They do matter. I would much rather purchase a card with logos and team names, than purchase a card without them. That said, I still purchase unlicensed cards. They just suck a little more.
Yes, of course. The one problem I have with Panini is their lack of logos, because they make their cards a lot more boring and manufactured. Plus, the lack of logos needlessly manufactures photoshop into photos that don't especially need it, which sort of defeats the purpose.
Logos are essential. I would also like to see team colors take the place of some of the refractor/border colors (i.e. give the rangers two parallels: red and blue). Multi-product licenses should be given to AT LEAST two manufacturers per league. A one-product license should be available to anyone who wishes to purchase it.
I guess I am the black sheep once again. No they don't matter to me under certain circumstances. I'd much rather collect a great unlicensed set like Hometown Heroes or Cooperstown than a boring licensed set like Archives or Gypsy Queen.
I like seeing logos on my cards but it doesn't really affect my purchasing of most cards. I still collect Goodwin and Golden Age, for example. And I don't hold it against Panini because Topps has strong-armed their way into an exclusive license. I like a lot of variety and I miss all the random food and other oddball issues that came out in the past.
Logos and licenses don't matter to me per se, but I like to see in-game action shots, and that gets tough when logos are forbidden. You wind up with the pitcher in the same position every time, hands covering his chest, and head (and hat logo) turned just far enough to the side to be illegible. For that reason, I tend to like the licensed products better
I enjoy Panini's products and I think they're getting better about working around the logos, but I feel the lack of a logo does take away from the final product.
Yes, the logos matter, but I'll still buy the unlicensed stuff anyway.
I don't much like logoless cards. Logos and team names are part of the pageantry of sports, and cards without those things seem like lesser pieces of cardboard. I will still acquire them for my player collections when the price is right, but I view them as second-class offerings.
P.S. EVERYBODY ...for some unknown reason, my blog is not updating on your blogrolls, so please be sure to stop by ATBATT and check out my latest blog post.
Don't matter at all, most of my favorite oddballs from the 90s don't have logos. I am really surprised that it matters so much to the majority of people. I mean, it has to look good photo-wise, but really, there are lots of other things that matter more to me than logos.
It makes most of the base sets look like crap, but it doesn't stop me from buying some of Panini's products. If you are an auto or relic collector Panini often provides good value. I've seen some Panini McCutchen autos go for $40 to $50. That is a good deal considering that a Topps equivalent could go for double.
Not particularly, as I'm a player collector at heart and will take all cards if my guy's on them. I prefer logos, of course, but can deal without them.
Logos are generally preferred, but the lack of them don't really bother me at all. It can be done (sup, early MLBPA licensed Panini cards), but you *really* have to make a crappy, ill-conceived card to make the lack of logos at all annoying to me.
Ultimately, so long as the playing field is tilted the way it is, I won't count it against the manufacturers that can't get, or purposely avoid, licenses. I also find it very disconcerting how important logos seem to be to the vast majority of people.
I'm old enough to remember pulling cards which 'featured' blank black caps on traded players courtesy of Topps 'art' department. I didn't care for those and I don't like logo-less cards much now. OTOH I see some of the Topps football cards without helmet logos as 'charming' so there ya go. My answer is a definitive 'It depends'.
Yes. I do find it fun to look at unlicensed cards and the pictures they use, though. If they choose the right photo, then they can do less in photoshop. Use a back shot and just tweak the colors. Use a photo of a catcher in their gear to have logos already covered up. Use a photo of the player just after they have swung a bat to have their arms covering the logo.
They matter to me. I haven't stopped buying unlicensed cards, but have cut down. I wish if they are unlicensed they would be cheaper (and more cards in a pack), and use studio photos. Get creative so you don't have to show blank jerseys and caps.
Yes, I tend to avoid the unlicensed card manufacturers.
ReplyDeleteThey do matter. I would much rather purchase a card with logos and team names, than purchase a card without them. That said, I still purchase unlicensed cards. They just suck a little more.
ReplyDeleteYes, I love logos.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course. The one problem I have with Panini is their lack of logos, because they make their cards a lot more boring and manufactured. Plus, the lack of logos needlessly manufactures photoshop into photos that don't especially need it, which sort of defeats the purpose.
ReplyDeleteYes. I want logos and team names on the cards.
ReplyDeleteNot only do I want logos and team names on the cards, I'd also like to see the correct teams and logos on the cards.
ReplyDeleteHoly hell, yes. And I know they matter to you, too.
ReplyDeleteYes. I've enjoyed a good amount of what Panini has done so far, but their sets do still feel quite a bit lacking without logos.
ReplyDeleteLogos are essential. I would also like to see team colors take the place of some of the refractor/border colors (i.e. give the rangers two parallels: red and blue). Multi-product licenses should be given to AT LEAST two manufacturers per league. A one-product license should be available to anyone who wishes to purchase it.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am the black sheep once again. No they don't matter to me under certain circumstances. I'd much rather collect a great unlicensed set like Hometown Heroes or Cooperstown than a boring licensed set like Archives or Gypsy Queen.
