be the source of their strike war fund back in '94 (as insinuated, I believe, in Card Sharks)?

If you look closely, you'll also notice that baseball video game producers have a similar monopolistic deal. Last I checked was a year ago or so, and, as I recall, every major system has a single game that has both the MLB and MLBPA licenses. Why did MLB change its practice from the late 80s and early 90s, when you'd see multiple licensed baseball video games, multiple card sets, team and league names on APBA envelopes, etc.?

I asked this once on a random Baseball Think Factory thread, but nobody could give me a satisfactory answer. Not only are these developments troubling to me, but it seems that we may see a constant, gradual reduction in the numbers and varieties of baseball cards produced in the coming years. If only they would get rid of the annoying refractor-type one-off cards in the process...

[ALR-bishop]

Topps never had a true monopoly on baseball cards. What they had eventually after Bowman sold itself to Topps at the height of it's ( Bowman's) market value were contracts with players that gave them the exclusive right to sell their likeness with confections ( candy/gum). Other companies could have sold baseball cards by themselves or with other products...like cookies ( Fleer) and marbles ( Leaf). But the market apparently was set around gum back then.

It was Marvin Miller who convinced the players that they should be getting a bigger share of the take and faced Topps down. Eventually MLB itself realized that baseball cards were a product that needed to be part of it's merchandizing machine.

MLB and the player union now control who has the market through thier license agreements, and they surely go with what they think makes them the most money. For now, they believe less product concentrated with fewer producers give them the best situation. Topps, with it's history, and with Eisner's muscle, is the current choice.

I have been collecting since 1957 and was glad when other products hit the market in 1981. But if you look in the SCD Standard Catalog at the growing proliferation of baseball product starting in 1995, I was also glad with the cut back. I realize others may feel differently since everyone approaches the hobby from different perspectives

[steve B]

Yep, I was happy about a bunch of new stuff in 81 too. What great fun!

And for a few years I'd look at nearly any box or package with a blank side or bit of excess room in the design and think "they could put a card there"

Then by the late 90's I pretty much got that. And realized how much less special it made everything.

I think cutting down was overall a good thing for both baseball and the hobby. At the time they started most companies weren't doing well and as companies failed and were bought or not bought it made things confusing.
Will my favorite set be made this year? and by who? fleerboxdeck? donruss/pinnacle/panini? Panini?! aren't those the Italian soccer stickers that look identical from one year to the next?

And with future values not only tied to production but popularity the products with stronger brands that survived would do better. (I think I'm the only one who prefers some of the extinct companies like signature rookies and collectors edge and wild card although most of those only did football. ) So they had to cut back to one or two licensees to rebuild the market for cards in general.

Steve B

[Sierra79]

Does anyone know if any proof cards from the donruss elite sets (1991-1993) are in existance? I see many proof and test issues come from the topps vault, so it got me wondering if there are any such cards from the early elite series sets.