Football card advice

[PurdueBrad]

Hey guys-

Not sure if there are any collectors here, but if so, I was looking for some advice. My son just turned 1 and what I want to do is buy him a box of football cards each year so that he has a small but good collection for each year. Since I'm doing it annually, I was looking at the rookie sets like Press Pass. While doing so, I've come across another brand called Sage in the same price range.

Is anyone familiar with Sage? If so, which would you recommend, Press Pass or Sage? I think it would be cool to buy him a box that'll provide some inserts and autographs which is the other reason I'm looking at these two.

Thanks,

PB

[JediKooter]

I've never bought any Sage products, plus, I never really heard of them until a couple of weeks ago to be honest. Press Pass is ok, but, I don't like the cards per pack (usually only 4 or 5 cards per pack) compared to the price of them. I prefer Upper Deck as they seem to have more autos and relics in their sets than Topps or others do. That's just my opinion. Plus, I buy hobby packs and not the cards you would find in Target or some place like that.

If you were the coolest dad, you'd buy a box of each.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If you were the coolest dad, you'd buy a box of each.

Thanks Jedi. I am planning on going the hobby pack route as well. I keep trying to convince the wife about your above quotation, but so far, no luck!

[JediKooter]

Definitely go the hobby route for sure.

Ah man. Tell her those boxes of cards will cost far less than the therapy he may need because you did not get those boxes of cards. Just kidding!!

Look at the boxes, they usually have the odds of what may be in any given pack. I also look for boxes that have guaranteed autos or relics in them.

I just bought a box of 2009 Upper Deck football cards and in each box there's at least 1 auto and 3 relic cards. Each pack has 20 cards in it. I ended up with a Drew Brees relic, a Ray Rice relic, a Patrick Turner relic, and a Brian Orakpo auto in the box.

From just random packs, I've also got a Tony Romo patch card thingee, that I've never seen before that is also autographed.

[PurdueBrad]

Very cool card!! Yeah, I was always a big Upper Deck fan when I collected so I may go back to them.

[DanGarion]

If the boxes don't contain rookie cards that are serialized and autographed they are basically not worth the purchase...

[PurdueBrad]

So, to start, we purchased:

1 box of 2009 Upper Deck Ultimate (didn't realize it was one pack, I'm stupid)
1 box of 2009 SPx
1 box of 2010 Press Pass

Our pulls were okay. The Ultimate relic was a Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Steve Young, Emmitt Smith, Franco Harris, and Roger Craig six way jersey card, #16/35. We got a Zac Robinson autograph, Tony Pike autograph and a few others and a Jevan Snead jersey card. Ordered the SPx box on-line so waiting for it to arrive.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

The Ultimate relic was a Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, Steve Young, Emmitt Smith, Franco Harris, and Roger Craig six way jersey card, #16/35.

And actually, I need to ask an odd question. One of those six players is married to my dad's cousin. Is there any value in getting the one autograph in the card? Or maybe in trying to hunt down the other five sigs? I ask because I thought I had heard there was a debate over whether or not autographs add value to or hurt the value of a card. I had always assumed it added value but I've heard otherwise recently.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

And actually, I need to ask an odd question. One of those six players is married to my dad's cousin. Is there any value in getting the one autograph in the card? Or maybe in trying to hunt down the other five sigs? I ask because I thought I had heard there was a debate over whether or not autographs add value to or hurt the value of a card. I had always assumed it added value but I've heard otherwise recently.

Nowadays the value is just for the sign, not the card.

[Chubby]

yeah unless it's a signature card where it's obviously verfied, it's usually better off getting a ball signed or something like that.

Should I send you a 49ers, Cowboys, or Steelers football to get signed?

[PurdueBrad]

Thanks guys for the advice again, it's been years since I've been into collecting but I'm looking forward to doing this with my little guy.

[NewIdentity]

Upper Deck strikes out. | Sports Business Digest

The mighty are not only falling…they’re dropping. quickly. Honestly, what is going on over at The Upper Deck company?
The problems all begin in 2008 when Upper Deck when Konami discovered that counterfeit Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards were being sold in stores by an Upper Deck sub-distributor. After taking action against the sub-distributor, the sub-distributor dropped the dime; “the cards were supplied by Upper Deck”. Lovely.

One hundreds of million dollar lawsuit and year of legal discovery later? Turns out the sub-distributor was right; Upper Deck had not only created the counterfeit cards, they were shredding evidence.

