2015 Panini Diamond Kings Baseball Forum

After browsing some of the galleries here and seeing many different cards over at COMC, there are a number of designs i really like, but i just can't get over the fact that since they are not licensed i get a bunch of guys with blank helmets and jerseys and they just dont feel or look right. The 2015 Diamond Kings are one example, but there are many more including Goodwin Champions, a few Panini, etc.

I have been a Topps fan all of my life, but find myself only collecting A&G and Stadium Club and staying away from all of the others.

Are there sets you would collect if Topps did not have the exclusive license? 

I am not a fan of unlicensed cards because of the usual ugly Photoshopping of logos that is done but there have been plenty of cards that I have picked up that looked decent or the airbrushing isn't as noticable. I don't want to limit my collection if I like a design because it isn't licensed. The exclusive licensing may work for the leagues and card manufacturers, but unfortuantly it hurts us, the collectors.

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewSet.cfm/sid/9853/2010-Upper-Deck

Why can't unlicensed sets look like this anymore.  This is a fine looking set, that also happens to be unlicensed.  Is this a no no now.  I wouldn't mind unlicensed sets that look like this and can play with photography and placements of bats/gloves what not. 

That set got Upper Deck sued by MLB and Topps, the slightly concealed or blocked logos were still too visable. They settled and were allowed to sell out their inventory of 2010 baseball, but that was it for Upper Deck baseball. 

I don't mind the logos being airbrushed off, but it is better with them. I wish the Topps MLB deal wasn't exclusive, or at least a lot shorter. Panini still has a liscence with the MLBPA to use the players immages. Now that I think about it, thats really the more important liscense. You can still have the cards without the team logo, but do we really want cards that don't identify any player?

I never hear football collectors complain about Topps airbrushing off logos in the 1970s.

David, it's before my time but I think the difference is that when it's the only thing available, it's better than nothing. Now that we all are familiar with the good times of the 90s and 00s, when there were options, and the key- the companies want to make cards but aren't allowed to anymore-that doesn't sit well because now we know something better, had something better, and lost it, and could easily have it again but the sports leagues just don't care as long as they are getting their dump truck full of money...that's what causes the anger. 

I have a bit of a double standard in my collection. The early Topps NBA sets were unlicensed. Yet I count them as part of my collection with no second thoughts. Airbrush the logos off now, and it's not part of my collection. Example being the 1994 Star sets, any of the Classic brand cards that are pro images with the logos removed. Actually, I'll still take them into my collection, but I count them with my college cards. I consider them the dregs of my collection and don't even know where most of mine are, and I don't even know what appears in my collection. I have a rudimentary paper list, but 99% are not listed here. I have no files of them on Excel (yet) either, though I plan to in the not too distant future. But I digress.

As a kid I never even noticed it to be honest. 

Actually, some of the worst looking cards are airbrushed 70s football cards with helmets with no logos.