ReplyDeleteI like seeing logos on my cards but it doesn't really affect my purchasing of most cards. I still collect Goodwin and Golden Age, for example. And I don't hold it against Panini because Topps has strong-armed their way into an exclusive license. I like a lot of variety and I miss all the random food and other oddball issues that came out in the past.
ReplyDeleteI love to see the Birds on the Bat and licenses are important to me. I haven't liked any of the recent unlicensed issues-they just seem crappy.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. I organize my cards by team and it's a pain to sort stuff quickly without a logo or at least the actual team name to glance at.
ReplyDeleteLogos and licenses don't matter to me per se, but I like to see in-game action shots, and that gets tough when logos are forbidden. You wind up with the pitcher in the same position every time, hands covering his chest, and head (and hat logo) turned just far enough to the side to be illegible. For that reason, I tend to like the licensed products better
ReplyDeleteSince I said Donruss was my favorite 2014 set....I guess they don't matter.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy Panini's products and I think they're getting better about working around the logos, but I feel the lack of a logo does take away from the final product.
ReplyDeleteYes, the logos matter, but I'll still buy the unlicensed stuff anyway.
No
ReplyDeleteDepends. Non-licensed cards can look decent (think Cooperstown) or completely dreadful (Prizm and '14 Donruss). It's all in the presentation.
ReplyDeleteI don't much like logoless cards. Logos and team names are part of the pageantry of sports, and cards without those things seem like lesser pieces of cardboard. I will still acquire them for my player collections when the price is right, but I view them as second-class offerings.
ReplyDeleteNot that much. Do I prefer them? Yes. But if it means more products and diversity, I'm ok without them.
ReplyDeleteGotta have that Dodgers logo on the home whites.
ReplyDeleteNothing else looks right.
P.S. EVERYBODY ...for some unknown reason, my blog is not updating on your blogrolls, so please be sure to stop by ATBATT and check out my latest blog post.
ReplyDeleteYes, logos matter to me big time. I avoid Panini for the most part because of the lack of logos on their products.
ReplyDeleteThey matter a little bit, but it is not a deal breaker
ReplyDeleteI'll buy regardless for my PC's but I much prefer licenses. I dislike not having the team name or logo on the front of the card.
ReplyDeleteDon't matter at all, most of my favorite oddballs from the 90s don't have logos. I am really surprised that it matters so much to the majority of people. I mean, it has to look good photo-wise, but really, there are lots of other things that matter more to me than logos.
ReplyDeleteI don't want them to, but yes. It can't be helped. The cards are just not the same without them.
ReplyDeleteIt makes most of the base sets look like crap, but it doesn't stop me from buying some of Panini's products. If you are an auto or relic collector Panini often provides good value. I've seen some Panini McCutchen autos go for $40 to $50. That is a good deal considering that a Topps equivalent could go for double.
ReplyDeleteYes, they make it more complete/real although i still buy panini as well
ReplyDeleteNot particularly, as I'm a player collector at heart and will take all cards if my guy's on them. I prefer logos, of course, but can deal without them.
ReplyDeleteLogos are generally preferred, but the lack of them don't really bother me at all. It can be done (sup, early MLBPA licensed Panini cards), but you *really* have to make a crappy, ill-conceived card to make the lack of logos at all annoying to me.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, so long as the playing field is tilted the way it is, I won't count it against the manufacturers that can't get, or purposely avoid, licenses. I also find it very disconcerting how important logos seem to be to the vast majority of people.
Hell yeah
ReplyDeleteexcept on food issues, I'll give them that
I tend to stay away but like some of the comments , if the card "pops" i'll get it.
ReplyDeleteI'm old enough to remember pulling cards which 'featured' blank black caps on traded players courtesy of Topps 'art' department. I didn't care for those and I don't like logo-less cards much now. OTOH I see some of the Topps football cards without helmet logos as 'charming' so there ya go. My answer is a definitive 'It depends'.
ReplyDeleteYes. I do find it fun to look at unlicensed cards and the pictures they use, though. If they choose the right photo, then they can do less in photoshop. Use a back shot and just tweak the colors. Use a photo of a catcher in their gear to have logos already covered up. Use a photo of the player just after they have swung a bat to have their arms covering the logo.
ReplyDeleteyes, but i still pick up cards i like from unlicensed sets.
ReplyDeleteThey matter to me. I haven't stopped buying unlicensed cards, but have cut down. I wish if they are unlicensed they would be cheaper (and more cards in a pack), and use studio photos. Get creative so you don't have to show blank jerseys and caps.
ReplyDeleteYes they do to me!
ReplyDeleteYes, all look like crap without them (LOGOS)!!!!
ReplyDeleteNope. I've seen a lot of really nice logo less cards. It's especially easy to get around/not miss if the card depicts the catchers in catching gear.
ReplyDeleteContest closed. Thanks everyone!
ReplyDelete