Discovery in the lawsuit revealed that Upper Deck had counterfeited Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG cards, and that it took extensive steps to cover-up that activity. The cover-up included a meeting in the office of Upper Deck’s chairman, in which he and at least one other Upper Deck employee compared samples of authentic Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG cards against fakes made by Upper Deck, and shredded the samples in the chairman’s office, as well as an e-mail from an employee of Upper Deck to other employees asking to provide her information on how to obtain Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG security foils “in secrecy.” (via Earth Times)

Not surprisingly, Upper Deck settled the lawsuit with Konami, fearing what I would assume would be a losing court battle. Of course, if you read Upper Deck’s press release, you’d never know. (UD Press Release) Of course, if you read the opening argument from Upper Deck’s lawyer, you may have a slightly different opinion,

Mr. Howell of Rutan & Tucker noted in the opening statement to the jury: ”The behavior is still undeniably wrong. And I am in here, as counsel for the two defendants, asking you to hold my clients accountable for that behavior; asking you to hold my clients responsible for this conduct that there is no dispute, and there was no disputing even before this case started today, that it was wrong.” (via Earth Times)

Query: How do you make a bad “PR-counterfeit-multi-million dollar pay out” situation worse?
Answer: By adding a trademark infringement lawsuit to the mix.


For those that don’t remember, Upper Deck lost its ability to use the MLB logos and team names back in August, when MLB gave Topps the exclusive license on all MLB trading cards. Upper Deck’s rights to MLB’s logos and team names were to end on January 1, 2010. Not willing to accept the decision, Upper Deck re-signed its licensing agreement with the MLBPA, allowing the company to create cards with players images and likenesses. Of course, you know what happens next…

Upper Deck recently unveiled two new sets of cards — its “Signature Stars” and “Ultimate Collection” lines for the 2009 season — that do not have team names or logos printed on the borders of the cards, but do include pictures of players in MLB uniforms. The card of Boston Red Sox first baseman Kevin Youkilis, for example, shows him wearing the club’s jersey and signature “B” batting helmet, but the card’s border identifies his team only as “Boston.”

Those new card lines are at the center of MLB’s complaint, in which it alleges that Upper Deck’s conduct is “reflective of a pattern of utter disrespect for the contractual and intellectual property rights of those from whom it licenses valuable trademarks.” The suit was filed after MLB earlier sent a letter to card distributors asking them not to sell Upper Deck’s 2010 baseball sets. (via MLB Fanhouse)

Apparently, no one puts Upper Deck in a corner.

Its such a blatant disregard for intellectual property that its almost humorous. Even if for some strange reason Upper Deck thought they were in the right, they at the very least knew that this would bring a lawsuit or at least the ire of MLB. The question I’d ask is, even if they’re right, why put themselves through all of the unnecessary hassle? Just to be able to produce trading cards that don’t have MLB names and logos on them…When Topps already has the exclusive MLB license…At a time when the entire card industry is bottoming out and no one is buying cards anyway…

Maybe their money and time could have been better spent elsewhere.

An interesting article about Upper Deck

[NewIdentity]

NHL new trading card licensing structure | Sports Business Digest

Clearly, its just not Upper Deck’s year.
Last week the NHL signed a licensing deal with Panini America to produce hockey cards along with Upper Deck, which previously held an exclusive NHL license. That’s all well and good, except for the fact that any exclusive autograph deals and exclusives previously held by NHL players with Upper Deck are now nullified.

In his letter, Adam Larry, the Director of Licensing and Associate Counsel for the NHLPA, noted that “both Upper Deck and Panini will be permitted to use images of ALL NHL players in their products” — but also that those two manufacturers “are the only trading card companies that players should sign autographs or appear on packaging for.”
The letter states that “Neither Upper Deck nor Panini can sign a player to an exclusive autograph deal” and that “Neither Panini nor Upper Deck can: (I) preclude a player’s image from appearing on trading cards made by the other company; or (II) prevent memorabilia (jerseys, equipment, etc.) of a player from being included in trading cards made by the other company.”
Interestingly, the only exclusives that can be signed are for packaging deals where the players can endorse a product by appearing on the boxes or wrappers of products.
The letter also states that “in the event a player currently has a deal with Upper Deck that runs past June 30, 2010, that provides for exclusivity in the trading card category beyond packaging, those provisions will now be null and void. (However, Upper Deck must still abide by all the other terms of the agreement (such as payment obligations).” (via Beckett Blog)

Without knowing any of the monetary details behind trading card licensing deals, you would at least have to assume that exclusivity carries some form of monetary value. Either in price to the consumer or maybe in the amount you have to pay for the exclusive athlete. Upper Deck used to enjoy that value…no longer. Not surprisingly, Upper Deck will be producing fewer NHL cards this year…not that the NHLPA is worried.

The letter also notes that Upper Deck will not be producing as many NHL sets as it had in its previous five years as an exclusive but that the NHLPA expects “the shortfall to be more than made up for however by the new licensee Panini.”

Things are almost going hilariously bad for Upper Deck in 2010. You may remember that they’ve already had two losing lawsuits this year regarding Yu-Gi-Oh cards and unlicensed MLB cards, and now they’ll be producing fewer NHL cards due to their loss of exclusivity.
Things could be going better, no?

You might want to think about staying away from Upper Deck right now.

[Senator]

Not for nothing, but I started collecting football cards in the 70's when I was 5 or so years old. At that time, it was Topps. I didn't need any tricked up stuff such as signature series or whatever, just give me players with their photo and stats on the back. So each year I got a complete set when the season started. Always Topps to keep it consistent. Since my son has been born, I have continued buying the set each season, and at some point, if he decides he is into this type of stuff ( he already likes football) I will give him my Topps collection of complete sets from 1976-2010. With the rule he has to give it to his son someday.

[Chubby]

Panini = Donruss now right? I was reading up on all the Upper Deck stuff in a mag I bought for Tyler (I plan on getting 1 price mag a year to check on my older stuff)

[ColtCrazy]

How the hell did I miss this thread?

I am a big football card collector, mostly Colts, but I like trying to put together sets now and then.

If you want a cheap box of a decent product, look at 2009 Upper Deck Philadelphia. It's got the old school design (like the old Philadelphia sets of the 60s..hence the name). Right now you can pick up hobby boxes of it for under $40. Each box hits 2 jersey cards and an auto (which the auto is signed on the card...I prefer those a lot). The base set of 200 has all the big name stars. The downside is the rookies are SP so it's hard to get those.

If you want to get all the rookies in their pro jerseys and not worry about chasing SP (single print run) cards, then the base Topps set is always a good one to put together.

Panini is my favorite of the 3 companies because they have some great looking sets. I rarely buy boxes though, choosing instead to buy singles of guys I want. I had to trim my collection down to just Colts stuff but I've been building back up slowly.

I love Senators idea. I still have the 1981 set my dad and I put together. I'd like to go back and do every set since I was born (1974) and go up to today.

[jaygr]

I was wondering if any of you into football cards can help me out. Doing some cleaning I came across a cool card I got in a pack in 2002. It is a Joe Montana/Jerry Rice game worn jersey card that has a piece of jersey from each player.

For reference, the card is a 2002 Topps, Kings of Kings MVP Edition.

I did some searching online, and looked at Tuff Stuff online and was pretty excited that the card could be worth $225-$400, but this is where I get confused.

The number on the back of the card that I have is K-MR. In the price guide, it lists:

K-MR Joe Montana, John Elway $225

Then the entry below it is:

K-MJ Joe Montana, Jerry Rice $400


I am not sure what to think. K-MR makes sense as the number on my card considering it is Montanan and Rice. Could it be a mis-print in the guide? If that is the case too, I wonder if the Montana/Rice would be more likely to be the $400 or would it be more likely that the Montana Elway one is. Thanks for any insight anyone can provide.

[samifan24]

It sounds like the card is misprinted in the Tuff Stuff. The important thing to remember is that even though a price guide says the card is worth that much, you're not likely to get anything close to that on eBay, or at least that's been my experience.

[ColtCrazy]

Agreed, chances are its Tuff Stuff's error. Also, Tuff Stuff is usually not considered the leading guide source, Beckett would be. A nice Montana/Rice dual jersey can fetch close to $40 or so if it's from a collectible set or low numbered. At the least, it's probably a solid $20 card....though the high BV might suggest it might be a fairly scarce card.

[Galaril]

I have not got into any football card collecting but have got a very nice group of baseball card complete sets focusing mostly on old time players prior to 1970 including hall of famers. The last time I checked the sets were valued around 28k. But that for me is not the reason for collecting partly for something to pass onto my son in 30-40 years.

[sovereignstar v2]

Moving for the first time in 9 years this week. I still haven't managed to part myself from my old trading cards. I have a pretty large mix of baseball, basketball, and football cards - 5 totes' worth including half a dozen unopened sets. I know they aren't worth anything (other than a 2nd year Jordan card), but I'll be damned if I'll be the one to throw them. They're coming with me again!